2006 Minutes
Regular Meeting Minutes: October 19, 2006
By Gaylea Nolander
Oct 26, 2006, 11:30

·        Call to Order/Roll Call – The regular meeting of the Chewelah Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Tom Bristol on October 19, 2006 at 7:05 P.M.  The following planning commission members were present: Tom Bristol, Bill Davies, Kevin Herda, Alice Crowley, and Doug Sassman.   Excused absences:  Kadya Hugus, Irv Schick, and Daniel Voltz.  Also present: Clancy Bauman, Mayor; Curt Kelling, City Administrator; Chaz Bates, Planner; and Gaylea Nolander, Executive Secretary.

·        City Administrator Introduction – Mayor Bauman introduced Curt Kelling, new City Administrator for the City of Chewelah.  The planning commission welcomed Curt. 

·        Agenda Additions, Deletions, and/or Changes – Doug Sassman suggested that  discussion on Chewelah Municipal Code 18.12.110 Nonconforming Uses be moved from Old Business and inserted before the public hearing, because there were several citizens in the audience interested in this matter.  There were no objections to this request, so the matter will be moved as requested.   

·        Minutes – Doug Sassman moved with a second from Bill Davies to approve the September 21, 2006 minutes.  All in favor.

·        Public Comments – None.

·        Chewelah Municipal Code 18.12.110 Nonconforming Uses

(Summary – Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend to City Council the following amendment to Chewelah Municipal Code 18.12.110: In the event that a nonconforming structure is destroyed by fire, flood, or act of nature, restoration of that structure may be allowed provided such restoration shall be initiated, as evidenced by the issuance of a valid building permit, within twelve (12) months of such damage occurring).

Exhibit 1 - Staff Report entitled Nonconforming Uses, dated October 19, 2006, attached hereto, incorporated herein, and made a part of these minutes as though fully set forth. 

Chaz Bates advised that after discussion planning commission may be asked to send a recommendation to city council.  Chaz made the following comments:

At the last planning commission meeting you asked me to come up with some alternatives or some options for you to consider and discuss about how to address this issue.  The Chewelah Municipal Code defines a nonconforming use or structure as a building, structure, or land use which was lawfully established, existing and maintained at the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title but which, because of the application of such ordinance, no longer conforms to the regulations prescribed in this title for the district in which it is located. 

A couple of options we talked about at the last planning commission meeting was amending the Chewelah Municipal Code, replacing the X in the use matrix table with a P, basically outright permitting single-family homes in the R-B District.  This alternative would require a comprehensive plan amendment, as well as a zoning text amendment.  The reason for that is the comprehensive plan designation policies really don’t support single-family residences in the Retail-Business Zone…

The second idea was to allow single-family homes as a conditional use permit in the R-B District and that is already covered within the existing code.  Attached also in your packet was a copy of the municipal code dealing with nonconforming uses.  Exhibit 2 – Chewelah Municipal Code 18.12.110 Nonconforming Uses and Structures, attached hereto, incorporated herein, and made a part of these minutes as though fully set forth.  Nonconforming uses in a zone are allowed through a conditional use permit and a change to the structure itself requires a variance. 

The final option we talked about is amending the nonconforming use provision…This is the most expedient and reasonable way to address the recent nonconforming concerns.  The amendment would amend Chewelah Municipal Code 18.12.110(E)(2), which is the nonconforming use section, as follows: In the event that a nonconforming structure is destroyed by any means other than fire, flood, or act of nature, to an extent of more than fifty percent of its actual value based on the assessed valuation at the time of its destruction, the structure, the use, and the lot upon which it is located shall thereafter conform to all requirements of the zone within which it is located, unless the structure is designated as an historic structure in which case the structure can be rebuilt. 

The new addition there is other than by fire, flood, or act of nature.  In addition to that small phrasing In the event that a nonconforming structure is destroyed by fire, flood, or act of nature, restoration of that structure may be allowed provided such a restoration shall be initiated, as evidenced by the issuance of a valid building permit, within six (6) months of such damage occurring.

I met with the city administrator and mayor to discuss this issue and they asked me to ask the planning commission to review and discuss this and make a recommendation to city council.  Traditionally I know that we have had our hearings on legislative matters before the planning commission, but the municipal code does allow for city administrator initiated issues to go forward from recommendation of planning commission to city council.  The only requirement is that you have findings and I have findings here after you are done with the discussion. 

Kevin Herda – What if a person in this zone wanted to add on, they still couldn’t?

Chaz Bates – The existing code allows people to add on if they go through a variance process. 

Chairman Bristol – What are the limits to adding on?

Chaz Bates – The Type I Variance is an administrative approval of 10% and then anything more than 10% of the quantitative zone change is a hearing that comes before this body.

Kevin Herda – That seems new, because you remember when that guy was here with all of those kids that lived over there, and he wanted to add onto his house, and it seemed like he couldn’t do anything but wait for the comp plan review. 

Chaz Bates – I vaguely remember that conversation, but it is not really a change in the code.  It says any nonconforming structure can be changed following a variance procedure…

Curt Kelling – I might be able to help you with that too. I think the issue there wasn’t the ability to do it, but the hang up seems to be in talking with several financial institutions over the last two weeks, that you couldn’t get financing from the bank to do the project as long as the condition existed that they couldn’t replace the buildings… 

Chairman Bristol – And that brought up one of my questions, this changes things a little bit, but it still makes it nonconforming, did that make lending agents available to people that want to buy a home in a nonconforming area?

Chaz Bates – As Curt had mentioned, the issue with the lending companies, and he may have to come up and talk about this since I actually didn’t call them, but my experience in dealing with this issue in other places…is the lending agency will ask the City to say, yes, you can rebuild in the event of a fire, flood, or natural event, provided that you do that within six months.  Essentially I think the lending agencies are just hesitant to lend on something or insure something that can’t be rebuilt, and this amendment clearly allows the rebuilding of a structure. 

Chairman Bristol – If you have had discussions with lending agencies…they are still going to be nonconforming.

Curt Kelling – Correct, they haven’t had any problem with the nonconforming use, in fact up until this point I believe they have been reviewing them and actually letting them occur.  I think the financial institutions have started looking at their own risks.  They have actually tightened up their own requirements. Basically the three that I have talked to have said that exactly what they want is some reassurance from the municipality that there is an ability to rebuild it, beyond that there wasn’t any question on the financing.  Where they picked it up at is when the appraiser came through and picked up the zoning, they came in and looked at the nonconforming use code and noted it on the appraisal for the property, and at that point the financial institution was ready to back away from the deal. 

Chairman Bristol – We have people here tonight that are in the middle of possibly selling or wanting to sell and if they have experience with that maybe they would like to share that also. 

Curt Kelling – That would be wonderful, I know it has been getting a lot of phone time on my desk. 

Chairman Bristol – Is six months, is that a lock in or can we consider a year?  Say if your house burned down and you are totally disrupted and you have to get plans done, you have to get everything approved, get financing together, and maybe it doesn’t come together, say it happens this time of the year, six months…building season, it might not be possible for something to happen in that period.

Chaz Bates – This is just a recommendation at this point.  I had a suspicion the timeframe would be discussed, this was just pulled out of another jurisdiction as an indication for a timeline.  Interesting enough, at the last planning commission meeting it was mentioned that Colville had solved this problem, but Colville’s regulations read almost nearly identical to what we have prior to this amendment.  I don’t how long it takes to get a building permit, so I was guessing six months.

Chairman Bristol – …it throws the burden to the building inspector to be part of that time loop, so if he was busy and it took a month to get to that, and they were pushing at the end of their six months, I don’t think it is enough time from my experience with working with projects…

Bill Davies – Could we just change this six months here to twelve?

Chairman Bristol – It is open to discussion…

Chaz Bates – I don’t think there is anything necessarily wrong with having a year.  I chose six months because I figured that was an indication that they were serious about rebuilding the nonconforming use. 

Chairman Bristol – Just like I was saying if your life was totally disrupted by the whole place being burnt down, months could go by before somebody could get it together to get a structure going on that property.  

Kevin Herda – I think it sounds great, a quick fix. 

Chairman Bristol – I don’t see any problems with it at all, and I agree it covers the problem that we have seen here with the documentation and gives people primarily what they want without going to comp plan amendments and changing the municipal charts.  It still maintains both what the comp plan and the zoning is trying to do, which is keep the business district strong and maybe not too much filtering in of homes. 

Bill Davies – Would it be appropriate to put a motion on the floor to change that to twelve months?

Chairman Bristol – You can suggest that we change that but you said you had a proposal to…

Chaz Bates – I have a list of findings if you are willing to make a recommendation to city council. 

Chairman Bristol – Do we have further discussion on it?  Is everybody okay with changing the six months to twelve months?

Alice Crowley – Either that or put a beginning date, six months to begin.

Chairman Bristol – That would be even more restrictive. 

Bill Davies – Twelve months gives them enough time to get over the shock.

Chairman Bristol – And get through winter…and also the time that it takes the building official to review plans, and if it has to go back and forth a time or two to get approved, then it would allow for all of those timing issues.  It sounds like we are in agreement with that so what were your findings of fact?

Chaz Bates – Essentially for the planning commission to make a recommendation to city council you need to find the following in an affirmative manner:

Findings for amending CMC 18.12.110:

(1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the intent and goals of the Chewelah Comprehensive Plan and meet the requirements and intent of the Chewelah Municipal Code.

The proposed amendment is consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan and development regulations because it protects the welfare of the community.  By allowing nonconforming structures to rebuild the amendment furthers the policy 3.6 intended to protect established neighborhoods and protect private property rights.  Additionally, the amendment establishes fair, equal, and predictable protection is in part the intent of the comprehensive plan and development regulations.

(2) The proposed amendment is consistent with applicablestate and federal laws and regulations.

The proposed amendment is consistent with federal and state laws.  Generally speaking, local communities have the authority to regulate nonconforming uses and structures.  Many local jurisdictions have similar provisions to allow the rebuilding of a nonconforming structure in case of accidental destruction.

(3) The City and other responsible agencies and special zones will be able to supply the development resulting from the amended comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance with adequate roads and streets for access and circulation, water supply, storm drainage, sanitary sewage disposal, emergency services, and environmental protection.

The proposed amendment does not change the needs for roads, water, storm drainage, sewer, emergency services, or environmental protection.  The proposal protects existing development and allows the rebuilding of that development in case of accidental destruction, which does not increase the demands on urban like services. 

(4)  The amendment adequately mitigates impacts identified through the SEPA review process, if applicable.

A SEPA threshold determination has not been made at the time of reporting.  However, initial review of the proposed amendment indicates that this proposal will not have significantly adverse environmental impacts.  A SEPA threshold determination and comment period shall be issued prior to the city council hearing. 

(5) The amendment is beneficial to the public health, safety, and welfare, and is in the public interest.

The purpose of the nonconforming use and structure provisions is to allow the continued use of that use or structure even if it does not conform to regulations.  Generally, the intent of nonconforming provisions is to protect property owners as land use regulations for a jurisdiction evolve over time.  The proposed amendment creates predictability and security for the public in the use of land within the City of Chewelah.

Chairman Bristol – Do we have any citizen input about this? 

Joanne Blubaugh – We are very pleased.  Just for your information, it doesn’t have much to do with it, but the lady I spoke about at the last planning commission meeting, the German lady, she is back in Germany, and her house closed today.  The gentlemen that bought it paid cash so we didn’t have to worry about the lending institutions, but the lending institutions are now saying that they do want something in writing saying just exactly what you are going to do and that will satisfy them…

Kevin Herda – I have one more question for you, Chaz, the variance thing, I just want to make sure it is available for everyone because remember last month when the lady in here was talking about adding on a bathroom, that was never brought up that she could do that.

Chaz Bates – Yes, I remember that conversation actually, and I think at that point in time I didn’t want to confuse the process, and I probably should have confused the process.  I should of come up to her afterwards and said by the way a variance…I didn’t want to open up a can of worms saying you can make additions…if you go through the variance procedure and confuse that with nonconforming uses that would be permitted through a conditional use permit and actually rebuilding something.  At the time of the conversation, and that could have been an error on my part, and I apologize for that, but a variance is an option open to amending or enlarging a nonconforming structure.  I can give you the citation for that if you would like. 

Kevin Herda – No, but if it is under 10% it can be done administratively?

Chaz Bates – …If you want to enlarge or alter it which increases the nonconformity you have to go through a variance process.  The variance process has two processes open to it: (1) Administrative Variance, less than 10%; or (2) Variance more than 10% would be a public hearing in front of the planning commission.

Chairman Bristol – The other thing to realize is a variance is a particular kind of animal and it has certain requirements. It also has to stand up to findings of facts.

Kevin Herda – At least it is an option. 

Chairman Bristol – It is an option, but it is there if there is an incredibly unique situation that somebody has with the peculiarities of that property, so it is not something that is going to be given out very easily.  So if that ever becomes a problem it is probably cleaner to look at the zoning regulations versus just saying you can get a variance.  It used to be, particularly when Chewelah was doing things without really following the laws, variances were granted for many things much easier than they are now.  So it really has to stand up to scrutiny…and if you go back to the municipal code and read the definition of variances, that is what you have to abide by.

Motion

Doug Sassman – I make a motion to make a recommendation that this policy with the findings, 3.6, and municipal code 18.12.110 to city council to pass it forward, and also add in the twelve months for building.

Chairman Bristol – And do you want to cite the facts as stated by staff?

Doug Sassman – Yes. 

Kevin Herda seconded the motion.

Chairman Bristol – We have a motion and a second to move forward the recommendation to city council to add this information to the nonconforming use section in the municipal code.

Decision

The following planning commission members voted yes by roll call vote: Bill Davies, Kevin Herda, Alice Crowley, Doug Sassman, and Tom Bristol,   unanimously approving recommendation of the amendment to city council.

·        Public Hearing Continued from June 15, 2006 to July 20, 2006; from July 20, 2006 to August 17, 2006; from August 17, 2006 to September 21, 2006; from September 21, 2006 to October 19, 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.

Exhibit 3 - Public Hearing Sign-In Sheet, attached hereto, incorporated herein, and made a part of these minutes as though fully set forth.

SUMMARY

(Public testimony received from: Bob Playfair). Planning Commission closed the public hearing.  Upon the direction from Department of Ecology and Recommendation from the Planning Commission, the Local Streams of Significance will be removed from the Draft Shoreline Master Program.  Chaz Bates, City Planner, will develop a Draft Shoreline Master Program with the above noted changes.  Upon completion of said draft a planning commission public hearing will be set.)

Chairman Bristol reconvened the public hearing for the Shoreline Master Program at 7:34 P.M.  

Staff Report

Chaz Bates – I didn’t produce a written staff report as I did last month mostly because nothing has really changed.  I think the primary two issues are still what we need to talk about.  We were talking about the removal of Thomason and Paye Creeks from the Shoreline Master Program and perhaps change the way critical areas are dealt with in the Shoreline Master Program.  The first one, removal of Thomason and Paye Creeks came from Department of Ecology Attorney General. It is very clear that in the Shoreline Master Program as drafted that these are not included as part of the Shoreline Master Program, they are treated as Streams of Local Significance, however, it is felt by Ecology that it is a bit confusing and I think it was suggested to look at how to remove those, how much work would be entailed in removing those, and about how long it would take.  Are there other questions that you had that I am not recalling off of the top of my head? 

Kevin Herda – Doug Pineo.  You were supposed to ask him what he thought about it.

Chaz Bates – He told me to talk to him later, and he hasn’t called me back.  I saw him at the state conference. 

Chairman Bristol – I emailed Doug Pineo the morning after our last meeting too, and never got a response, which surprised me.

Chaz Bates – He is usually pretty good, so I don’t know what is going on but he mentioned we had been working on it for awhile.  He reiterated the fact that it might be confusing to people even though it is a pretty innovative idea, but that is about all that I got out of him.  I had about three minutes with him.

Chairman Bristol – When we first started this procedure Doug Pineo was onboard with the idea of including all of our waterways into one document so it could be easily found, as was Bill Grimes, who was more active here at that time.

Bill Davies – I was originally under the impression that Chewelah Creek was mandatory and the other two were up to the discretion of the City whether to include them or not.  I personally can’t see any reason to exclude them unless somebody can come up with a very good reason to exclude Thomason and Paye, I would say leave them in, leave it alone.

Chaz Bates – There are a couple of things I think might be good reasons.  The first being that the Department of Ecology will not sign off on our Shoreline Master Program unless we remove them; and the second is we might not be able to get it adopted if we don’t leave them out.

Bill Davies – What is this, it is up to the City whether to include them or not, we had that option.

Chaz Bates – What we call Streams of Local Significance, the State Department of Ecology has nothing to do with the regulation of Thomason and Paye Creeks, so that is where our discussion comes in is that we would like to include them.  They are not saying we can’t regulate them, they are saying we need to regulate them outside of our Shoreline Master Program.  I apologize for jumping ahead here by asking you if I left anything out that you want me to talk about, but that is what I would suggest is if we do pull Thomason and Paye Creeks out, what we do is we include those regulations and that science in some other form of protection probably later on down the line when we update our development regulations, probably the critical areas ordinance.

Bill Davies – I don’t want to see it going later on down the line because they get lost.  We either do it all at once or we leave it alone is the way I look at it right now. 

Kevin Herda – But if we don’t pull it out it is never going to get through…

Chaz Bates – It is possible that the Department of Ecology would refuse to adopt our Shoreline Master Program.

Bill Davies – Possible, not definite.

Chaz Bates – I don’t make that decision.  I am not the decision maker here.

Chairman Bristol – First off, it has to go from here to City Council, once City Council finds out that it is probably not even going to pass the scrutiny of Department of Ecology…(interrupted)

Bill Davis – Which we don’t know, so don’t say probably not, just questionable.

Chaz Bates – The Attorney General for the Department of Ecology said, at the last meeting I passed along the email as part of the packet, that it is a laudable thing to include the Streams of Local Significance, but he doesn’t feel it is an appropriate place to have it in the Shoreline Master Program. 

Bill Davies – I would suggest then that we have something in place at the same time to cover those two waterways, because if we are going to put it off down the line it is never going to get done.

Chaz Bates – Just as a side note, Paye and Thomason Creek are currently protected under the critical areas ordinance or frequently flooded areas. 

Chairman Bristol – But what we haven’t used is the new science, all of the work that we did for this document.  I think what Bill is saying is that we don’t want that to get lost. We want that to get expediently included in the critical areas ordinance.

Chaz Bates – I understand that and within the next year we will be updating our critical areas ordinance, comprehensive plan and development regulations.  By state law 36.70A we are required to update our comprehensive plan development regulations, if necessary, every seven years.  I think that with the new science that we have found, based on the Shoreline Master Program, I am not going to forget, but maybe I won’t be here in a year I guess is what you are saying, but I think the majority of people and the city administration recognizes that a lot of science and hard work has gone into developing regulations that were developed for Thomason and Paye Creeks.  I don’t think they are going to be forgotten.

Chairman Bristol – And that started in 1991…(interrupted by Bill Davies)

Bill Davies - …another ten years…we already have violations on it and the first thing that is going to happen is the people that have complained about the violations are going to complain about a political cover-up. 

Chairman Bristol – It certainly is one option to send it forward to city council if there are motions and seconds and it votes that way to do that and see where it goes, but it may take an extra six months if that happens…

Kevin Herda – How long is it going to take to separate it out?

Chaz Bates – Two to three months.  What I guess I would recommend is that we don’t have a hearing, we close this public hearing because the document has actually changed quite a bit, not that much, but it is going to change enough that I think that we need to advertise a new public hearing and have that hearing not next month, but the following month, it would be December or January.

Chairman Bristol – What is the cost to the city to take this curve ball?

Chaz Bates – I estimate probably about forty hours and I didn’t calculate that out, I’m sorry. 

Kevin Herda – That is what my question is, how we went through all of this time, worked on it, and it has been reviewed by so many people and nobody but the Attorney General caught it at the ninth hour?  Is this the only plan that your office is doing?  It seems like somebody…should have said any Streams of Non-Significance, don’t put it in there, it is not going to get passed. 

Chaz Bates – You are the only jurisdiction that chose to include the Streams of Local Significance, as far as I know it is probably unique across the state, at least as far as putting it in the Shoreline Master Program.  I think most jurisdictions are going to be including these things as critical areas in their Critical Areas Ordinance.

Kevin Herda – I just wish we would have been advised of that earlier that we were the only one…

Chairman Bristol – We were actually advised to go this way.

Several conversations taking place at the same time (inaudible, unable to transcribe).

Chairman Bristol – I still think it is a good idea but it is not the expectation of the state.

Bill Davies – We don’t know that.

Chairman Bristol – We know that, because we have a letter from the Attorney General.

Chaz Bates – Just like an ordinance is reviewed by our City Attorney, the Shoreline Master Program is reviewed by their attorney, and if the attorney is not going to recommend adoption, then the City Staff is probably not going to stand up and say, well we should do it anyway.

Alice Crowley – Is there any way we can move this directly to our environmental department, our other control area, can we bodily take it and move it now, so that it is in our…

Chaz Bates – You mean move it to the Critical Areas Ordinance?

Alice Crowley – Yes, I think so, to the CAO, could we move it now, so it is right there?

Chaz Bates – I guess we could.  I am hesitant to do that, primarily because I think that the rest of the code and the comprehensive plan also need to be updated, because there are certain policy elements that are associated with Thomason and Paye Creek that were included in the Shoreline Master Program, remember we had the policy section and regulations section, I don’t really want to lose either of those things, and I think we could probably include the science, but then we wouldn’t have the backing of the comprehensive plan…I would say that it is on the agenda for part of the comprehensive plan update and we don’t forget about it because there are some policies that we need for the foundation to include it, those types of things in our Critical Areas Ordinance.

Alice Crowley – All right.  I am just trying to satisfy Bill’s objection to giving into our legals. 

Chairman Bristol – That was my concern too when I heard about it.  If we have to go this way, because we all would like to finally have a Shoreline Master Program, but we don’t want the loss of all of the public input that has been given to us about Thomason Creek to get lost.  Even in six months or a year things disappear, so I am in agreement if we could do this and roll it together, even if one is changing the Critical Areas Ordinance, and one is finally getting a Shoreline Master Plan adopted as expediently as we could.  Like you said, you could be gone next month, and then we are setting here, where is all of this information, and after working on this since 1991, I am pretty appalled at how long it takes to get stuff done.  It is not a personal criticism; it is just the arena it takes to get something as simple as how do we manage our creeks going through our City.  It should be something in my mind that four or five of you get together and hack it out and we are done in a week, instead of fifteen years.  I think there is some urgency to finally be done with it, and put all of this work into alignment in our regulations.

Bill Davies – I won’t object just so long as it can be done at the same time.  If you want to pull it out and put it in the other plan, fine, but it has got to be done at the same time, so that there is no time lag toward any additional violations, otherwise I will fight you all the way. 

Alice Crowley – I don’t think he can verbally do that, even as good as the computer is, I don’t think he can pull this all out and get it in there.

Chairman Bristol – Both of them, the CAO and SMP have different timeframes, but as long as they are moving concurrently, I would agree with that.

Bill Davies – That is what I am talking about, as long as it is moving concurrently, so there are no more violations…

Alice Crowley – How about if you watch and make sure that it is step by step.

Chairman Bristol – Let’s just do a supposition here, if the SMP gets done to the point where we see it is clean enough, and it has to go through some public hearings again, so let’s say three to four months is the earliest it would go back to city council, can you work to develop the CAO concurrently even if it is out of sync with some of the other things that we need to do, can that be done in that timeframe, or what is the timeframe on that, or what are our options there?

Bill Davies – If this is going to the critical areas, wouldn’t that be easier to move than the part that is going into the state?

Chairman Bristol – That is what I am asking Chaz.

Chaz Bates – Anything that amends the critical areas has to be reviewed too, but not necessarily approved by the state, unless of course, and this was the other issue that we still have to talk about tonight, how the critical areas are dealt with in the shoreline jurisdiction. As far as adoption occurring, I am not confident that we can get a new critical areas adopted at the same time as the Shoreline Master Program.  I think the Shoreline Master Program will be done first, but I have no problem, in fact I think it is a very good idea, to include discussion about the policies and such,…Thomason and Paye Creeks…the comprehensive plan as we are going through the update process.  In addition to making these changes, I was going to put myself on the agenda to give you an update every month.  I don’t know if I am answering your question, but I think the timeline for the critical areas update deal with more than just critical areas, they also deal with wetlands, geo-hazard areas, and none of that work has been started at this point.  I think that work would exceed the amount of work it would take to just pull Thomason and Paye Creeks out of the Shoreline Master Plan and get that through to city council for adoption. 

Bill Davies – Isn’t that up to the City, since they left it up to us to control, can’t we just put that in the critical area, and take it right to the city council?

Chaz Bates – At this point no recommendations have been made or no suggestions have been made to amend the Critical Areas Ordinance at this point officially from anywhere, other than the review and update as necessary of the comprehensive plan and development regulations, which that process is beginning to move.

Chairman Bristol – But that is an over a year process, right?

Chaz Bates - …probably, I am thinking about this time next year.

Chairman Bristol – Say there is something really important in the critical areas that we need to change, what would be the steps it took to get that done?

Chaz Bates – It would need to be initiated by the city or city council, and then we would put together an ordinance, you guys would have a hearing on, make a recommendation to city council, and then adoption. 

Kevin Herda – So we can do that with this, and then we can review the other critical areas later? 

Chaz Bates – I am probably going to need to ask Pat (Monasmith, City Attorney) about this.  I am a little hesitant to amend the critical areas, I guess technically we can, we can’t amend the comprehensive plan anymore than once a year.  I know you guys are anxious to move this forward and make sure that it gets put into there, but I am very hesitant to amend the Critical Areas Ordinance that will be amended later on next year…these issues that have come up or that the science has…for the Shoreline Master Program that we do it in March, that we do it again in September.

Chairman Bristol – So it requires a change to the comp plan.

Chaz Bates – It may, at this point I couldn’t say…

Chairman Bristol – If I remember, and we have been really cautious with the updates to the comp plan to make sure they always have language to protect our Streams of Significance, both statewide and local, so that wording is embedded in that document.

Chaz Bates – We added a number of new policies dealing with streams, and not only Shorelines of the State, but Streams of Local Significance.

Chairman Bristol – Because we were preparing to have the comp plan in alignment with development regulations and wherever Paye and Thomason Creeks were dealt with along with Chewelah Creek. 

Chaz Bates – At this point I would have to take a closer look at it, and I have not, to see if those policies are necessary to implement.  What we are really talking about when it comes down to development regulations is buffers, allowable uses are going to be pretty much similar, they already go through a site plan review process.  That process is to review it for frequently flooded areas, so we are talking about a natural riparian buffer I think is the most new thing for Thomason and Paye Creeks, which I don’t know if it is necessarily supported in the existing policies of the comprehensive plan, but it is supported in the draft policies of the Shoreline Master Program.

Bill Davies – I just don’t want to see it pulled out and get lost, I would just as soon see it stay in until provisions are made to switch it over, because if we pull it out, it is going to get lost.  It is going to be a year or two and there are going to be more violations.  I am against it. 

Chaz Bates – Anybody that is building within 200 feet of Paye and Thomason need to go through a Site Plan Review, or within the critical areas as identified on the map, need to go through a site plan review process.  This is already in place, and I know that has happened before without going through a site plan review process, and I don’t know if that is what you are getting at, or if there are other things going on.  There is nothing in here that really changed that is what I am saying.  There are buffers in here, but it is still saying within 200 feet you have to go through a site plan review process…if they are not going through that process for whatever reason, then this isn’t going to help us any.

Kevin Herda – So if we say pull it out, would we have a draft next month?

Chaz Bates – No.

Kevin Herda – Two months?

Chaz Bates – Yes.  You may have a draft next month, what I was expecting is I would report back to you next month and we would have a hearing in…

Kevin Herda – What would you report on if we didn’t have a draft?

Chaz Bates – I would report on progress and keep on track. 

Chairman Bristol – I think you are just sensing that after fifteen years, why isn’t it coming together, why at the eleventh hour are we having to absolutely revamp everything.  We are in the middle of the public hearing.  We can still have further discussion.

Kevin Herda – At what point can we just end the public hearing?

Chairman Bristol – We can make a motion to do that at anytime but it would probably have a motion along with it that we are going to make a motion that we go a different way to separate these streams from it.

Gaylea Nolander – Mr. Chairman, it was advertised that we were going to accept public testimony, the planning commission kept the public testimony portion of the public hearing open when they continued the public hearing at the last planning commission meeting.

Chairman Bristol – Maybe if we have some citizen input, it may make our direction a little clearer too.  Do we have any communications or petitions presented?  (None were brought before the commission).  At this time the floor is open for comments from the audience.  Anyone on the sign-up sheet we will take them in that order, or else we will go ahead and take hands from the floor after that list has been satisfied.  I think there are some names on here that might have to do with the earlier nonconforming use, but I am going read it and just let me know if you want to come up and testify.

Public Testimony

Eva Rainer – Declined testimony.

Joanne Blubaugh – No, I just wanted to hear.  I don’t have any comment.

Gary Plotts – (Did not come forward to the podium. Made comments from the back of the room).  I would like to be able to say something but I can’t hear enough what you guys are saying to even know what is going on here.  I know you have talked about Paye Creek and Thomason Creek, I don’t know whether a dog ran through it or...(inaudible).  It is not a funny thing to me.  You all have mikes in front of you, not a one of you is talking into them.  I don’t have any comment at this time.

Chairman Bristol – I am sorry you couldn’t hear. 

Bob Playfair – 905 E. Stingy Lane, Chewelah WA – The discussion on page 9, paragraph 2 and 3 of the Shoreline Management Plan, discusses shorelines of local significance.  It still is not separated, the shorelines covered by two separate state laws.  The Shoreline Management Act covered Chewelah Creek.  The Growth Management Act, Critical Areas Ordinance, covers Thomason and Paye Creeks.  The protection of the latter must be considered with the comprehensive plan process to have a Critical Areas Ordinance that is compliant with the comp plan and the zoning ordinance, and there may be another one too.  To prevent a Growth Management Act Hearings Board Appeal, I strongly recommend that the Commission remove all text language referring to Thomason and Paye Creeks, and the maps will also require the same changes.  Any questions?

Chairman Bristol – Is there anyone else that wants to testify that wasn’t signed up on this list?  (There was no further public testimony).  Planning commission or staff may ask questions or continue discussion on the subject.  So I guess the issues are: Try to push ahead as it is, or go ahead and change it and stop the public hearing, and continue with a new process to move forward with a SMP that does not include Thomason or Paye Creeks. 

Motion

Kevin Herda – I move that we close this public hearing and direct the city planner to remove Thomason and Paye Creeks from the Shoreline Master Program, and also to start working on the Critical Areas Ordinance, and give us a timeline when that could be completed by the next meeting.

Doug Sassman seconded the motion.         

Decision

Roll call vote was taken with the following planning commission members voting yes:  Bill Davies, Kevin Herda, Alice Crowley, Doug Sassman, and Tom Bristol. 

·        Communications and Announcements – None.

·        Reports from Members and Committees – None.

·        Reports from City Administrator and Staff

City Administrator Report – Curt Kelling, City Administrator, will be attending most of the planning commission meetings.  He is interested in planning.  He commented on I-933.   

·        OLD BUSINESS

Discussion – Comprehensive Land Use Plan Updates

Chaz Bates reported as follows:

There is a parcel based existing land use map and a parcel based zoning map displayed tonight for planning commission and public review.

A notebook has been developed compiling comments received to date on the comprehensive plan amendments. 

The comprehensive plan process will be discussed at the next planning commission meeting.  Chairman Bristol requested that Chaz  prepare a brief outline on the comprehensive plan process for the next meeting.

Chaz will be reviewing comments received from CTED (Community Trade and Economic Development) on the initial comprehensive plan and earlier comprehensive plan amendments. 

FEMA Maps

Chairman Bristol stated the present FEMA maps are not accurate and he asked if an update was scheduled in regard to this matter.

Chaz Bates stated that updated digital FEMA maps are coming eventually.  He volunteered to contact Ted Olson, Department of Ecology, to check on the projected schedule.  Lincoln County is scheduled for 2008, but it was unknown what the schedule is for Stevens County.

·        NEW BUSINESS – None.

·        Public Comments

Mayor Bauman commented that he will be looking into making sure the PA system is working better. 

Chairman Bristol – We have never had that problem before, but it doesn’t sound the same here. 

Curt Kelling stated that we have discussed moving the speakers.  They may have been turned down because of the feedback. 

Eva Rainer – I complained last time about the ads in the paper, they aren’t advertised enough to know what it is.  This time I looked in the paper and I could not find this meeting for tonight.  I wondered if something could be made up with the Chewelah Independent, so that the notice would be specific in the paper.  A location that you could look at and there it is. 

Chairman Bristol – That is a good idea, you have to chase it around to find it. 

Kevin Herda – We looked at that during the public participation policy and the cost to the city was huge. 

Submitting a press release to the newspaper was suggested. 

Chaz Bates commented that it is up to newspaper whether or not to print a press release.  The reason you didn’t see a notice for this meeting tonight is the regularly scheduled planning commission meetings typically haven’t been published.  This is a continuation of a public hearing for the Shoreline Master Program, which doesn’t require us to reissue a notice. The nonconforming use provision was just part of the regular meeting discussion, which is why there wasn’t a notice for that.  You will see a notice for the SEPA Determination, the Notice for the Public Hearing, and Notice of Application for the City Council. 

Alice Crowley stated that the date of the planning commission meeting is noted on the front page of the Chewelah paper.   

Chairman Bristol thinks we should explore that.  We are trying every avenue that we can to make sure that information is out there for people to find. 

Gaylea Nolander – Planning Commission and City Council Agendas are posted on both entrances to city hall, Chewelah Library, AmericanWest Bank, Chewelah Post Office, and the Chewelah Website.  Public Hearings are published in the legal section of the Chewelah Newspaper and posted at all the aforementioned locations.

Robert Harrison – In January 5, 2000, you all have copies of these maps, but they are not reflected on those, and Chaz told me once to ask the Mayor, and then he said he would do it, last month he told me he wouldn’t do it, so I have two guys here now.  I wonder if I can get those maps to match those.

Chaz Bates – You need to be annexed into the City.  One of those is a zoning map, and one them is a comprehensive plan map…I actually did change the comprehensive plan designation outside the city limits but within the urban growth area for property as identified on that map that was provided to me by you, I don’t remember what that resolution number is, but January 5, 2000.  It has been changed, but there is no zoning outside of the city limits.

Bob Harrison – I don’t hear very good, but I could hear you tonight. 

·        Adjournment – Doug Sassman moved with a second from Bill Davies to adjourn the meeting.  All in favor.  Meeting adjourned at 8:20 P.M.

Respectfully submitted by:

__________________________________    __________________________________

Gaylea Nolander, Executive Secretary  Thomas Bristol, Chairman

Attachments may be reviewed at City Hall, Room 107

Minutes approved on November 16, 2006