Regular Meeting Minutes: August 17, 2006

From City of Chewelah

2006 Minutes
Regular Meeting Minutes: August 17, 2006
By Gaylea Nolander
Aug 30, 2006, 16:04

· Call to Order/Roll Call – The regular meeting of the Chewelah Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Tom Bristol at 7:10 P.M. The following planning commission members were present: Chairman Tom Bristol, Vice Chairman Daniel Voltz, Kadya Hugus, Irv Schick, and Bill Davies. Excused absences: Kevin Herda, Alice Crowley, and Doug Sassman. Also present: Chaz Bates, Planner; and Gaylea Nolander, Executive Secretary.

· Agenda Additions, Deletions, and/or Changes – None.

· Minutes – Irv Schick moved with a second from Kadya Hugus to approve the July 20, 2006 minutes. All in favor.

· Public Comments – None.

· Public Hearing Continued from June 15, 2006 to July 20, 2006, from July 20, 2006 to August 17, 2006

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 1 through 4 are attached hereto, incorporated herein and made a part of these minutes as though fully set forth.

Exhibit List

(1) Revised Environmental Designations Map (SMP, page 130)

(2) Public Hearing Sign-In Sheet

(3) Letter from Roseanna Nielsen

(4) Updated Draft Shoreline Master Program dated August 2006

SUMMARY

(Planning Commission continued the above entitled matter, including public comments and public testimony, to September 21, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. Public testimony received from: Dale A. Nielsen, Roseanna Nielsen, Charles Burnett, Robert Harrison, and Barbara Nelson).

Chairman Bristol reconvened the public hearing for the Shoreline Master Program at 7:12 P.M. The public hearing was continued from June 15, 2006 to July 20, 2006 and from July 20, 2006 to August 17, 2006.

Staff Report

Chaz Bates, Planner, Studio Cascade, presented a verbal staff report as follows.

I didn’t actually produce a written staff report. I didn’t think it was necessary. I am asking the planning commission for next time, do you think that is necessary, an updated written staff report or are these verbal updates sufficient?

Kadya Hugus – I am more comfortable with having the back up of a written staff report…

Chairman Bristol – At least with the changes that have happened.

Chaz Bates – At the last meeting I think the significant thing we discussed was changing the environmental designations map and I don’t know if there are copies available for everybody. I didn’t produce a big copy. I apologize for that.

Gaylea Nolander – All the members of the public that testified at the last public hearing, at the direction of the planning commission, received a copy of that.

Chairman Bristol – We will pass one around for everyone to look at.

Chaz Bates – As I mentioned at the last meeting I wasn’t going to be prepared to have the planning commission forward a recommendation to the city council tonight due to my own personal leave time, so that is why there isn’t a big map out there for you guys to take a look at. Essentially what happened is we wanted to reduce the shoreline designation on Thomason and Paye Creeks, the creeks on the east and west sides of town, and before it included these wetland areas associated with the creek, what the planning commission recommended and directed me to do was to reduce that shoreline jurisdiction to 200’ landward of the ordinary high water mark, and to change the designation from urban conservancy to shoreline residential, and what that affectively does is allow a greater amount of impervious surface consistent with the existing zoning out in that area primarily west of town on Paye Creek. I haven’t had a chance to actually go through and make sure that there isn’t any sort of weird references in the text associated with that map change, also I have been in recent contact with Doug Pineo, Department of Ecology. He has actually taken a look at it and he was going to get me comments by this afternoon, but I didn’t have access to email this afternoon and I thought it would be too abrupt anyways to actually include it…but he does have some comments, and he is not concerned about reducing that width necessarily on Thomason and Paye Creeks, but how we are actually regulating the uses out there. That is about it for the update.

Daniel Voltz – I was speaking with Chaz a little bit before the meeting, and if you look at that map that is being passed around (Exhibit 1) at the very southernmost tip of Chewelah there is a blue blob of urban conservancy, and I asked Chaz if that was public owned property, but it looks like there are houses setting there, and I think that if there are houses and something happened to one of those houses, and it stayed urban conservancy, that person would have a really tough time rebuilding their property with a 10% restriction, so we need to research that before that stays on this map.

Chaz Bates – And actually what Daniel pointed out, maybe a little later we will talk about the comprehensive plan update, the inventory actually shows residences out there in that area, so I think it is useful to take a closer look at that southern urban conservancy. I examined the text and part of the reason why it got designated that way is because it was vacant, which is not necessarily showing up on the existing land use inventory and that it is primarily wetlands out there as well for the southern end of reach 3. I am taking Daniel’s suggestion to research that or maybe you can discuss that whether or not you want me to look closer into that urban conservancy.

Chairman Bristol – Can you give us a location between streets?

Chaz Bates – …Stevens maybe, where Chewelah Creek meets the city boundaries at the southern end of town. I could show you over on this map. We are looking between Stevens and Third Street, south of Boone, if Boone went all of the way through.

Chairman Bristol – As long as we are talking about the other urban conservancy areas, is this the park, this upper north one?

Chaz Bates – Yes, the park, the city owned land, the city shop, swimming pool, museum, and Paye Creek Park at Pinebrook, the storm water retention area.

Chairman Bristol – So the only one that Daniel is asking to give scrutiny to is this area where there are homes along the creek there?

Chaz Bates – Correct. At least that is how I understand it, Daniel?

Daniel Voltz – Yes.

Chairman Bristol – Also, can you let us know and the public the next steps in this process.

Chaz Bates – I suggest that we continue the public hearing until at least September. Related to the Shoreline Master Program we had some grant fund requests due on Tuesday, the day I got back and I was on the phone all day with various jurisdictions trying to get it straightened out and get the request put in. It was suggested by Doug Pineo to extend out the adoption date for this to even December. What I expect to do is, depending on the public testimony, your deliberations, that we might be able to forward a recommendation to city council in September. They will have their meetings and their hearings, and then eventual adoption, or rejection back to the planning commission. At which point if they choose to adopt it, it is then sent to the Department of Ecology who have final authority on approval of this. They may choose to hold another public hearing if they want to, or if they don’t want to, then they go ahead and formally adopt it and it basically becomes a legal state document as well as the city’s document that the city enforces.

Communications – None.

Notice

Gaylea Nolander advised that notice was given as follows:

Shoreline Master Program Notice

07-20-06 Notice of Continuance of Public Hearing posted as follows:

Both Entrances to City Hall

City Hall - Official City Bulletin Board.

07-24-06 Posted Notice of Continuance of Public Hearing as follows:

Website

Post Office

Library

AmericanWest Bank

07-24-06 Per Public Request, I emailed a Notice of Continuance of Public Hearing to Bob Playfair.

07-31-06 Per public request mailed Notice of Continuance of Public Hearing and a copy of the Draft Shoreline Master Program to Roseanna Nielsen.

07-31-06 Per direction of the planning commission at the July 20, 2006 planning commission meeting the following items were provided to Robert Harrison, Charles Burnett, Chad Burnett, Joseph Zollman, Gary Plotts, and Barbara Nelson:

(1) Definitions of Shoreline Residential, pages 16, 43, & 46 from the Shoreline Master Program;

(2) Updated Environmental Designations Map, page 130 from the Shoreline Master Program; and

(3) Notice of Continuance of Public Hearing.

Public Comments

Dale Nielsen – Seattle, Washington – My folks have a piece of property over here. I have several concerns, first off if you have a lot of canopy from trees along the creek you are going to need to make sure you have fire breaks otherwise it will be like a fuse running through the community, it can carry fire all along the creek…so that is something important. I also understand that Chewelah used to be a swamp until the settlers pulled all of the native vegetation out of the creeks and installed creeks where they needed them, and if people are not encouraged to keep the creeks up by weeding out the stuff that is overgrowing them, the willow roots that get into the creek, going back to a swamp, which would be a bad situation. I also would be concerned with swampy areas with a mosquito breeding area for West Nile they are worried about, and that is something that needs to be addressed. I am glad to see that they are talking about letting you fix up stuff when things get damaged. I think it would be helpful if they have a preferred design for retaining walls and bridges if they include that for the people so they don’t have to go to an architect or engineer and have the wheel reinvented, just say if you do it this way it is not going to be a problem, if you have a better idea come and talk to us about it. I would also be concerned about this Initiative 933 that is on the upcoming vote, since Paye Creek and Thomason Creek were not under the state level shoreline category would the city be getting a liability for compensating for taking a 200’…off and having to pay rent every year to the property owner on that account or make a settlement of some nature? The settlers built close to the creeks for water use and a lot of the houses are right up against the creek, and so I go back 200’ like on my folks’ property, be out by the mailbox…taken care of by the family since the 1920’s and it has been kept in good condition, so I think reasonably trustworthy and are going to maintain things well. Another thing that needs to be looked at is the lifespan of the trees. If you plant something there you should be able to go and take it out if it doesn’t really work out or gets sick or doesn’t match with what you are doing. You should be able to rotate the trees out when you need to without a lot of hassle. There are a lot of people who have gotten afraid of all of these rules and fines and stuff, so they just look at the creek and say, well, I am going to have a demilitarized zone here and I am not going to touch anything there and if it goes to heck, well that is the way it goes. That is a problem. One of the things that the City of…needs to be doing is looking ahead 50 years, because this community is pretty close to what Redmond and Issaquah were near Seattle at this point and the population of the state is going up, get an extra 50,000 people moving in here because they can’t afford to live in Seattle, you have to make some…to evaluate things at some point. I am also concerned about some of the old people since they really can’t be climbing down in the creek with their wheelchairs and walkers to go and clean it out, so it might be good if they figured out some arrangement where at certain times of the year they could sign up for going together and hiring people from the correctional institution to come down and do a weeding and mowing job to keep things in good condition. I am always watching my folks to see that they don’t get into trouble around the creek, I don’t want to be fishing them out. This one time a long time ago my grandfather had to be pulled out by his belt from the creek and that is not a good thing for people around 80. Thank you very much.

Irv Schick – Tom, can we work on a misconception there?

Chairman Bristol – We are supposed to wait until everybody is done and we have broken that protocol many times. We don’t have too many people that are going to testify, let’s go ahead and finish.

Roseanna Nielsen – Seattle, Washington – We are the Nielsen family, although we live in Seattle, we own the farm at 606 W. North Avenue. Some of what I am going to say, Dale also said or alluded to, but in 1996 we annexed to the City of Chewelah with zoning of Residential Suburban. This permitted continuing agricultural use and that is listed in Ordinance 659. We have thoroughly studied the Shoreline Master program that is dated July 2006. For the most part, we feel the program is well written. We do have these concerns:

(1) The city should provide specific information about accepted bridge and retaining walls complete with diagrams and/or pictures of the way it could be done. That way an owner could use the information as presented or propose another plan when getting a permit.

(2) Strict shoreline rules can make some owners afraid, Dale mentioned this too, afraid to clean out debris or excess plant growth in creeks. Other residents are elderly or disabled and cannot care for the creeks. There are quite a few areas where Paye Creek is so full of weeds and grasses that you can’t even see the water. This is hard on the migrating fish and also is a breeding ground for mosquitoes and other pests.

(3) The city should provide a way to help people who cannot take care of the creek or can’t afford to hire it done. Dale mentioned also some resources might be a youth conservation corp or like the Pioneer Cemetery Association does, they hire reformatory inmates to help and it has really been a big bonus. The cemetery looks so much better than it did a few years ago; of course there is a lot of volunteer work too.

(4) The old settlers often built very near to the creeks so they had handy water use. A provision should be included to “grandfather” in these buildings in case they need repairs. Setbacks could hurt them. If there is no variation on the setback somebody might end up not having a home if something happened to it and they couldn’t get it repaired.

(5) Trees do have a lifespan. If trees need pruning or removal it should be allowed without any big contention.

(6) Planting trees along the creeks must allow space between them as firebreaks, Dale mentioned that, otherwise a fire could spread from tree to tree and lead all over town.

(7) In weeding out overgrowth we need to include native species as well as noxious weeds, sometimes the native species get very ambitious and you can’t find the creek.

(8) Over regulating can discourage people from moving into Chewelah. It should be one of our goals to encourage people to come in and make this their home.

I do have two copies of this, one for the record (Exhibit 3) and one I assume could either be to Chaz Bates or whoever wants it, so I will just bring these up. Thank you.

Charles Burnett – 3235 Flyckt Road, Chewelah, Washington – I met with Chaz a couple of weeks ago after he redid the maps, and took our property out of the urban conservancy, and the way he has Paye Creek set in there the way it is now, he has revised it and I am in agreement with that.

Robert Harrison – 605 W. Main, Chewelah, Washington – I just have a couple of questions. The map on page 17, is that going to change?

Chaz Bates – Yes that has been changed…This is actually an older version of the map, it has been changed since then. Is the new version available on the internet, Gaylea?

Gaylea Nolander – The entire update that you did is on the internet.

Chaz Bates – I am sorry, this is actually dated May 6, and the updated version, well it says May 6 too, but the map has been updated.

Robert Harrison – I have all the ones that Gaylea sent out…

Gaylea Nolander – I can get you a copy of that one too, Bob, I didn’t realize the one on that page had been revised also.

Dale Nielsen – One thing I missed mentioning is I noticed they were talking about parking restrictions next to the creek, and I was wondering how that was going to affect the St. Paul Church, that Park Street Restaurant, Zips, right next to the creeks where their parking lots are. That may have some impact on some other businesses that are adjoining to the creek as well, so that is something that needs to be looked at. They were talking about having some parking restrictions close to a creek.

Planning Commission Discussion

Irv Schick – I would like to say something that I think probably a lot of people understand and a lot of people misunderstand, that 200’ setback or buffer area does not bar construction or reconstruction in that area. It just means that it has to be scrutinized more carefully because it is within 200’, it does not bar it. There is a setback that is enforced, what 25’ to 35’?

Bill Davies – 25’ for Paye and Thomason, 50’ for Chewelah Creek.

Irv Schick – So new construction would be the setback for those creeks by that much, 200’ on each side, or 200’ landward of the high water is just an area that is set there so the areas along the creek, construction and things like that are scrutinized more carefully than they might be elsewhere. That is all it is, it doesn’t bar construction or things in it, that 200’, so if your property was 200’ or 230’ back from the mean high water, you still have got basically all of that. I think that is an easy misconception to come up with.

Chaz Bates – I can try to address some of them.

Chairman Bristol – Can you do maybe from the reverse, the parking restrictions, existing, is it grandfathered in?

Chaz Bates – It is going to fall under the nonconforming use provisions, so if more than 50% of the parking lot is destroyed then they are going to have to conform to the existing regulations. As proposed in this Draft Shoreline Master Program, it has under urban commercial, which is where the Zip’s and other things are, it shows 100’ and I actually circled it to draw my attention to it to see exactly, I couldn’t tell you right off the top of my head exactly how I would approve the parking provisions. One thing that needs to be realized here is that of course there are going to be lots that are not a 100’ wide, but there are provisions in the Shoreline Master Program that allow things to happen when no other viable use is allowed. I saw them paving Zip’s parking and I was up there with Ecology, and they freaked. They were dumping asphalt over the edge of the bank into the creek and all sorts of horrible, horrible things, but I think maybe a 100’ could be excessive. I would like to take a little bit better look at that, or at least see how parking lots can be designed.

Chairman Bristol – Yes, I know I was involved in one project where the parking was close to the creek, but all of the drainage went away from the creek and was collected and cleaned before it discharged. The old way used to be to slant the parking lots towards the creeks so the runoff went into the creek along with all of the oils and stuff, so it seems like maybe that 100’ is excessive, because it is a design issue to do it properly.

Chaz Bates – Yes, that is what I am saying is that I am not familiar enough with the actual design of the parking lot regulations of the Shoreline Master Program whether or not that addresses those types of concerns, slope…I certainly think it is appropriate to have a native riparian vegetative buffer between the parking lot and the creek, but how big that needs to be, right now it says 35’ but a 100’ setback, so it needs to be looked at, so I am glad that was brought up.

Chairman Bristol – I would like to suggest maybe it stays with the building setback, which would be the buffer setback because the impact of the building could be as extreme as the impact to the edge of the pavement.

Bill Davies – I believe there was a comment made about one of the restaurants and I also noticed there is a liquor store that is pretty close to the creek too, and I think that is the less than the 50’ allowed.

Irv Schick – There are a lot of places along the creeks that are existing nonconforming and they will continue to be that way.

Chairman Bristol – Just for clarity because I am not sure I understand it, and let’s use the liquor store as an example, if the liquor store was to burn down, are we going to have a town without a liquor store?

Chaz Bates – …If the liquor store burns down with the existing regulations, they will have to conform to the regulations that are put in place. Again, there are provisions in the code for things if lot size doesn’t allow it, if the lot isn’t wide enough or long enough, there is a physical constraint that makes it impossible to adhere to these standards, then it…be allowed to happen just like we have in our critical areas ordinance. The first step of the process is to avoid the impact if we can, if we can’t avoid the impact, then we are going to minimize the impact, if we can’t minimize the impact then we are going to mitigate the impact. There are two other ones that I can never remember because they hardly ever get beyond those. You can compensate for impacts to the creek too, maybe if they have land on the other side they can devote strictly to open space, who knows. The fact of the matter is that the regulations are there, and with the existing regulations they will have to conform to those existing regulations.

Chairman Bristol – That seems a little dangerous. You talked earlier in the planning commission/city council workshop about some jurisdictions have a nonconforming use allowance that gives a sunset/rebuild period or something like that. I just feel like there is so much that could happen to somebody’s business, their livelihood, or arson, or anything, and then you have no chance, because of a hardship that has already hit you to rebuild your business or your home.

Chaz Bates – And I agree, I really do, but the nonconforming use provisions aren’t being dealt with in this document, and it makes people…, and I guess I would be uncomfortable with saying, yes, we will promise that we will change our nonconforming use provisions, or at least we will look into it after we adopt this. That can be a hard pill to swallow. There are two reasons for that: (1) we can’t commit the city council, a legislative body, to any sort of decision. It is up to them to make that decision, and that is what it would amount to is a text amendment to the development regulations.

Chairman Bristol – Is that where the nonconforming use allowance would be is in the municipal code in the development regulations?

Chaz Bates – Yes, it is 18.12.110, and that is the section that talks about nonconforming uses and nonconforming structures.

Chairman Bristol – That might be something we want to look at for some of these regulations…I don’t even think Daniel could rebuild part of his business establishment if something…

Chaz Bates – He would be able to rebuild, probably not the exact same manner in which you have now.

Chairman Bristol – So much of the properties that are adjacent to the creeks are so limited in size and width that you would always be nonconforming.

Chaz Bates – Remember there would be a reasonable use exception. I just want to make that clear that nothing in the code is going to prohibit anybody from using their property absolutely. If you come to that point where you are not because of the physical constraints, the reasonable use exception kicks in allowing you, the regulations are going to deny all economically viable reasonable use, then we are not going to prohibit it, we are going to allow it to happen. You still have to adhere to the regulations as much as you can; it is not like we would throw them out the window.

Irv Schick – You have to mitigate or compensate.

Chaz Bates – I just want that to be clear and that is the case for any regulation in the existing municipal code and the proposed shoreline master program.

Bill Davies – We had a case come up a couple of months ago about the minimum rebuild 10% and that kind of stuff, and I did some investigating on it. I found out the city can issue a letter of rebuild which will cover people for loans and the bank and anything else. I ran it past the Mayor and he said no problem and he said he was going to run it past the city attorney to double check it, so it can be done. It has been done in other parts of the state.

Chaz Bates – Yes, absolutely…We have two levels of regulations, we have state regulations and local regulations, and it is kind of how the federal government works with the state government, the state government can be more restrictive than the federal government, local governments can be more restrictive than state governments. I know, as Tom mentioned, there are jurisdictions that allow if 100% of your structure is destroyed, as long as you rebuild it within 6 months if it is nonconforming you can go ahead and do that, and they issue a rebuild letter stating exactly that. You have a letter to rebuild as long as they do it within 6 months; as long as you got a permit for it originally, which sometimes can be a problem.

Chairman Bristol – Further discussion.

Chaz Bates – I want to try and address some of the other concerns that were mentioned. We mentioned the buffers, is everybody clear that there is a difference between the shoreline jurisdiction and the buffers? I really like the idea of having preferred design standards for bank stabilization, I like it a lot, unfortunately the grant and the city budget isn’t sufficient enough to basically hire an architect, or hire an engineer to design those. There are suggested guidelines from the state that are available as resources to citizens and in addition to that we have also identified different sources such as the conservation district, and other agencies that do bank stabilization that you can refer to. I wanted to do that but it just wasn’t in the cards. I think it would be extremely helpful and maybe it is something we try to address in the future. In addition to that I guess I am just wishful thinking here, is to come up with a list of recommended species that can be planted along the creeks that are natural so people know exactly what would grow well along the creek.

Chairman Bristol – There are possibilities of grants for design and specifications for plants too.

Irv Schick – Soil Conservation lots of times does that pretty much for free too.

Chaz Bates – Yes, and those agencies and a whole host of other ones are identified in the restoration plan portion of the Shoreline Master Program. It just ended up that we had to force that upon the citizens opposed to the city taking that on. You mentioned about cleaning out the creek. It was actually mentioned earlier at a joint meeting that the best way to really clean out the creek is to plant native vegetation trees. Most of the vegetation that is growing in the creek is Reed Canary Grass, and the only real way to get rid of it is to shade it out. Shade trees like Red-Osier Dogwood, Cottonwoods, those types of things. There have been some studies done, you can burn it, dig it up, cover it up, and then burn it again, but they have shown that basically the easiest way…is to shade it out.

Dale Nielsen – The willow trees they tend to have the…roots come out…invade the creek, and they will close off a creek.

Chaz Bates – That is where it comes in handy to identify because not all willows are the same, and not all willows are native to creeks…who went on that tour with me, do you remember what that willow was that Doug Pineo was pointing out? It was the shallow, it wasn’t like the droopy one, it was kind of more like a bushy looking thing.

Irv Schick – It had a very compact root… it was not invading; there are species that stay out.

Dale Nielsen – It would helpful for you to have how far away from the creek…you can plant these things, if you know how far the root extends out so you could not make trouble for yourself when you do it.

Chaz Bates – And actually I think that is one of the proposed restoration activities in the Shoreline Master Program is to develop a brochure…which trees to plant, where to plant them, and how to plant them, but I don’t think it will be done as part of this program, mostly it is kind of hard to fit in there and it requires a little bit more expertise than I have and perhaps we can have somebody volunteer their time to identify…

Chairman Bristol – Do you want to continue addressing some of these other…

Chaz Bates – All I have is the grandfather…but we kind of talked about that when we were talking about the nonconforming uses. Was there anything that I missed that you desperately wanted addressed? I know you guys spoke way more than what I just mentioned.

Chairman Bristol – Other questions of planning commission members, of staff, or of those that presented? We are still in the public testimony part of the hearing so if there is anybody that wants to speak that hasn’t spoken, you can speak now.

Barbara Nelson – Court Street, Chewelah, Washington – I would like to better understand the role of the state and the hearing that was mentioned, and what place this is going to be in the state rules.

Chaz Bates – The process is that jurisdictions adopt the Shoreline Master Programs, and the way that it is worded is that it is a state document, with local enforcement. Kind of quirky if you ask me, but what happens after city council approves the Shoreline Master Program is it goes to the Department of Ecology for review to make sure that it is consistent with state law, and they either write up just like the city does, an ordinance adopting it, and I don’t know where at in state law that it goes, or they say we need to have a hearing because you guys didn’t really address some of the issues that we thought you needed to, we need to have additional input, and so they can hold a hearing, and that hearing will be here in Chewelah. Everybody that came to the earlier ones or that hasn’t been to any of the earlier ones can come and participate in that hearing just like a local hearing and provide comments. At that point they will adopt it, or deny it, and send it back to the city to modify and change.

Barbara Nelson – So then at the point that Ecology goes through their rule making process, which is what you have described which includes a public hearing, and it becomes state law, and it will either go into the, I am more familiar with the Clean Air Act, but this would be going toward the water side of their authority, that would make it state law with the city enforcing it, and some of these things that you have been talking about where the nonconforming use and the urban commercial which has parking lots without an opportunity to have any kind of a 50’ setback or plant trees or whatever along a lot of this area, if they didn’t change that would they be against the state law then?

Chaz Bates – Let me rephrase the question to make sure I understand, you are asking…

Barbara Nelson – At the point that it is approved by Ecology, it is accepted it becomes state law and the city enforces then enforces state law, which is fine as long as it is something that will be compatible with the city that we have. I mean everything in it not just some of it, not with a lot of things, well, if something happens than you are going to have to change it, but once it is in state law you don’t have the ability to go to the city council and get a lot of variances or do you have an ability to get variances after it is a state law?

Chaz Bates – This is an important point that you bring up. First, if Ecology approves it, it becomes state law. Any time that we amend it, Ecology has to approve that amendment. There is something called the Substantial Shoreline Development Permit which also needs to be approved by the Department of Ecology. There are Shoreline Variances which need to be approved by Department of Ecology, and Shoreline Conditional Use Permits need to be approved by Department of Ecology. It is a weird animal, shoreline master programs, because there is a lot of local control, so if you can get your Shoreline Master Program passed by the Department of Ecology, any sort of regulations that follow from that unless you are totally flying in the face of the Shoreline Master Program are going to be approved by the Department of Ecology. Now the nonconforming use provisions, you kind of mentioned that briefly, are totally separate and outside Ecology’s jurisdiction, so we can change that without their approval.

Barbara Nelson – And this 18.12.110 is in this document?

Chaz Bates – No, it is actually in the Chewelah Municipal Code. It is not in the Shoreline Master Program. It is something that we are not amending right now, and that is why it would take a bit of faith on your part as citizens to say, okay, they are going to look at these nonconforming use provisions if that is giving you a lot of heartache, and I know it has, not only in the Shoreline Master Program but in other parts of the city that is 50%...but it is not part of the Shoreline Master Program, it is in the Chewelah Municipal Code.

Barbara Nelson – So, my comment to the final draft document is that I hope everyone really understands that it is going to be state law in the end, and you don’t want to be setting up something that you are going to want to change later. Thank you.

Chairman Bristol – Anyone else that hasn’t presented that wants to present or does anyone want to add further testimony? This is the point where we decide if we continue the hearing or move toward a recommendation to city council?

Motion

Irv Schick – I move that we continue the hearing to the next meeting.

Kadya Hugus seconded the motion.

Gaylea Nolander – I just wanted clarification, do you want to keep the public testimony portion open?

Planning Commission replied yes.

Gaylea Nolander – That hearing will be on September 21, 2006 at 7:00 P.M.

Vote

Planning Commission by voice vote unanimously approved continuing the Shoreline Master Program public hearing, including public testimony and public comments, to the next planning commission meeting on September 21, 2006 at 7:00 P.M.

Irv Schick – Even though we continued the public hearing part of it can we sort out and make sure where we are headed with Chaz on that…

Chairman Bristol – If you want to get clarity, yes, let’s go ahead and do that…let’s keep it with what we have been working on.

Irv Schick – I just want to make sure that we are going to look at the bottom end of Chewelah Creek down there where that urban conservancy is, and we are going to look at the setbacks for the paving, and is there anything else?

Chaz Bates – Comments from Doug Pineo at Department of Ecology.

Irv Schick – So those are the three primary things.

Chairman Bristol – And then Chaz was going to review the whole document to make sure when that map designation changed that something else didn’t need to change with that.

· Public Hearing

Planning Commission Decision

Site Plan Review

Applicant: Chewelah School District #36 (Jenkins High School)

Project Location: 702 E. Lincoln, Chewelah WA. NE corner of Jenkins High School.

Project Description: Installation of a portable classroom on the northeast end of Jenkins High School.

Exhibits 5 through 11 are attached hereto, incorporated herein and made a part of these minutes as though fully set forth.

Exhibit List

(5) Application

(6) Site Plan

(7) Letter dated 06-09-06 from Chewelah School District

(8) Letter dated 07-06-06 from Chewelah School District

(9) Notice of Application, Public Hearing & SEPA Determination

(10) Staff Report

(11) Public Hearing Sign-In Sheet

Summary

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

Chairman Bristol opened the public hearing at 8:03 P.M. and set forth the format that would be followed. There were no objections to his participation as Chairman. 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 August 7, 2006 attached hereto as Exhibit 10 and incorporated herein as though fully set forth.

Background

The applicant is proposing to install a portable classroom on the northeast end of Jenkins High School. This building would be approximately 1,792 square feet. The site preparation will include removal of sod and up to 12” of dirt. The site will have a fabric barrier and compacted gravel installed in preparation for the installation of the facility. Other work will include electrical service with sewer and water supply lines. The plan is to use this building for four to five years, and then to either relocate or sell the building.

The City’s official critical areas map indicates there is a floodplain on the property. However, the building site is located outside the floodplain. 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, State Law, and the Chewelah Public Participation Policy, Notice was given in regard to SPR-06-06 as follows:

Notice was posted on July 26, 2006 on the project site at three different locations.

Notice was mailed on July 26, 2006 to property owners within 300 feet, not including street rights-of-way, of the boundaries of the property which is the 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.

Application and supporting documents were distributed on July 27, 2006 to City Departments for review and comments.

Beginning on July 31, 2006 the application and supporting documents were available for public review at City Hall, Room 107. Copies of those items were available for public review at the planning commission hearing on August 17, 2006.

Notice was posted on July 31, 2006 on the City website.

Notice was posted on August 3, 2006 at both entrances to City Hall, City Hall Official Bulletin Board, Library, AmericanWest Bank, and Post Office.

Notice was published in the Chewelah Independent on August 3, 2006.

Application and supporting documents were distributed on August 3, 2006 to Planning Commission, City Administrator, and Mayor.

Analysis

The property is located within the 100-year floodplain as identified by the Flood Rate Insurance Map dated February 5, 1986. The building footprint is not in the floodplain as shown on the site plan. Thomason Creek’s historic course ran through the site, but has since been diverted and put into a culvert.

The R-1 zone permits accessory structures. The proposed project meets the R-1 zoning district standards, lot coverage, setbacks and use provisions.

City Staff/ Department Heads

No comments from city staff or the technical review committee were received regarding the applicant’s site plan review.

Findings for Site Plan Review (Section 18.16.040(C) (CMC)

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.

Accessory classrooms are a permitted use in the R-1 zoning district provided they are built in conformance with the applicable development standards. This project does conform to the zoning standards. 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 building footprint is located outside the floodplain area. The critical areas map does not indicate any additional critical areas. This avoids impacts to both critical resources and floodplain areas.

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

The accessory building is consistent with the existing high school use on the property and does not negatively affect the surrounding properties. The placement of the building will help to minimize any negative aesthetic impact.

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

The proposed accessory classroom will have no detrimental affect 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 in the environmental checklist or mentioned in the determination of non-significance. Actually this project was exempt from SEPA requirements due to its size, square footage requirements.

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 accessory classroom does not impact the critical resource area and allows for reasonable use of adjacent lands.

Recommendation

Staff recommends that the planning commission approve this site plan review in accordance with the findings contained in this memo.

Bill Davies – I read this a couple of weeks ago, and after reading it I was kind of curious, it is not within 200’ of the creek, right?

Chaz Bates – Correct, well the parcel is.

Bill Davies – And it is a temporary structure, why is it coming in front of the planning commission? What part of the law says it has to come here because I understood that we are supposed to be concerned with the first 200’ plus the critical zone, but since it is also only a temporary structure, and will be gone in a couple of years, why not just have the planning department issue a conditional use permit?

Chaz Bates – A couple things to address there. The existing adopted law for the City of Chewelah says that any project that occurs within 200’ of a critical area, and that 200’ includes any portion of a parcel, if a parcel is affected by the 200’, it needs to come through a site plan review. A site plan review process is an approval process by the planning commission. We did allow a while ago some provisions for certain uses to be allowed just administratively, site plan review process, I was trying to remember, 20% increase in size…, obviously this is bigger than that, that is why it is here in front of us. A conditional use permit is also an approval process by the planning commission, not the planning department.

Chairman Bristol – When there is a temporary classroom or a temporary building, is there a sunset clause on what that means, can it be here for 20 years, even if it says 4?

Chaz Bates – I thought about that and I was leaving that to the planning commission’s discretion. The applicant is here this evening, you may want to ask him…portable classrooms really varies on the population I am assuming and the number of people…coming into the community. I didn’t really find it necessary to limit it by giving a number of years, but that of course is a condition that the planning commission can do.

Irv Schick – Comment, there are portable classrooms in Seattle that have been there for 40 years practically now. They really are a mess. They burn them down ever so often.

Chairman Bristol – And this may not be part of it, but I did have some questions. Requirements are reasonably strict for school educational facilities for fire safety alarms, evacuation, sprinkler systems, how does this portable classroom, how do these fit into that, and maybe applicant, or maybe even Irv can explain that, most of the buildings are sprinkled buildings with alarms, evacuation process, and maybe John Polm can address that also.

Irv Schick – There would probably be some allowances made based on its size and its separation, but otherwise it would have to meet all codes applicable to that size of classroom, not just a school, but that size of meeting place.

Chaz Bates – And remember that Dave Jones, the building official, is actually going to issue the building permit, provided that you approve this location…

Chairman Bristol – And that was a question more out of curiosity.

Irv Schick – I don’t remember what the limitation is for sprinklers, the square footage for the individually separated classrooms, I don’t remember them off hand.

Chairman Bristol – I look always at the extreme, what is to say that your town can’t pass a bond to get a real school, so you link 10 of these things together for the next 40 years with no sprinklers and a mess.

Irv Schick – Eventually you are going to exceed your square footage without separation.

Chairman Bristol – So every single one has to be separated by a certain fire safety?

Irv Schick – Basically, yes, you are going to need separation for the square footage of the area for access and if you add one unto the other one, you are essentially doing a remodel, so your existing codes at the time will then come into affect because you are changing 50% of the value.

Chairman Bristol – Other questions of staff? Are there any petitions or communications to be presented?

Gaylea Nolander advised she received no communications.

Chairman Bristol – The applicant may speak to the proposal.

Applicant

John Polm – Chewelah, Washington – …I am the current building principal at the High School. I came as a representative of the school this evening in case there were any questions that you had. The reason, I think stated, for the portables is increased enrollment at the high school, which our projection numbers are 4 to 5 years out will dip back down in enrollment and we probably won’t need the portables. The plan is that those would be put to another use in the district, don’t know for sure what those would be at this time, or sold down the road. It will get us through an enrollment rise. They are located in a spot we thought would be a nice spot temporarily where when we take them out we could put sod back in and cover things up…

Chairman Bristol – I do have one question about fire safety and evacuation, are you regulated on how these are applied to the rest of your facility?

John Polm – Yes, they have to be integrated into the fire system that we have in the building, but it won’t have sprinklers like the rest of the building does, but it has to be integrated into the alarm system on its own kind of substation. In fact the fire guys were here today actually looking at that aspect of it.

Public Testimony

Dale Nielsen – As for the sprinklers not being in the portable, it is really not that hard to go and run a pipe across the top of some of those sprinkler heads and just go ahead and hook it up to the water system on that if you are digging in there anyway for wires and stuff, and they should also be looking at how they are going to seal the ground from having moisture migrating up and making a mold problem in the building. Another thing to look at is how energy efficient is the portable. It might be okay to have a less than optimal energy plan for the building, it might be there for how many years even though they are planning that, if there are a lot of people moving over here from Seattle, that may change the demographic projection quite rapidly. So that needs to be looked at long term, if you are stuck with a permanent maybe put like a tennis court or something underneath it so if they do pull if off it is just right there ready to…at the same time.

Chaz Bates – Just to address your issue this does go through a building permit process as well, and right now we are just discussing basically is it appropriately located. You could address your concerns to Dave Jones, Building Official, but I am positive he will be looking into the most recent and up to date regulations as far as the actual construction of the building.

Chairman Bristol – I probably opened that can of worms by my own curiosity .

Irv Schick – Just for most people’s information, the sprinkler system in the school is probably an engineered system to get 15 gallons a minute out of the farthest head, and so it is designed to do that. To add something to it would require going clear back and putting in a whole new riser, clear back to the sprinkler system, and then increasing the…of the alarm check valves and things like that, or bringing water into the classrooms and then putting in an independent system, and for two rooms it is probably pretty expensive for the protection and the square footage is pretty small, the number of students in there is pretty small, so I think they are pretty much exempt by the building code.

Chairman Bristol closed the public testimony portion of the public hearing at 8:24 P.M.

Motion

Daniel Voltz – I move that we approve the Chewelah School District’s Site Plan Review taking into account the facts and findings contained in the Staff Report dated August, 2006.

Kadya Hugus seconded the motion.

Decision

The following planning commission members voted yes by roll call vote: Kadya Hugus, Irv Schick, Bill Davies, Daniel Voltz, and Tom Bristol, unanimously approving the Site Plan Review with the following findings of fact:

Findings for Site Plan Review (Section 18.16.040(C) (CMC)

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 proposed accessory classroom will have no detrimental affect 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.

The proposed location of the accessory classroom does not impact the critical resource area and allows for reasonable use of adjacent lands.

· Communications and Announcements

City Council/Planning Commission Workshop – Chairman Bristol reported as follows: There was a city council/planning commission workshop held from 6:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. tonight. Because of low attendance, no workshops will be scheduled for August or September.

· Reports from Members and Committees – None.

· Reports from City Administrator and Staff

I-933 – Chaz Bates gave a brief overview of the impact this initiative would have on the City of Chewelah from a planning perspective. Gaylea will forward to planning commission members websites for and against I-933.

· OLD BUSINESS

Land Use Fees/Impact Fees – Gaylea advised she had distributed copies of Land Use and Impact Fees from Association of Washington Cities to city council and planning members. Planning commission discussed land use fees and suggested this would be an appropriate topic for joint workshops between city council and planning commission. It was suggested that background work on what different land use items actually cost the city to perform would be helpful.

· NEW BUSINESS

Existing Land Use Map - Chaz Bates reported that on August 2, 2006 a land use inventory was completed. He had a map on display showing the actual land use for each parcel. This is the first step of the comprehensive plan process. He has completed a grant application to CTED for the comp plan update. Chaz asked that comprehensive plan amendments be put on the next planning commission agenda. Chaz asked the planning commission if they wanted to review the comp plan by elements or by policies. Discussion will be conducted at the next planning commission meeting on the process that will be followed with suggestions from the planning commission. Chairman Bristol would also like review by public comment or public interest that has happened since the last revision. Chaz advised that he is working on coming up with a way to intake those public comments. He has been telling people to write letters to the city administrator or to the Mayor identifying desired comprehensive plan map changes or text changes. He is going to move toward a more formal process and have them fill out a general land use application, a more uniform way of collecting information, attach a letter and identify on the map where and how they want it changed. Chaz will contact the people that have already commented. Gaylea will be doing the intake for the comp plan amendments.

· Public Comments – None.

· Adjournment – Daniel Voltz moved with a second from Irv Schick to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M.

Respectfully submitted by:

__________________________________ __________________________________

Gaylea Nolander, Executive Secretary Thomas Bristol, Chairman

Exhibits are available for review at City Hall, Room 107

Minutes approved on September 21, 2006