Regular Meeting Minutes: June 15, 2006

From City of Chewelah

2006 Minutes
Regular Meeting Minutes: June 15, 2006
By Gaylea Nolander
Jul 5, 2006, 13:10

· Call to Order/Roll Call – The regular meeting of the Chewelah Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Tom Bristol at 7:06 P.M. The following planning commission members were present: Chairman Tom Bristol, Irv Schick, Bill Davies, Kevin Herda, Alice Crowley, and Doug Sassman. Excused absences: Kadya Hugus and Daniel Voltz. Also present: Chaz Bates, Planner; and Gaylea Nolander, Executive Secretary.

· Minutes – Doug Sassman moved with seconds from Kevin Herda and Alice Crowley to approve the May 18, 2006 minutes. All in favor.

· Public Comments – None.

· Public Hearing

Site Plan Review

Applicant: Sean Taboloff

Project Location: Lots 1-3, Block 2, Sommers Addition (SW corner of King & Bernard)

Project Description: Construct one single-family home and a two car garage.

Exhibits 1 through 5 are attached hereto, incorporated herein and made a part of these minutes as though fully set forth.

Exhibit List

(1) Application

(2) Site Plan Map

(3) Notice of Application, Public Hearing, and SEPA Determination

(4) Staff Report

(5) Public Hearing Sign–In Sheet

SUMMARY

(Decision: Planning Commission unanimously approved the Site Plan Review with the following conditions: (1) No construction or development activities shall be allowed within the floodplain as identified on the site plan; (2) The first base floor shall be at least 1’ above the floodplain level).

Chairman Bristol opened the public hearing and set forth the format that would be followed. There were no objections to his participation as Chairman. Kevin Herda disclosed that he lives within 200’ of the proposed project. There were no objections to any planning commissioner’s participation in the proceedings. No planning commission member acknowledged any communication outside of this hearing with opponents or proponents in regard to this matter.

Staff Report

Chaz Bates presented the Staff Report dated June 15, 2006 attached hereto as Exhibit 4 and incorporated herein as though fully set forth.

Staff Report

Background - The proposal is to build a single-family home and attached garage at the SW former of King and Bernard (Lots 1-3, Block 2, Sommers Addition). The property is designated as Single Family Residential and zoned Single-Family Residential 1.

The City’s official critical areas map indicates that the property is within 200 feet of the designated floodplain for Paye Creek. In accordance with Section 18.08.140 of the Chewelah Municipal Code (CMC), this proposal requires a Site Plan Review permit. The planning commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the permit 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, Environmental Determination, and Public Hearing for a Site Plan Review located at the SW Corner of King and Bernard was given as follows:

Notice was published on May 25, 2006 in the Chewelah Independent.

Notice was posted on May 24, 2006 on the Chewelah website and at the following locations: both entrances to city hall, the official city bulletin board, American West Bank, Chewelah Post Office, and Chewelah Library.

Notice was posted on May 23, 2006 on the property site at three locations.

Notice was given by mail on May 25, 2006 to property owners within three hundred feet of the proposed project. 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.

Beginning on May 24, 2006 a copy of the proposed project and supporting documentation was available at city hall, room 107 for review. Copies of those items are available for public review at the planning commission hearing tonight.

Analysis

The R-1 zone permits single-family housing provided that they meet the zoning district’s development standards. The proposed project meets the R-1 zoning district standards for building separation, lot coverage, setbacks, and use provisions.

In accordance with Section 18.08.140 Critical Area Resource Overly Zone of the Chewelah Municipal Code, the applicant identified the floodplain boundary from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain map panel number 530186 0001. According to the information provided the building is located outside the 100-year floodplain. The floodplain is approximately 6 inches away from the covered porch and 8.5 feet away from the proposed home. The edge of Paye Creek is approximately 40 feet away from the proposed home. Neither the critical areas map nor the draft SMP identified any additional critical areas on this site.

The project as proposed on the submitted site plan has been designed to avoid impacts to Paye Creek and its floodplain area. The single-family home and associated accessory uses is consistent with the comprehensive plan and is compliant with all development regulations. To ensure the protection of the health and safety from impacts related to flooding, the approval of this permit should limit permanent structures within the 100-year floodplain. No other comments regarding the applicant’s site plan was received from city staff.

Chairman Bristol – Is the setback from the front, which is Bernard, is that 25’ or 50’?

Chaz Bates - No, actually the front of this property is King Street…King Street is technically the front and the side street is Bernard. But you are right, if Bernard was the front it would have to be 25’.

Chaz Bates continued with the staff report.

Comments - City Department Heads: Chaz Bates – I failed to mention earlier that no other City Staff had any comments in regards to this proposal, the electrical department, sewer/water, streets, parks, fire, and police.

Findings

1. The project is consistent with the Chewelah Comprehensive Plan and meets the requirements and intent of the Chewelah Zoning and Land Division Ordinances, including land use and intensity of development.

Single-family homes and accessory structures are permitted outright in the R-1 zoning district. The project as presented conforms to the zoning standards for setbacks, lot area, lot width, and lot coverage. The project is also consistent with the single-family comprehensive plan land use designation.

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 single family home is located approximately 8 feet from the floodplain. This location of structures avoids impacts to the frequently flooded area in accordance with CMC section 18.08.140. The applicant worked with staff to modify the proposal to avoid impacts to the floodplain area while maintaining the desired use.

3. The project is compatible and relates harmoniously to the surrounding area.

The proposed single-family home and accessory structures is consistent with the area. Further, the stated purpose of the R-1 zone is to provide for single family housing. The proposed design should not conflict with the surrounding neighborhood.

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. Public services are adequate to meet the proposed home.

5. The project adequately mitigates any identified impacts.

There are no identified environmental impacts identified. This proposal was categorically exempt from a State Environmental Policy Act threshold 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 proposed location of the structures is outside the floodplain boundary. The Floodplain Management Overlay Zone does not require setbacks or buffers. The proposed structures are likely to not impact the flood zone of Paye Creek.

The following condition is suggested to ensure that the project is completed and managed in a manner consistent with this site plan review approval.

Condition of Approval

1. No construction or development activities shall be allowed within the floodplain as identified on the site plan.

Chaz Bates – After speaking to Dave Jones, Building Official, he suggested to make sure that the base floor was above the floodplain elevation as identified in the FEMA map. From what I can tell from the site plan it is outside of the floodplain. It may not be necessary, but it may be something that…may want to do just to protect their interest in the property.

Questions from the Planning Commission

Alice Crowley – What type of foundation construction are we looking at, cement?

Chaz Bates – I would suppose it is cement, but we are not looking really at the type of construction at this point. That really is a building code issue. We are looking conceptually at whether or not the project avoids impacts to the critical resources, frequently flood area. I couldn’t tell you that, I don’t know.

Irv Schick – Do you know where the utilities are at?

Chaz Bates – I don’t know.

Chairman Bristol – When the applicant makes his presentation you may want to clarify that.

Chaz Bates – The electric department, and sewer/water department reviewed the application and they said they had no comments.

Irv Schick – Do they have a check-off list that they go through?

Chaz Bates – I don’t know.

Doug Sassman – Yes, all of the department heads have a check-off list.

Irv Schick – Is there any way in future ones like this, that we could see that?

Doug Sassman – Forward it to the City Administrator and talk to him about it.

Chaz Bates – I can ask him.

Irv Schick – For our purposes, and completion of our information it would be valuable for us to look at their comments if they have any.

Kevin Herda – They didn’t have any in this case.

Irv Schick – Even then, I think it should go with the completed staff work. My concern is that we don’t have to go through Paye Creek to get sewer and water.

Kevin Herda – What was your second condition again, the base floor be above what?

Chaz Bates – Base flood elevation as identified on the FEMA information.

Chairman Bristol – That is not a strict requirement but it is a suggestion because of the proximity to the 100 year floodplain.

Chaz Bates – It was a suggestion from the Building Official.

Chairman Bristol – If the definition of where that 100 year floodplain was ever contested or the insurance company requested further survey and it was in it, it would at least be covered.

Irv Schick – In our new SMP, what are our setbacks in this area?

Chaz Bates – The setback is 25’, the buffer is 25’ for Paye Creek. Again, I want to remind you that Paye and Thomason are not shorelines of the state.

Irv Schick – But they are covered with buffers in the new SMP?

Chaz Bates – The new regulations when they are adopted will have a buffer of 25’ in the Shoreline Residential designation which is most of Paye and Thomason Creeks.

Chairman Bristol – And that is from the Ordinary High Water Mark.

Petitions or Communications – None.

Applicant

Sean Taboloff, Applicant – Showed planning commission a copy of his house plans and commented as follows: It will be a raised porch in the front, a wrap around porch, definitely above the floodplain, because the floodplain in down there (refers to diagram). It will have a second story with the bedrooms up there and the garage is on this side facing Bernard and that is pretty much it.

Irv Schick – Where at the utilities at?

Sean Taboloff – The utilities are all in the alleyway.

Chairman Bristol – One question because it came up when looking at the view of the house, is this application covering a bridge, or is that just an idea?

Sean Taboloff – That is just an idea.

Chairman Bristol – That is an interesting question, though, if you wanted to do a foot bridge, because you own on both sides of Paye Creek, how do you proceed with that?

Chaz Bates – I don’t actually know a firm answer to that. I know it would be covered under the regulations yet to be adopted, and it would be covered under the frequently flooded areas, so the bridge would have to be anchored in some manner…

Irv Schick – Why don’t we just put a stipulation that if the conceptual bridge comes about, that it comes back for permits.

Chairman Bristol – I don’t think we have done a small foot bridge on Paye Creek and I am curious because they exist all over the place.

Irv Schick – I gather from the permits that you are working as a developer for somebody that owns the property, or do you own the property?

Sean Taboloff – No, I am purchasing the property, and I will be building it for myself.

Irv Schick - …so you do not at this time own the property?

Sean Taboloff – No, I do not.

Chaz Bates – As part of the application there was written confirmation from the owner of property allowing Mr. Taboloff to proceed forward with his application.

Public Testimony – None.

Planning Commission Discussion

Kevin Herda – I don’t have any questions other than enforcement. I get worried that we are approving a plan within 6” of the floodplain. Is it the Building Official’s job to make sure that it is built within 6” of that floodplain?

Chaz Bates – Yes, we are still working out a process to make sure that the Building Official continues to get these Site Plan Reviews. What I told him today is that I would give this site plan approved by the planning commission, initial it and date it, as well as provide him the notice of decision as it was published in the paper, and send that forward to him, so when Mr. Taboloff comes in for a building permit, there is a record that it was reviewed by planning commission and it was approved in this manner.

Kevin Herda – Gaylea also has a copy of every one that we make too, so the Building Official could check down here (city hall office).

Irv Schick – Do these things get filed by address or by name?

Gaylea Nolander – They have been filed by name, but I am in the process of changing that to addresses.

Chairman Bristol – Just from having worked on site plans, this floodplain map that these lines are drawn off of, the accuracy is incredibly impossible to verify or get accurate so that idea if you are reasonably close of staying a foot above the floodplain because you are working off of a little section of the creek that goes through this area that is this big on a map, and it is very hard to be within 10” or 10’ truthfully of the floodplain. This is a floodplain that we have all watched that isn’t accurate anyway, so one of the protections is to stay above the floodplain as if you were in it even if you are assuming you are not, so it is not a bad request from the building permit, unless there is really a fight from an applicant on that, most of the time it is not hard to stay above it.

Kevin Herda – The 6” within the floodplain would be hard to measure, but the 40’ from the creek would be…

Chairman Bristol – The buffer from the Ordinary High Water Mark is pretty easy to find.

Kevin Herda – That is all I am worried about.

Chairman Bristol – That is the thing that we have had trouble with when it goes from here and it is approved and what the true distance ends up being out there in the field and that is something that we would hope the Building Official would somehow get correct.

Irv Schick – One thing that can always be done in things like that is to mark it back from the curb on King, and that is where it ends up.

Chairman Bristol – I just think that we need to make sure that our Building Official, whatever the ruling is from here, that it is enforced, measured, taped, and verified, since we have some situations that did not follow what this public hearing process…out in the field now.

Irv Schick – My point of view, there is a concept of a bridge, and it is a very nice concept because the house fronts on across the creek and I would like to put a condition/stipulation that the planning commission has okayed the building but not the conceptual bridge.

Kevin Herda – I don’t know if we have any authority over that, do we?

Chairman Bristol – I think you can do a stipulation that this process is not for a bridge over the creek.

Chaz Bates – One of the conditions that were written in the staff report as a condition of approval was: No construction or development activities shall be allowed within the floodplain as identified on the site plan. The site plan doesn’t show it (the bridge). If you would rather change that, so we can come back with it…

Planning Commission agreed that it was clear enough. There was no bridge on the site plan map.

Chairman Bristol closed the public testimony portion of the public hearing at 7:33 P.M.

Kevin Herda – Is the base floor elevation really something that we need to worry about, isn’t that for the homeowner’s best interest, if it is back far enough it is not going to affect the floodplain, why would that matter to us?

Chaz Bates – It wouldn’t, it was just a suggestion from the Building Official, and the planning commission is allowed to place conditions, conditionally approve a permit, and if you wanted to be sure that happened, of course it is in their best interests, but it is not required and that is why it is not a condition in the staff report.

Chairman Bristol – I just think because establishing that 100 year floodplain is almost impossible and there is no way, and the owner may have problems later if somebody has to have a survey point of that or they update the FEMA maps and they are big enough to actually be usable, if he is above that height Mr. Taboloff or any subsequent owners are protected, so unless there is a real problem with that, it probably makes sense, because that 100 year line is pretty indefinable at the moment.

Chaz Bates – I have a question, were you planning to do that anyway, were you planning to elevate the bottom floor, the lowest floor, of your structure?

Sean Taboloff – At least 2’ off of the ground (unable to transcribe the response in its entirety, as Mr. Taboloff was speaking from the audience and did not come forward to the microphone).

Chairman Bristol – So if that was one of the conditions of approval, it wouldn’t be a hardship to your project?

Sean Taboloff responded no.

Motion

Irv Schick – I make a motion that the proposal be approved based on the information and testimony that we have received here with two conditions, one is specified by staff, and the added one is that the first base floor be at least 1’ above the floodplain level.

Doug Sassman seconded the motion.

Gaylea Nolander asked for clarification. In your motion did you also include by the information received, the findings included in the staff report?

Irv Schick – Yes.

Roll Call Vote: The following planning commission members voted yes: Irv Schick, Bill Davies, Kevin Herda, Alice Crowley, Doug Sassman, and Tom Bristol, unanimously approving the Site Plan Review.

Decision

Planning Commission unanimously approved the Site Plan Review with the following Findings and Conditions:

Findings for Site Plan Review

3. The project is compatible and relates harmoniously to the surrounding area.

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. Public services are adequate to meet the proposed home.

5. The project adequately mitigates any identified impacts.

There are no identified environmental impacts identified. This proposal was categorically exempt from a State Environmental Policy Act threshold determination.

The following condition is suggested to ensure that the project is completed and managed in a manner consistent with this site plan review approval.

Condition of Approval

1. No construction or development activities shall be allowed within the floodplain as identified on the site plan.

2. The first base floor shall be at least 1’ above the floodplain level.

7:36 P.M.

· Public Hearing

Site Plan Review

Applicants: Matthew & Diane Cobb

Project Location: 407 N. Stevens

Project Description: Addition to existing residence of 555 square feet and rebuilding of garage lean-tos of 250 square feet.

Chairperson Pro-Tem Election

Chairman Bristol announced that he will be stepping down on this matter, because he is involved, he did the plans for the Cobb project. Chairman Bristol advised the Vice-Chairperson is Daniel Voltz and since he is absent tonight a Chairperson Pro-Tem will need to be elected in accordance with City of Chewelah Planning Commission Bylaws and Rules of Procedure, Article IV, Section 5(b)…If the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson are both absent, the remaining members shall elect a Chairperson Pro-Tem to serve during their absence. Kevin Herda nominated Irv Schick for Chairperson Pro-Tem. Doug Sassman seconded the nomination. No further nominations. Planning Commission Members unanimously voted in favor of Irv Schick as Chairperson Pro-Tem to conduct the public hearing. Chairman Bristol stepped down and left the room during the public hearing.

Exhibits 6 through 10 are attached hereto, incorporated herein and made a part of these minutes as though fully set forth.

Exhibit List

(6) Application

(7) Site Plan Map

(8) Notice of Application, Public Hearing, and SEPA Determination

(9) Staff Report

(10)Public Hearing Sign-In Sheet

SUMMARY

(Decision: Planning Commission unanimously approved the Site Plan Review)

Chairman Schick opened the public hearing at 7:40 P.M. and set forth the format that would be followed. There were no objections to any planning commission’s participation in the proceedings. With the exception of Tom Bristol no other planning commission member acknowledged any gain or interest with regard to this matter and Mr. Bristol is not present. No planning commission member acknowledged any communication outside of this hearing with opponents or proponents in regard to this matter.

Staff Report

The applicant is proposing an addition to a single-family home of approximately 555 square feet and rebuilding of garage lean-tos of approximately 250 square feet at 407 North Stevens Street. The property is designated as Single Family Residential and zoned Single-Family Residential 1.

Notice

Notice was published on May 25, 2006 in the Chewelah Independent.

Notice was posted on May 23, 2006 on the property site.

Analysis

The R-1 zone permits single-family housing additions and modifications provided the zoning district’s development standards are met. The proposed project meets the R-1 zoning district standards for building separation, lot coverage, setbacks, and use provisions.

In accordance with Section 18.08.140 Critical Area Resource Overly Zone of the Chewelah Municipal Code, the applicant identified the floodplain boundary from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain map panel number 530186 0001. The floodplain is approximately 30 feet away from the proposed lean-to rebuild and about 53 feet away from the proposed addition. Neither the critical areas map nor the draft SMP identified any additional critical areas on this site.

The project as proposed on the submitted site plan has been designed to avoid impacts to Paye Creek and its floodplain area. The single-family home addition and associated accessory uses are consistent with the comprehensive plan and is compliant with all development regulations.

Findings

The proposed projects are located approximately 53 and 30 feet from the floodplain. These locations avoid impacts to the frequently flooded area in accordance with CMC section 18.08.140.

3. The project is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the surrounding area.

The proposed single-family home addition and accessory structures lean-to rebuild is consistent with the area. The proposed design should not conflict with the surrounding neighborhood. If you look at the site plan, the addition is on the back, and I don’t think you are even going to be able to notice it in the front at all.

4. The project will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or general welfare.

The proposal has no foreseeable detrimental impacts or effect on the public interest, health, safety or general welfare. Public services are adequate to meet the proposed alterations.

5. The project adequately mitigates any identified impacts.

There are no identified environmental impacts identified. This proposal was categorically exempt from a State Environmental Policy Act threshold determination.

The proposed location of the addition and garage lean-to are outside the floodplain boundary. The Floodplain Management Overlay Zone does not require setbacks or buffers. The proposed projects are likely to not impact the flood zone of Paye Creek.

Questions from Planning Commission

Bill Davies – Is any part of the Shoreline Management Act in affect today?

Chaz Bates – Yes. The part that is in affect, even though you didn’t ask I am going to say it anyway, is the part that deals with Chewelah Creek, which is actually a shoreline of the State.

Bill Davies – When I came onboard two years ago, we had quite a discussion about limiting an expansion to 20%, is that 20% still in affect or if it is one of those things that has to wait to be voted on, because if that is the case, with a 555 square feet expansion it means he has to have about a 2800 feet square house to start with.

Chaz Bates – Yes, we adopted that, and what that was is provisions to the minor modification section allowing exemption from the site plan review process. What that is saying is we will allow you to expand or modify an existing structure no more than 20% or 400 square feet, and actually an initial proposal from the applicant had met that exemption, so when they came to me with a site plan review I said, no, you don’t have to do this because you are meeting this exemption that we have. Some things changed, they wanted to make it a little bigger so that is why they are in front of us tonight going through the site plan review process.

Bill Davies – Because we have another case that is going to be coming up with the same situation where the 20% was exceeded by an additional 30%, he has doubled the size of his house and that is going to be hitting us before too long.

Kevin Herda – He could 200% the size of his house as long as he came to us.

Chaz Bates – Yes. The size limitation only exempts them, at the 20% it is only exempting them from the site plan review process, if he wanted to add 40% or 50% and if he can do it by meeting the other requirements of the code, such as setbacks, floodplain, lot coverage, it is possible.

Petitions or Communications – None.

Applicant

Matt Cobb – This is a house that my wife was born and raised in. Jake and Elsie Stroyan lived there for many years, raised 9 kids, so we purchased the home, and now we are going to raise our 4 kids, and it is too small. We are doing a lot of upgrading and modifying, and we have already started digging inside the house, we haven’t done anything on the outside, but on the inside, structurally we have had to make it a lot sounder. Basically it is 12 ½ feet off of the back toward Paye Creek, like the gentlemen talked about, the closer distance from the master bedroom which is going towards Paye Creek is 47’ which is well outside that 25’ buffer of the Ordinary High Water Mark. Other than that, everything that is on my list here has already been discussed.

Public Comment – None.

Planning Commission Discussion

Chairman Schick – Maybe I am not looking at the site plan clearly, but I couldn’t figure out where the floodplain was at, but it looks like it is clear down here, is it that steep of bank?

Chaz Bates – That is the floodway.

Planning Commission Members’ copy did not show the floodplain. Chaz Bates passed around his copy showing the floodplain.

Chaz Bates – It is the gray area that is the 100 year floodplain, I didn’t realize that the smaller ones didn’t have that on there. It is actually pretty steep. It has already been designed to be above the flood elevation as determined by the applicant. It is actually an awkward area, something that we don’t necessarily have any say over, the floodway actually goes down the street in that location according to the map. The proposed addition is outside of the floodway on either side.

Kevin Herda – By far.

Chairman Schick closed the public testimony portion of the public hearing at 7:55 P.M.

Kevin Herda – I have a question for Chaz, so do you think it is important that we base that as a condition of approval that the base floor is 1’ above the base flood elevation as it is stated on here.

Chaz Bates – That is the way it was presented to us, so if you adopt the site plan, that is the way it will be adopted.

Chairman Schick – Where in our information is that specified?

Chaz Bates – It is on the map.

Matt Cobb – Are you talking about 1’ above on the addition, because I don’t know if you have a floor plan, but the corner, the family room, the southwest corner…concrete pad. (unable to transcribe the response in its entirety, as Mr. Cobb was speaking from the audience and did not come forward to the microphone).

Chaz Bates – Yes, there is a concrete pad, it says base flood elevation is 1,672’ and 8”, plus or minus the lowest soil elevation addition to be 1,673’ and 8”, 1’ above base flood level. It says actual is 1,676’ and 3”, which 3’ 7” above base flood elevation. I think I understand you are saying there is a patio or something that is going to be out there.

(Unable to transcribe Mr. Cobb’s response as he was speaking from the audience and did not come forward to the microphone).

Chaz Bates – Apparently what is being said is that the ground level is 3’7” already above base flood elevation. It doesn’t say that on the map, but it is just saying that the lowest floor is already going to be 3’7”.

Motion

Kevin Herda – I make a motion that we approve the site plan review based on the staff’s findings.

Doug Sassman Seconded the motion.

Roll Call Vote: The following planning commission members voted yes: Bill Davies, Kevin Herda, Alice Crowley, Doug Sassman, and Irv Schick, unanimously approving the Site Plan Review.

Decision

Planning Commission unanimously approved the Site Plan Review with the following Findings:

Findings For Site Plan Review

The proposed projects are located approximately 53 and 30 feet from the floodplain. These locations avoid impacts to the frequently flooded area in accordance with CMC section 18.08.140.

3. The project is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the surrounding area.

4. The project will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or general welfare.

The proposal has no foreseeable detrimental impacts or effect on the public interest, health, safety or general welfare. Public services are adequate to meet the proposed alterations.

5. The project adequately mitigates any identified impacts.

There are no identified environmental impacts identified. This proposal was categorically exempt from a State Environmental Policy Act threshold determination.

The proposed location of the addition and garage lean-to are outside the floodplain boundary. The Floodplain Management Overlay zone does not require setbacks or buffers. The proposed projects are likely to not impact the flood zone of Paye Creek.

Recess 8:00 P.M. – 8:05 P.M.

Tom Bristol resumed his position as Chairperson.

Public Hearing – Recommendation to City Council

Draft Shoreline Master Program

Applicant: City of Chewelah

Project Address: The proposal includes land 200’ landward of Chewelah Creek, Thomason Creek, and Paye Creek.

Project Description:

The City of Chewelah is proposing to adopt a Shoreline Master Program consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Shoreline Management Act and Shoreline Master Program Guidelines. This revision to the SMP includes shoreline goals and policies, environmental designations, and use

regulations within the shoreline jurisdiction.

Exhibits 11 through 16 are attached hereto, incorporated herein and made a part of these minutes as though fully set forth.

Exhibit List

(11) Draft Shoreline Master Plan dated May 2006

(12) SEPA Checklist (State Environmental Policy Act Checklist)

(13) DNS (Determination of Non-Significance)

(14) Notice of Public Hearing, Application, and SEPA Determination

(15) Staff Report dated June 15, 2006

(16) Public Hearing Sign-In Sheet

SUMMARY

(Planning Commission continued the above entitled matter, including public comments and public testimony, to July 20, 2006 at 7:00 P.M.).

Staff Report

Background

Over the past 2 years (realistically 9 years), the City of Chewelah has been developing a shoreline master program to comply with the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. Late in 2003, the Washington State Department of Ecology updated the Washington Administrative Code as it relates to the implementation of the SMA. These implementation measures are called the SMP Guidelines, and they provide direction for how jurisdictions must meet the requirements of the SMA, for example, how the shoreline inventory must be done, the requirement of a restoration plan, and so on. The update to the shoreline guidelines also included a timeline for when jurisdictions must adopt updates to their shoreline master programs consistent with the new guidelines.

In 2004, the City of Chewelah opted to adopt a SMP prior to its state mandated update of 2014, which enabled the City to take advantage of available grant funds for shoreline master program development. Over the last two years the City Planning Commission has completed a shoreline inventory and analysis, developed shoreline goals and policies, developed shoreline regulations, and developed a restoration plan for degraded shoreline areas.

The City of Chewelah's SMP has been developed to be fully integrated into existing growth management plans and regulations. To be more clear, the goals and policies of the SMP are consistent with and are intended to be part of the comprehensive plan, and the regulations of the SMP are intended to be consistent with and a part of the existing zoning and critical areas regulations. The purpose of this integration is threefold: (1) it make administration of community development easier, (2) existing state law requires the integration and links update of GMA documents to SMA documents, and (3) recent legislation requires consistent critical area protections within shorelands and outside shorelands.

In addition to the mandated Shoreline Management Act requirement to develop a SMP for Chewelah Creek, the community wished to extend protection to Thomason and Paye Creeks, while these creeks are not shorelines of the state, they are nevertheless a community asset and the community wished to address them during the master program planning process. The SMP as presented includes Paye and Thomason Creeks within its structure, but they are outside SMA jurisdiction and are not part of the mandated requirements.

Over the last couple of months, the City Planning Commission has been working through informal comments provided from the Department of Ecology. The Planning Commission has finished incorporating Ecology's comments and tonight is holding a public hearing for the purpose of taking public testimony and making a recommendation to the Chewelah City Council.

Notice

In accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, Chewelah Municipal Code, and state law a Notice of Completion, Environmental Determination, and Public Hearing for the Shoreline Master Program for the City of Chewelah:

§ Notice of a public meeting discussing various elements of the shoreline master program was published once a month in the Chewelah Independent from June 2004 to May 2006.

§ Notice of a public hearing and environmental determination by the Chewelah Planning Commission was published on May 30, 2006 in the Chewelah Independent.

§ Notice was posted on May 30, 2006 on the Chewelah website and at the following locations: both entrances to city hall, the official city bulletin board, American West Bank, Chewelah Post Office, and Chewelah Library.

§ Beginning on June 8, 2006 the draft SMP as presented tonight was available on the City's website.

§ A copy of the proposed project and supporting documentation was available at city hall, room 107 for review. Copies of those items are available for public review at the planning commission hearing on June 15, 2006.

This is just a brief list, I should have gotten probably a much bigger list of the things that we have done, but Notice of the Public Meetings discussing the various elements of the shoreline master program was published at least once a month in the Chewelah Independent from June 2004 to May 2006. As you can remember we also had a front page article in the Chewelah Independent trying to have a kick-off meeting for people to come and participate and be a part of the citizen advisory team, but we had two people show up and those people have occasionally been to the planning commission meetings and participated in those discussions. Those meetings were open discussions, they weren’t in this format where we have a hearing.

Analysis

The draft Shoreline Master Program for the City of Chewelah has been developed consistent with the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines, Chapter 173-26 of the Washington Administrative Code. The guidelines have changed considerably over the 9-year development of Chewelah's SMP. The new guidelines require a formal scientific inventory and analysis to identify the ecological characteristics of shoreline functions. The inventory and analysis was completed by the Geographic and Land Studies Department at Central Washington University.

The inventory and analysis report attached as an appendix formed the backbone of the SMP. It was used to develop the environmental designations, width of the shoreline jurisdiction, restoration opportunities, and provided guidance for buffers and setbacks.

The draft SMP is to be fully integrated into the City's existing GMA planning documents. The goals and policies, restoration plan, and inventory and analysis report will become a part of the comprehensive plan. The development code requirements including updated Shoreline Enhancement Overlay district will become a part of the zoning and related regulations. The full integration will not occur until the completion of the comprehensive plan update currently underway. The update to the comprehensive plan is expected to conclude next April to June. However, the integration strategy ensured that the draft SMP is consistent with the comprehensive plan, development regulations, and state law.

The City has conducted an environmental analysis of the draft SMP and found that adoption and implementation of the document would not result in any significantly adverse environmental impacts. Essentially the SMP is an environmental document. The program's goals, policies, environmental designations, and development regulations are all based on biotic and abiotic inventory and analysis of the shoreline ecological functions as required by state law. The intent of these elements is to protect shoreline ecological functions.

Suggested Findings for Amendments

1.The proposed shoreline master program is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan and other development regulations

The draft SMP includes all the existing policies related to streams and riparian areas as listed in policies 8.1 through 8.9 of the Chewelah Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1997. In addition, the draft SMP includes a number of new goals and policies intended to supplement existing goals of protecting and enhancing the natural environment. Additionally, the draft SMP has been prepared to be integrated into the existing development regulations and does not conflict with existing regulations.

2. The proposal is consistent with state and federal laws

The proposed shoreline master program has been prepared in accordance with Title 90.58 of the Revised Code of Washington and Chapter 173-26 of the Washington Administrative Code. The draft SMP has also been sent to relevant agencies for review and comment including the Department of Ecology and the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development. The City has not received any comment outside of Ecology's informal comments.

3. Any proposed new development permitted by your proposed amendment can still be adequately served by public facilities

The draft SMP does not change any permitted or conditionally permitted uses. All reasonably foreseeable projects that may be permitted by the existing development regulations can be adequately served by public facilities.

4. The proposal mitigates any impacts identified though the SEPA review process

The proposal does not have any significantly adverse environmental impacts that need mitigation. The proposed draft SMP has been issued a determination of non-significance.

5. The proposal is beneficial to the public health, safety, and welfare and is in the public interest.

The proposed amendment implements plans adopted by the City of Chewelah, implements state policy and law. The public will also be served by the implementation of policies that provide public access to shoreline area and enhanced flood protection and water quality through restoration opportunities. Further, the draft SMP provides clear direction and rules for developing near shorelines within the City of Chewelah, affording greater predictability and transparency to the development review process in shoreline jurisdiction.

Chaz Bates – I recently talked to Ecology and we should either continue the public hearing to next month, because they (Ecology) are now asking me for this checklist that they developed that has to be submitted as part of the proposal, final document. Now, I can do that after the hearing, but I don’t see why you shouldn’t take a look at that same thing to make sure that everything is being met as well. Ecology also asked for a Cumulative Impact Analysis, which I don’t expect is going to be too much trouble, we have some of the data there, and we had Ecology come out and do an actual walk-through, so they are kind of aware of some of our unique issues, especially what I consider the urban core along 395 here. Then, again, I mentioned that Ecology recently requested a Cumulative Impact Analysis in what is called the Shoreline Master Program Checklist. It is a check-off list to make sure that we have all of the required elements. I was unaware that it was required.

Questions

Doug Sassman – I want to get this straight, you said there is some checklists we have to enter into this, so it is incomplete before we could pass it on to council, or can you do this after we pass it on to council?

Chaz Bates – I could do it when you pass it on to council, I would prefer that the planning commission take a look at the checklist, mostly because you have been working on this.

Chairman Bristol – Where is the checklist from?

Chaz Bates – It is from Ecology. The reason why is because you have been working on it, but City Council has not been working on this, so when you look at this checklist you are going to be familiar with those items.

Doug Sassman – Will you have the checklist by next month?

Chaz Bates – Yes.

Kevin Herda – Ecology has already reviewed this but they want us to check what they reviewed?

Chaz Bates – I wish I would have brought a copy of it. The checklist itself is onerous, but they have asked for it, and we are going to do it, and, again, I would rather that the planning commission look at the checklist rather then send something new to city council.

Continuation of Public Hearing

Motion

Doug Sassman – I make a motion that we continue the public hearing to next month, July 20, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. when we have all the necessary documents ready.

Kevin Herda Seconded the Motion.

Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue the public hearing, including public comments and public testimony to July 20, 2006 at 7:00 P.M.

Chairman Bristol advised that the discussion on the Shoreline Master Plan would continue tonight to allow discussion from planning commission and public comments.

Chairman – One question that I had is that in all three of the designations…development is available in all three of those with the setbacks, dimension requirements and heights, I had a question from some people that have property in the Urban Conservancy, and they were kind of reading that they couldn’t do anything there; however, looking at page 46, residential development is available with dimension setbacks, is that correct?

Chaz Bates – Yes, residential development is available in all environmental designations on Chewelah, Paye, and Thomason Creeks. The only real difference is, you have to go through site plan review for all of them, but if it is on Chewelah Creek they have to do a substantial shoreline development permit.

Chairman Bristol – So, when you look at the map on page 17, the designation map and urban conservancy is all green, it doesn’t mean that nothing can happen there, it does mean that development is okay within the requirements…

Chaz Bates – Yes, and the setbacks are actually from the Ordinary High Water Mark and that green area from what I understand from the scientific information was kind of wetland type soil and that is why it got included as part of that designation, so you can see that little line down there just south of Court Street, that is actually Paye Creek, so if you are up here in the northern part of that green area, the setbacks are not going to really matter because you are already going to be 25’ away from creek anyway, so it is 25’ away from the ordinary high mark of the water…you just have to go through the site plan review process.

Kevin Herda – The Urban Conservancy in the area along Park, there would be no commercial building allowed there?

Chairman Bristol – That little green area bumped out is the park, between Park and Lincoln.

Chaz Bates – Actually the east side of Chewelah Creek is Urban Conservancy. The park and that City owned property that goes south of the park…north down to the pool. It is just the City owned property, but I can check just to make sure.

Chairman Bristol – That brings up a question in that area, because that is the old armory building in the green zone, because if they wanted to add or enhance that, or replace it if it burned, then it is in an area that says no commercial, no industrial.

Chaz Bates – It would be allowed, it would have to go through a shoreline conditional use permit, site plan review, and possibly a substantial shoreline development permit. That is on page 44 at the very top. It is actually Table 1, Use Compatibility Matrix, Chewelah Creek, All Environments, Commercial Development, Water-Dependent, Water-related and enjoyment, and Non-water-related, which is probably what it would be if they were going to expand the armory, would be a substantial shoreline conditional use permit.

Chairman Bristol – But if you go to Page 45 with setbacks, heights, and dimensions, you go to second and third commercial and industrial development, and you go over to shoreline residential and urban conservancies, it is not allowed.

Chaz Bates – Yes, shoreline residential is not allowed in a commercial zone.

Chairman Bristol – That is what I am looking at, if the City doesn’t want to have the ability to rebuild their own building it is okay with me, but they should know that. Am I missing something?

Kevin Herda – They can rebuild their building but they can’t have…

Chaz Bates – What I am saying is there isn’t any shoreline residential along Chewelah Creek.

Chairman Bristol – No Urban Conservancy, that is the only area I was talking about, that one area where the pool is, it is in Urban Conservancy, and nothing is allowable, commercial/industrial so you couldn’t rebuild the swimming pool, you couldn’t rebuild that building.

Chaz Bates – Okay, I have got it

Doug Sassman – All of that would be grandfathered.

Chaz Bates – I was working through Ecology’s comments and I missed the zoning in that area, so I am going to change that back actually. It is probably going to be the same numbers you see in Urban Commercial, does that make sense? The same setback number, so that would be 50’.

Chairman Bristol – On this Matrix in Table 2.

Chaz Bates – It is already permitted, it is just that not applicable met that it didn’t have any setbacks, because the zoning was weird in that area, it is not zoned for what is there, so I didn’t catch that. The reason I put N/A there is because I didn’t see anything, the zoning code didn’t permit anything that we allowed in our Urban Conservancy area, so it didn’t make sense to have buffers for something that didn’t really apply. Actually now we have an existing use even though the zoning doesn’t match, so it is probably best to just go ahead and make that consistent with the existing use, since that is the route we are probably going to be taking with the Comprehensive Plan…

Chairman Bristol – If the Highway 395 decides to take that path on Second it runs through that area too…

Irv Schick – Transportation facilities, looks like it is just a setback.

Chaz Bates – A setback of 150’ for highways.

Chairman Bristol – So if that ever happened, either this would have to be addressed or changed.

Chaz Bates – Or they would have to meet the requirements.

Chairman Bristol – I was just wondering if that little