· Call to Order/Roll Call – The special meeting of the Chewelah Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Tom Bristol on March 1, 2007 at 7:00 P.M.
Chairman Bristol announced that Jon Lind has resigned from the planning commission to accept a position on the Chewelah Civil Service Commission.
The following planning commission members were present: Chairman Tom Bristol, Irv Schick, Bill Davies, Kevin Herda, Alice Crowley, and Doug Sassman. Excused absence: Daniel Voltz. Also present: Chaz Bates, Planner; and Gaylea Nolander, Executive Secretary.
· Agenda Additions, Deletions, and/or Changes – None.
· Minutes – Doug Sassman moved with a second from Kevin Herda to approve the February 1, 2007 minutes and the February 15, 2007minutes. All in favor.
· Public Comments – None.
· PUBLIC HEARING
Site Plan Review -07-06
Applicant: Frank and Karen Newell
Project Location: Parcel No. 273305; Lots 11 and 12, Block 2, Wiltz’s Second Addition, further located in the NE ¼ of Section 14, Township 32 North, Range 40 East, Willamette Meridian, Stevens County Washington. The property is located near Third Street and Robert Street.
Project Description: A site plan review request to build a single-family dwelling and a two-car garage on approximately 9,200 square foot lot bordering Chewelah Creek.
Exhibits
(1) Application
(2) Site Plan
(3) Elevation Diagram
(4) Public Hearing Notice
(5) Staff Report Dated March 1, 2007
(6) Public Hearing Sign-In Sheet
Exhibits 1 through 6 are attached hereto, incorporated herein, and made a part of these minutes as though fully set forth.
Decision: Planning Commission approved Site Plan Review 07-06 based on the findings identified in the staff report dated March 1, 2007, and with the following condition: A development permit consistent with Chewelah Municipal Code 15.12.130 shall be obtained before construction or development begins.
Chairman Bristol opened the public hearing for the site plan review number 07-06 at 7:05 P.M.
Chairman Bristol – The public hearing is now open to hear the proposal for a site plan review on Lots 11 and 12, Block 2, Wiltz’s Second Addition, Parcel Number 273305. The applicant is requesting to build a single-family dwelling and a two-car garage on an approximately 9,200 square foot lot bordering Chewelah Creek. A site plan review is required if anything is done within 200 feet of any creeks or waterways.
The public will be given an opportunity to be heard at the appropriate time. Comments will be recorded, therefore, when speaking, please step up to the microphone and state your name and address.
It is important that this hearing be fair in form and substance as well as appearance. Therefore, do any planning commission members have an interest in this issue which would be in conflict with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine? (No conflicts were placed on the record).
Is there anyone in the audience who objects to my participation as Chairman or any other Planning Commission Member’s participation in these proceedings? (No objections were placed on the record).
Has any member of the Planning Commission engaged in communication outside this hearing with opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? (No communication was placed on the record).
Chairman Bristol announced that information in regard to this proposal is available on the back table for public review.
Staff Report
Gaylea Nolander – In accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, Chewelah Municipal Code, and state law, Notice of Public hearing was given for SPR-07-06 as follows:
Notice of Public Hearing
02-14-07 – Notice posted on project site at 3 different locations.
02-13-07 – Notice mailed to property owners within 300 feet, not including street rights-of-way, of the boundaries of the property which is subject of the hearing. The names of the property owners within 300 feet were taken from a certified list prepared by a title company showing the most recent county assessor’s records. (Mailed to 40 Individuals)
02-13-07 – Application and supporting documents available for public review at City Hall, Room 107
02-13-07 – Notice emailed to citizens on public participation list
02-13-07 – Notice posted on the website.
02-13-07 – Notice posted at both entrances to City Hall, City Hall Official Bulletin Board, Library, AmericanWest Bank, Post Office.
02-15-07 – Notice published in the Chewelah Independent
03-01-07 – Application and supporting documents available for public review at planning commission meeting.
Chaz Bates presented the Staff Report dated March 1, 2007 attached hereto as Exhibit 5 and incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
Chaz Bates – Background – The applicant has requested a site plan review in order to build a single-family dwelling and a two-car garage on approximately 9,200 square foot lot near Chewelah Creek. The property is located near Third Street and Robert Street across Chewelah Creek. The legal description is Lots 11 and 12, Block 2, of Wiltz’s Second Addition.
The property is designated in the Chewelah Comprehensive Plan as Single Family Residential. The zoning map identifies that the property is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1). The City’s official critical areas map indicates that the property is within 200 feet of the floodplain for Chewelah Creek. The adjacent properties to the north, east, south, and west are designated Single-Family Residential, and are zoned R-1.
Section 18.08.140 of the Municipal Code requires a Site Plan Review if a project is within a critical area, floodplain, or shoreline jurisdiction. The planning commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a site plan review based on the testimony and findings made.
Notice
In accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, Chewelah Municipal Code, and state law, a Notice of Completion, Notice of Application, and Notice of Public hearing was issued for SPR-07-06.
11-29-06 – Pre-Application Meeting.
12-21-06 - Application Submittal
01-09-07 – Complete Determination
01-11-07 – Notice of Application
Analysis
The City’s Comprehensive Plan effective August 15, 1997, designated the subject property as Single Family Residential. The Single Family Residential designation is part of a general residential designation intended to provide a range of housing types. The following is an analysis of the proposal’s consistency with the relevant policies of the comprehensive plan:
Policy 3.1 – Residential areas are reserved for housing, which shall be developed at urban densities.
Policy 3.2 – Chewelah supports development of a range of housing types to meet the needs of all economic segments of the community, with housing types and densities mixed together rather than isolated.
Policy 3.3 – Encourage diversity in lot sizes and density of development within the urban area.
The proposal is located in an area surrounded by the single family land use designation and is developing a lot at approximately 9,200 square feet. Further, the property has access to sewer, water, and electricity. The proposal will provide one single-family dwelling near the downtown core of Chewelah and adds to the mix of housing already located in the area.
Staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the residential policies in the 1997 Comprehensive Plan and further identifies that the Single Family (R-1) Zone is an implementing zone for the Single Family Residential land use designation. The proposal will provide a single family dwelling near the urban core of Chewelah in an established neighborhood.
The City’s Zoning Code adopted in 1997 states that any development in the Flood Management Overlay Zone is required to receive a Site Plan Review Permit. The purpose of this permit is to ensure that the unique or critical resources are protected and that the public health, safety, and welfare of residents are maintained. No other critical areas were identified on the critical areas map during staff analysis.
The Building Department has reviewed the proposal and has determined the project will be required to comply with Section 15.12 Floodplain Damage Prevention of the Chewelah Municipal Code. In part, this may require a Flood Elevation Certificate before the issuance of a building permit. Staff in the review of this application identified no other issues.
The proposal is consistent with the uses and standards of the R-1 Zone. More specifically, according to the site plan the proposed project meets the standards for building separation, lot coverage, and setbacks.
Findings for Site Plan Review
1. The project is consistent with the Chewelah Comprehensive Plan and meets the requirements and intent of the Chewelah Zoning and Land Division Ordinance, including land use and intensity of development.
The project site is designated Single Family Residential in the 1977 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the policies of the comprehensive plan because it helps provide for a diverse range of housing and provides housing within the urban area of Chewelah. The project site is zoned R-1 and implementing zone for the Single Family Residential land use designation. The application meets the intent and requirements of the R-1 zoning district including setbacks, lot area, lot width, and lot coverage.
2. The physical location, size and placement of proposed structures on the site and the location of proposed uses within the project minimize impacts to any critical resource or floodplain area to the greatest extent possible.
The proposed project is located approximately 53 and 45 feet from the floodplain. The project will be required to comply with Section 15.12 Flood Damage Prevention before obtaining a building permit. The housing and attached garage have been located as far away as possible from Chewelah Creek and still maintain the required setbacks of the R-1 Zone.
3. The project is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the surrounding area.
The proposed single-family dwelling is consistent with the area. Additionally, as evidenced by the comprehensive plan and the City’s zoning map, the project site is intended for lower density residential development.
4. The project will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or general welfare.
The proposal has no foreseeable detrimental impacts on the public interest, health, safety or general welfare. Staff identified that before building permit approval the development would have to be compliant with the Floodplain Damage Prevention section of the Chewelah Municipal Code. Staff identified no other issues that would have detrimental impacts on the public interest, health, safety, or general welfare.
5. The project adequately mitigates any identified impacts.
No identified environmental impacts have been identified. This proposal was categorically exempt from a State Environmental Policy Act threshold. No appeals were received on the categorically exempt determination.
6. Adequate setbacks and buffering have been provided. Any reduction to setbacks or buffer widths is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the lot and does not impact the functional value of the critical resource area.
The only critical area identified during the review of the application was frequently flooded areas. The Floodplain Management Overlay Zone does not require setbacks or buffers but does require compliance with Section 15.12 of the Chewelah Municipal Code. Before a building permit is issued the project will be required to comply with the Floodplain Damage Prevention section of the Chewelah Municipal Code.
After speaking to the building official earlier today, there is a condition not located in the written staff report that he would like to see added. The suggested condition is: Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall obtain a Flood Elevation Certificate in accordance with Chewelah Municipal Code 15.12.
Staff Recommendation
After review of the comprehensive plan and the applicable development regulations staff recommends that the planning commission approve the site plan review application in accordance with the findings in the staff report and the condition just mentioned.
Bill Davies – I just got a copy of the site plan and on the 12’ setback to the one side, I am under the impression that wall has got to be a firewall. I ran into that because I am less than 20’ in my home.
Chairman Bristol – That is a building department issue and not a condition of a site plan review. (Bill Davies was talking at the same time as Chairman Bristol. Unable to transcribe).
Bill Davies - I also want to know what the distance is from the front porch to Chewelah Creek…I want to make sure it is not in the 50’ critical zone.
Chaz Bates - …on the site plan, the angle that you are probably talking about estimated out about 45’.
Bill Davies – They have got 50’ from the porch down to the front of the property, but according to the latest city code it has to be from the nearest upright section of the home to the creek. So when we are looking from the porch over to the creek, what is that distance?
Chaz Bates – I am sorry, I am not following you.
Chairman Bristol – You are talking the perpendicular distance…(Bill Davies was talking at the same time as Chairman Bristol. Unable to transcribe).
Bill Davies - …the vertical…part of the home to the creek. It has to be 50’ otherwise you are in violation of the critical zone.
Chairman Bristol – And what section is the 50’ in?
Bill Davies – I am looking here, it says from the front porch down to the front of the property is 50’…according to the latest city code…
Chairman Bristol – Do you want to tell us what part you are looking at?
Bill Davies – I am looking at the front porch, the corner of the front porch.
Chairman Bristol – What section of the code and which code?
Kevin Herda – How many feet is that do you think?
Chairman Bristol – Chaz said it was 45’ approximately.
Bill Davies – We ran into this problem with the gentlemen, the couple that was going to be building a couple of duplexes over on the other side of town, and he was 45’ and we made him move his setback to 50’. We are going to have to do the same thing here. That has got to be 50’ to keep it out of the critical zone. What I want to know is from the porch 90 degrees over the creek, the nearest point.
Chaz Bates – The Third Street right of way is 60’.
Bill Davies – If that is 60’ and this says 50’ unless it is not in proportion, but it has got to be 50’ to keep it out of the critical zone.
Chairman Bristol – That is what isn’t clear and that is what I need to be clear on, what is the requirement or do we have one that is…(interrupted by Bill Davies).
Bill Davies - I just got done reading it in here the other day.
Chairman Bristol – That is what we need cited. It wasn’t cited in the staff report.
Bill Davies – I am not sure where I read it, but I read it in this paperwork just the other day.
Chairman Bristol – We can’t make rules on things that we don’t have.
Bill Davies – We have a 50’ setback in the critical zone. That has been established.
Chairman Bristol – I am only saying if we have one, show us where it is, because I don’t know where it is. I looked earlier, I asked Chaz, he didn’t reflect on it. We don’t have a shoreline master program yet.
Bill Davies – We made the other gentlemen move his house back an additional 5’. They gave us a 50’ critical zone.
Chaz Bates – This is a completely separate application. I just want to point out that you need to evaluate this application on its merits.
Bill Davies – You have got a 50’ critical zone on the Chewelah Creek.
Kevin Herda – You are saying the house to Third Street is 60’?
Chaz Bates – I am saying the Third Street right of way is 60’ and I just counted it off, each square according to the site plan is 5’, and it is approximately 55’ from the southeast corner of the porch to Chewelah Creek…(Bill Davies was talking at the same time as Chaz Bates. Unable to transcribe).
Gaylea Nolander – Mr. Chairman, when there are several people talking at the same time I am unable to transcribe the discussion, and therefore, when more then one discussion is taking place it will not be a part of the record.
Irv Schick – (Referring to Mr. Davies’ statements) He is looking at the new shoreline master program.
Chairman Bristol – The 50’ in that?
Chaz Bates – They have tried to adhere to that with the current site plan the way it is developed.
Irv Schick – That is (shoreline master program) page 42, table 2, Setback, Height and Dimension Requirements. Residential Development - All dwelling units setback 50’.
Chairman Bristol – Is that from the ordinary high water mark?
Irv Schick – Yes.
Kevin Herda -…straight down is 50’…
Chairman Bristol – It is definitely less than 50’ going perpendicular to the creek…
The thing that I don’t understand and I would like to understand is because we have a draft proposal, which we really cannot use legally, and so what do we have in order to say what the distance requirement is, or is there one?
Chaz Bates – The closest thing is in the code for critical areas, minor modifications for existing structures which is under 18.08.140(3)(H), which says you…50’ back from Chewelah Creek, 25’ from Thomason and Paye Creeks, however, it is under the subsection for Minor Modifications. I think the intent of the code…is 50’, we have a draft shoreline master program that reflects the 50’. The applicant was made aware of our draft plan and they have adjusted their site in trying to maintain that 50’ and still have a viable use of their property.
Kevin Herda – And it is a porch.
Alice Crowley – Tom made the comment that this is a draft, what if this creek is not in proportion. I don’t think we can take our measurements from our drawing is what I am saying.
Chairman Bristol – All we have to do if we do have a 50’ requirement, which I am not convinced we do, because we have a draft, and we have an intent of a code, but neither one of them are anything that we should regulate as far as I understand them. It is nothing that I would say, here it is, it is in black and white, you have to be 50’ away from the ordinary high water mark, regardless of where we are aiming with our shoreline master program, and regardless of whether that almost points to new construction, because it points to minor modifications. We do not have any regulation that says this is from the shoreline at this moment in time.
Bill Davies – Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to throw a monkey wrench in it, but we have already got one violation on the creeks and the City is going to be looking at a lawsuit because of it. I don’t want to see another lawsuit being filed for the same reason.
Chairman Bristol – But if you tell somebody they have to stay a certain distance from the creek, and you make that up because you have no back up of any documentation, then you are very subject to probably legal action.
Kevin Herda – What is the point of a site plan review…?
Chairman Bristol – Until we have a shoreline master program we don’t have anything that regulates it other than going towards whatever state regulations are or what we have in the municipal ordinances.
Several people talking at once, unable to transcribe.
Chairman Bristol – Could we just have one discussion at a time.
Chaz Bates – The critical area that was impacted on this site is the flood zone. It is a frequently flooded area, which is regulated under the flood damage prevention ordinance, Chewelah Municipal Code 15.12, so that is one of the conditions that was recommended, that they get a flood certificate elevation and adhere to that section of the code. There is a variety of things that they can do, either flood proof it, or…it is a building issue rather than making sure it is situated on the landscape right.
Chairman Bristol – Bill, I know what you are saying, and if I could point to our regulations that said 50’, or you can, or anyone can, that we are to abide by, I would say that we have to abide by that.
Bill Davies – Someplace in here I happened to read it as I was going through this early this week.
Chairman Bristol – It has to be a little closer than that though. There is some allusion to 50’, it is in our draft shoreline master program, and this is the reason for why the draft shoreline master program should be approved…
Bill Davies – We already made one builder move his setback to move his home 5’…I don’t see why we can’t do something with the other homes, because we are going to be in violation of the critical zone.
Chairman Bristol – Again, there isn’t a critical zone piece that says you have to be 50’ from it.
Bill Davies – Then you throw all of them out including the lawsuit the City is going to have.
Chairman Bristol – If you were to regulate a 50’ setback based on no regulations, you would be subject to a lawsuit very easily…If we had regulations on the books, I mean you can suggest it, we have been through this for years, as we try to finally get a shoreline master program, and that is why documentation in the municipal code has never come because that will be addressed in the shoreline master program if it ever gets approved.
Bill Davies – So we are just going to ignore the 50’?
Chairman Bristol – I don’t know what to do, that is why we are having this discussion.
Kevin Herda – Let the applicant talk and then we will have a chance to talk to him, right?
Chairman Bristol – This was staff report and questions on the staff report. I did some searching before this and talked to Chaz, and there is a 50’ pointed at in the critical area ordinance, but it is only under the subsections of minor modifications, which was reasonably newly updated, but nothing has ever been updated dealing with new construction in the shoreline area, because it was going to be addressed not by the critical areas ordinance, but by the shoreline master program which is not in existence. Although we want the applicants to honor…their distance from the critical area, and they will when the shoreline master program gets approved. They will have to abide by the requirements of that document at that time. And if we did say requires a 50’ from somebody else we may have done that erroneously, I don’t know.
Bill Davies – We did it once and we made the builder move his house, and unless there is 50’ I am going to vote against it.
Chairman Bristol – That is fine. Are there any other questions of staff at this time?
Alice Crowley – One suggestion, on the scale map, the streets are designated east and they should be west…before it goes into permanent file.
Chairman Bristol – Good catch. Thank you. If we do make any motion to move forward we should make a motion that we do have a suggested setback, if we could point to a regulation that regulated it this would definitely be much easier. Again, a good reason to finally get the shoreline master program after nine years of development completed, or eleven, or whatever it is by now. One question that I had earlier, we are not the body that governs the setback requirement. This is kind of an odd lot, and we talked about it earlier, because generally there is a front yard, which is a road and here is where the front door is, this has an alley and adjacent property and the road with the Chewelah Creek between it, so I would just like to add if we move forward or even to consider as one of the conditions that the building inspector that they abide by whatever the setbacks are for the buildings in this R-1 Zone.
Irv Schick – I don’t see a setback between Third Street and the garage, there is no distance there other than 5, 10 15, 20 looks like by the scale drawing, if it is to scale. That should have been specified because Third Street would be the front.
Chairman Bristol – And something has to be designated as the front for the setbacks and then the other ones laid in place, and I am not sure how that is done. I would say that is not our issue. Site plan review is because of Chewelah Creek, and one of the conditions is that the building inspector does make sure it abides by the setback requirements, and that may move this around a little so that could be more in alignment with 50’, I don’t know. So, are there further questions of staff?
Are there any petitions or communications?
Gaylea Nolander advised none were received.
Chairman Bristol – The applicant or applicant’s representative may speak to the proposal.
Applicant
Frank and Karen Newell – 201 N. Ehorn Lane, Chewelah WA.
Karen Newell – We are at 201 N. Ehorn Lane, but we are talking about the place down by King Street. You had some confusion as far as where the front was. The side where the garage is would be the front of the house facing Third Street, where Third Street would be if it went all of the way through.
Chairman Bristol – Third Street still does exist as a right of way through there.
Karen Newell – It is a right of way, but there is really no street there.
Frank Newell – There is no street there, it is dirt and grass.
Chairman Bristol – But it is not vacated.
Karen Newell – No, it is still an existing city street, yes.
Chairman Bristol – So, that clarifies that, so your front is off of, well the building inspector will take care of that, but a 20’ setback from there.
Karen Newell – I tried to draw it as closely as I could. I am no artist…I did the best I could. We just wanted to be able to abide by the setbacks and build the house to the scale that we had planned on building it. I believe it was roughly 1,700 square feet.
Frank Newell – 1,700 square feet plus a two car garage.
Karen Newell – We tried to still fit it and abide by all of the rules as far as where we needed to be pertaining to the creek, and still fit the house that we want to build there.
Irv Schick – How many stories?
Karen Newell – One, single level home, no basement.
Frank Newell – And what I measured for the setback I measured at the time of the year where the creek was at its highest point. At the time we measured it the water was splashing over the bridge there by subway, I went down and measured it at that time at the creek’s highest point.
Karen Newell – And actually we measured from where the water wasn’t even up to that point yet, there was still quite some space between where the creek bed is and the…there is quite a drop in that area, and we measured from the absolute furtherest point. I have never seen the creek as high as where we measured it from.
Chairman Bristol – You may have measured beyond what you needed. The ordinary high water mark you usually can see it, it is this kind of lap line, a real different vegetation level.
Karen Newell – We overcompensated if anything.
Bill Davies – What is the distance between the creek and the projected home going to be?
Karen Newell – We tried to make it the 50’.
Frank Newell – It will be 50’ from the house.
Bill Davies – The way it is drawn here, the vertical line you have got it says 50’, and it sure isn’t 50’, but it could be out of proportion here because I know these are not precision engineered drawings.
Karen Newell – We tried to get it as close as what I could as far as the measurements for the size of the house that we want to build versus how far that it was to the creek, and like I said we overcompensated as far as how wide the creek was.
Frank Newell – We measured at this time of the year when the creek was at its highest point…
Karen Newell – And then there was still space between the creek…
Several people talking at once, unable to transcribe.
Bill Davies – As long as it is going to be 50’ I have no objection.
Frank Newell – It will be.
Chairman Bristol – The problem that we have had and that is one reason I think that Bill is on the rampage here is we have had some plans come in and they have written down a distance and then in reality they went out and one of them I can think of…from Paye Creek was they wrote it was going to be 40’, and when he went out it was 17’.
Bill Davies – Paye Creek is 25’, we have got somebody that is 14’, and there is a big stink going on right now, and the city could wind up with a lawsuit.
Karen Newell – When you are so adamant about your 50’, are you talking from where the creek actually is, or are you talking from the…
Chairman Bristol – The ordinary high water mark to the corner of the porch is the way it will read when we have a law that we can point at.
Frank Newell – But right now there is no law.
Chairman Bristol – No, exactly. That is what I am saying.
Karen Newell – Are you talking from the porch, or from the house itself?
Bill Davies – The first vertical upright which would be the porch, that is the corner of your house, not the home itself, but the porch where you have a vertical piece from there to the creek, straight line, so you are basically perpendicular to the creek, because on your print here, you have 50’ from the porch going straight down, but this is the distance you have to have here.
Chairman Bristol – The shortest distance to the creek.
Several people talking at once, unable to transcribe.
Chairman Bristol – We are in a public hearing, we need to get it back, and it is my fault for not pulling it back. We are going to have to get back to the public hearing process and one person at a time talking.
Frank Newell – Why are we arguing about the 50’ when the 50’ is not in affect?
Karen Newell – It is not a rule yet.
Frank Newell – It is not a rule yet, correct?
Chairman Bristol – That is my understanding.
Frank Newell – If it is not a rule yet, why are we arguing about it as if it was a rule?
Chairman Bristol – Exactly.
Bill Davies – Mr. Chairman, what does the critical areas say?
Chairman Bristol – That is what we were reading before this meeting, critical area does not address the setback for Chewelah Creek because it will be addressed in that thing we haven’t passed yet. The critical areas ordinance will address Paye Creek and Thomason Creek, and right now there are some implications that the requirement is 50’ and if they were coming in to add this porch to this, we would have to say you can’t do it. We are caught in the fact that our regulations are not caught up…
Frank Newell – We are trying to stay within the 50’ as much as we can…it is going to be real close, it is 45’ and there is not even a 50’ thing in affect at this point.
Chairman Bristol – And that is from the high water mark.
Frank Newell – Right, and that is from the high point since we have owned the property, which has been, what a year, probably. I measured it last year at the high point.
Kevin Herda – Did you move the porch back…?
Karen Newell – We moved it back because we were trying to get it within the 50’ and do what was required of us.
Irv Schick – Is that a covered porch?
Frank Newell – It is going to be a covered porch with a…from the house.
Chairman Bristol – At this time the floor is open for comments from the audience. In fairness to all in attendance each person will be given an opportunity to address the planning commission for an initial period not to exceed five minutes. If more time is needed it will be made available after everyone has had a chance to speak. Questions from the planning commission to the public will be held until everyone is done. There is a sign-up sheet at the back of the room. Does anybody from the audience want to sign up or just come forward?
Public Testimony
Timothy Schwantz – 904 W. Clay Street, Chewelah WA – I have been following this, and I don’t have the…data right in front of me today, but when I was addressing Frank Sety’s lot on Main Street and Second Street West, and, again, I don’t have the documents in front of me, it was a recommended 50’ with the building inspector could do some variances. We don’t have our shoreline master plan in affect right now. I believe that these people, I hear what Bill is saying, and we need to address this when the time comes, but I think the planning commission should move forward, pass it. In everything we do there is a variance, so it is only 45’, that is only a 10% variance, and we are not really sure if they are less than 50’. My only recommendation is that we have to make some accommodations and I am sorry if someone else was forced the setback to make some changes, but we need to be accommodating. I think everything is in plan; we got recommendations from Chaz Bates, the planner, that this would be okay. I would like to see the planning commission approve it tonight and then we move on to other things. Thank you.
Robert Harrison – 605 W. Main, Colville WA – I just wanted to say on that ordinary high water mark, if he measured at the high of the year, he is way above the ordinary high, so I am sure he will pick 5’ up pretty easy.
Chairman Bristol – Other comments from the audience? Any other comments from applicants or staff? Do we have other public testimony? The public testimony portion of the hearing is now closed. (Public testimony portion of the public hearing closed at 7:42 P.M.) Now that we have heard the public comments and you have reviewed the documents concerning this proposal, this subject is open for discussion Findings of Fact and Conclusions by the planning commission members. If you are in agreement with the staff report, you may adopt, or adopt with modifications its Findings and Conclusions as a basis for your action or you may state your own Findings and Conclusions. Discussion.
Discussion
Kevin Herda – What was the additional finding that you added.
Chaz Bates – It wasn’t a finding. After talking with the building official, prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain a flood elevation certificate in accordance with Chewelah Municipal Code 15.12.
Chairman Bristol – Anybody that has ever lived on the creek here and tried to get insurance, it is almost a requirement of insurance applications. Even if it wasn’t part of our code the insurance companies require it now too. What we do know is that we don’t have a required setback. We are still vested to protect the area of Chewelah Creek. Our direction is aiming toward a 50’ requirement. What we can do is request that they do absolutely the best they can do to get as much distance as they can to protect that aquifer. We don’t know 100% what that is because Chewelah Creek was measured at a higher level than the ordinary high water mark or what that distance is going to be. We could set a requirement, because they don’t have that number that the applicant would be comfortable with abiding by, maybe less than 50’ but keep some honest distance since we have had that trouble before where it just kind of slid closer to the creek after it left this body.
Kevin Herda – How do we set that though if there is no…
Chairman Bristol – It is an agreed, we are viewing this whole thing off of their map, and that is one number that we don’t have, we can require that we get that number more exactly from the ordinary high water mark, or we can move forward, so it is up to the planning commission. So further discussion, questions. Chaz, do you have any other suggestions on this?
Chaz Bates – I really don’t have too much discussion. I would be extremely reserved to say you need to go out and hire a surveyor to establish ordinary high water mark and establish distance to that since we don’t have code that says we can do that. I could say that since they have mentioned now that the front is actually where the garage is facing Third Street, which means that there is a rear yard setback which would be the alleyway. I wrote down 10’, but now I am questioning that, I think it is 10’.
Irv Schick – So what is the rear yard, which would be the adjacent property?
Chaz Bates – These are minimum setbacks remember. The minimum to a principal structure for the rear yard is 10’ and the side yard is 10’.
Irv Schick – So they have actually got a couple of feet there that they could play with positioning to try and move it a little bit and still be within the current code.
Chaz Bates – Initially I interpreted actually the front being on…(several people talking at the same time)...
Chairman Bristol – And you can’t count your main entry coming off an alleyway either. It is an interesting piece of property.
Chaz Bates – What they have on there now exceeds the minimum for the setbacks with the description that they gave. The only thing that I think that is a primary concern in the code is making sure that they are consistent in development in accordance with 15.12…
Irv Schick – And with the other building code requirements for setbacks.
Chairman Bristol - …when you go into the setback requirements for single-family zoning there is a mistake there too. The setbacks for a principal building are side yard 10’ except 15’ on a side yard adjacent to a street, and you go down further, and minimal setbacks for accessory building shall be side yard 10’ except 15’ on a side yard adjacent to a street or alley. Or alley was never placed in the upper part, so in actuality they could be 10’ from that alleyway according to the requirements, but they couldn’t put a shed that close. Another thing that I would like Chaz to know so when we do updates we make that correction.
Is there further discussion? One choice is that we move it on, we ask for more information, we just asked that they push and get as close to that 50’ as they possibly can, because that is where all of our regulations are aiming. We have no teeth in that other than voting against it.
Kevin Herda – I think they are doing everything that we have asked of them and they don’t even have to do it, so we should move it forward, and hope that they do that, and pass the shoreline. That is about all that we can do.
Motion
Kevin Herda – I make a motion that we approve the proposed site plan based on the findings in the staff report and the condition that the building inspector added.
Motion seconded by Doug Sassman.
Roll Call Vote
The following planning commission members voted yes: Irv Schick, Kevin Herda, Alice Crowley, Doug Sassman, and Tom Bristol. Bill Davies voted no.
Decision
Planning Commission approved Site Plan Review Number 07-06 with a 5 to 1 vote with the following Findings and Condition:
Findings for Site Plan Review
1. The project is consistent with the Chewelah Comprehensive Plan and meets the requirements and intent of the Chewelah Zoning and Land Division Ordinance, including land use and intensity of development.
The project site is designated Single Family Residential in the 1977 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the policies of the comprehensive plan because it helps provide for a diverse range of housing and provides housing within the urban area of Chewelah. The project site is zoned R-1 and implementing zone for the Single Family Residential land use designation. The application meets the intent and requirements of the R-1 zoning district including setbacks, lot area, lot width, and lot coverage.
2. The physical location, size and placement of proposed structures on the site and the location of proposed uses within the project minimize impacts to any critical resource or floodplain area to the greatest extent possible.
The proposed project is located approximately 53 and 45 feet from the floodplain. The project will be required to comply with Section 15.12 Flood Damage Prevention before obtaining a building permit. The housing and attached garage have been located as far away as possible from Chewelah Creek and still maintain the required setbacks of the R-1 Zone.
3. The project is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the surrounding area.
The proposed single-family dwelling is consistent with the area. Additionally, as evidenced by the comprehensive plan and the City’s zoning map, the project site is intended for lower density residential development.
4. The project will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or general welfare.
The proposal has no foreseeable detrimental impacts on the public interest, health, safety or general welfare. Staff identified that before building permit approval the development would have to be compliant with the Floodplain Damage Prevention section of the Chewelah Municipal Code. Staff identified no other issues that would have detrimental impacts on the public interest, health, safety, or general welfare.
5. The project adequately mitigates any identified impacts.
No identified environmental impacts have been identified. This proposal was categorically exempt from a State Environmental Policy Act threshold. No appeals were received on the categorically exempt determination.
6. Adequate setbacks and buffering have been provided. Any reduction to setbacks or buffer widths is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the lot and does not impact the functional value of the critical resource area.
The only critical area identified during the review of the application was frequently flooded areas. The Floodplain Management Overlay Zone does not require setbacks or buffers but does require compliance with Section 15.12 of the Chewelah Municipal Code. Before a building permit is issued the project will be required to comply with the Floodplain Damage Prevention section of the Chewelah Municipal Code.
Condition
A development permit consistent with Chewelah Municipal Code 15.12.130 shall be obtained before construction or development begins.
· Communications and Announcements
Gaylea Nolander made the following announcements:
o Short Course in Local Planning – Kettle Falls will be hosting a Short Course in Local Planning on March 12, 2007. Planning Commission members were encouraged to attend the Short Course.
o Planning Commission Position has been advertised in the Chewelah Independent, posted on the website, posted at City Hall, library, post office, and AmericanWest Bank.
o Mailing List – Gaylea has been developing an email list and a mailing list from the comprehensive plan workshop sign in sheets and citizens who have expressed interest in land use matters. The citizens on those lists have been receiving at the very least a copy of the planning commission agenda and the comprehensive plan workshop agenda.
o Planning Commissioners Journal – The city subscribes to one subscription and Gaylea makes copies for each planning commission member.
o Municipal Code Updates – The updates were included in the planning commission packet. Gaylea stressed the importance of updating the municipal code notebooks per directions included with the packet.
o Retirement – Gaylea announced her retirement effective on March 30th. She thanked the planning commission for their support and acknowledged the many volunteer hours each planning commission member contributes to the City.
o March 9th Conference – Chaz Bates announced a Conference for Active Communities will be held on March 9th in Spokane. Chaz will be attending the conference and Chairman Bristol asked Chaz to report back to the planning commission on this conference.
· Reports from Members – None.
· Reports from City Administrator and Staff
Chaz Bates reported that the City Administrator is in Sprague at a meeting, but he does plan on attending the planning commission meetings and comprehensive plan update workshops.
Recap of Comp Plan Workshop – Chaz is working on the recap of the last workshop. In a brief conversation with the city administrator he indicated there are some transportation alternatives that may have been left out in that initial workshop, so there will be another opportunity to take a look at alternatives.
Shoreline Master Program – Chaz Bates stated that the planning commission had requested a hearing in regard to the shoreline master program at this meeting; however, Chaz advised he has received 14 pages of comments from the attorney general concerning Chewelah’s Shoreline Master Program and there wasn’t ample time to develop a revised draft before this meeting.
In response to planning commission’s request for a copy of the attorney general’s comments, Chaz stated that the comments were not addressed to the City of Chewelah; they were addressed to Doug Pineo, Department of Ecology. Chaz will check to see if it is appropriate to release those comments to the planning commission.
Planning commission strongly urged Chaz to move forward as quickly as possible with the shoreline master program and further commented that they do not want the comprehensive plan updates to take precedence over the shoreline master program.
After discussion it was agreed that Chaz will have a revised draft shoreline master program prepared by the next planning commission meeting (March 15, 2007), with a hearing scheduled the first Thursday in April.
Planning Commission Regular Meetings and Comprehensive Plan Update Workshops – During discussion the planning commission expressed a desire to schedule comprehensive plan workshops on the 1st Thursday and schedule regular planning commission meetings on the 3rd Thursday. Planning commission commented that the public and planning commission members are accustomed to regular planning commission business being conducted on the 3rd Thursday each month.
Election of Officers – Chairman Bristol announced that election of officers will be on the agenda for the March 15, 2007 planning commission meeting.
· OLD BUSINESS – None.
· NEW BUSINESS – None.
· Public Comments – None.
· Adjournment – Doug Sassman moved with a second from Bill Davies to adjourn the meeting. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 8:12 P.M.
Respectfully submitted by:
__________________________________ ___________
