MOSES LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION

Transcription

1 MOSES LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION VICKI HEIMARK CHAIR LORI WITTERS SECRETARY NATHAN NOFZIGER GARY MANN W. TODD LENGENFELDER CHARLES HEPBURN RICK PENHALLURICK DAVID ECK TIM ADAMS DON SCHMIG A G E N D A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 10, 2016 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER 7 P.M. 1. Consent Agenda A. October 27, 2016 Meeting Minutes 2. Herring - Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and C-R Zone Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing 3. Wheeler Corridor Business Park Preliminary Plat Public Hearing 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Public Hearing A. Transportation Element B. Utilities Element C. Moses Lake Municipal Airport Expansion D. The Greens Designation Change 5. Non Agenda Item Public Comment 6. Staff Reports and Comment 7. Planning Commission Questions and Comments 8. Adjourn John Williams City Manager Gilbert Alvarado Com. Dev. Director / Deputy City Manager Anne Henning Senior Planner Dan Leavitt Associate Planner Billie Jo Muñoz Assistant Planner

2 MOSES LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION October 27, 2016 Commissioners Present: Vicki Heimark, Nathan Nofziger, Tim Adams, David Eck, Charles Hepburn, Don Schmig, Gary Mann. Absent: Todd Lengenfelder and Rick Penhallurick Name Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Eck E P E P P C E P P C P E P C C P P P P P Schmig P P P P P C P E A C P P P C C P P P P P Lengenfelder P P P P P C P A P C A P P C C P E P A A Adams p p P P P C E P P C P P P C C P P P P P Heimark P p p P E C P P P C P E P C C P P P P P Penhallurick P A E P P C A E P C A P P C C P P P E A Hepburn P P P P P C P E P C P P P C C P P P P P Nofziger P P P P P C P P P C P P P C C P P P P P Mann E E P P E C p P A C P P E C C E E E E P P - Present E = Excused A = Absent C = Canceled Staff Present: Senior Planner, Anne Henning; Assistant Planner, Billie Jo Muñoz; Recording Secretary, Lori Witters Chair Heimark called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Chair Heimark called the roll. The following were: Present: Chair Heimark, Co-Chair Nofziger, and Commissioners Adams, Eck, Hepburn, Mann, and Schmig. Absent: Commissioner Lengenfelder Action Taken: Commissioner Nofziger moved to declare Commissioner Lengenfelder absent, seconded by Commissioner Hepburn. Motion carried unanimously. Absent: Rick Penhallurick Action Taken: Co Chair Nofziger moved to declare Commissioner Penhallurick absent, seconded by Commissioner Hepburn. Motion carried unanimously. Consent Agenda: Meeting Minutes for October 13, 2016 Action: Commissioner Nofziger moved to approve the consent agenda, seconded by Commissioner Eck. Motion carried unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 27, 2016 Page 1

3 The Moses Lake Assembly of God Sign Request in an R-1 Zone, Assistant Planner, Billie Jo Muñoz presented the staff report and visual attachments; The proponent submitted an application for a 35 square foot building sign, located at 431 E. Brown Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential. Moses Lake Municipal Code allows a sign where there is a conditional use in the R-3 Zone with the review and approval from the Planning Commission in accordance with MLMC Signs for churches in the R-1 and R-2 Zones are not addressed in the code, so would technically not be allowed. Staff has been processing these types of submittals the same as a church in the R-3 Zone. The Church operates under a conditional use permit which was issued in The surrounding area uses are single family dwellings to the south, north and west, with commercial uses to the east. The proposed sign is to be 35 square feet in size, covering 2% of the north façade of the church. Moses Lake Municipal Code 18.58, Sign Regulations, allows for up to 15% of facades to be used for signage. Therefore, the proposed sign would be under the allowable amount. Action: Commissioner Eck moved to approve the Sign in an R-1 Zone. Seconded by Commissioner Nofziger. Motion carried unanimously. Upper Lakeshore Mobile Home Park Fence Update Assistant Planner, Billie Jo Muñoz, presented the staff report; On July 14, 2016 the Planning Commission approved the request for an extension on required placement of a boundary fence for Upper Lakeshore Mobile Home Park, with the condition that an update is provided to the Planning Commission by October The owner is still working on the fence. The boundary line adjustment has been recorded. Action: Commissioner Nofziger moved to approve the fence extension request and review again during their regular park review in February, seconded by Commissioner Eck. Motion carried with six approving, two absent, and Chair Heimark abstaining, due to a professional conflict. Development Regulations Review Title 18 The Commission discussed the following: MLMC 18.06, Definitions Adult Family Home. Staff to check state definition; this may now be adult care home Boarding House or Lodging House: This definition to be removed as no longer a relevant land use. The Dangerous Waste definition was modified to simply reference the RCW and WAC as follows: Dangerous Waste: Dangerous waste means those solid wastes designated by the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) or Washington Administrative Code (WAC) in WAC through as dangerous or extremely hazardous waste (WAC ). The Utility Easement definition from will be deleted and replaced with definitions for Municipal and Public Utility Easements, as follows: Easement, Municipal: Municipal easement means a nonexclusive easement granted to the city for the express use of locating municipal improvements. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 27, 2016 Page 2

4 Easement, Public Utility: Public utility easement means a nonexclusive easement granted public utility providers for the express use of locating public utilities Utility Easement: Utility easement means a nonrestrictive easement granted to the city for the express use of locating public utilities Feedlot: To be removed since it is used only in MLMC 18.12, Agriculture and it does not have a specialized meaning Generator: To be removed since it is clear from the context where it is being used Hazardous Substance definition to be deleted since this phrase is not used in Title 18. The Hazardous Waste was defined more generally as: Hazardous Waste: Hazardous waste means and includes all dangerous and extremely hazardous waste (RCW ) as defined in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) or Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Staff presented a more concise definition of manufactured home from RCW : A manufactured home is a single family dwelling required to be built in accordance with regulations adopted under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C et seq.] The Planning Commission was in favor of replacing with the RCW definition Manufactured Home: Manufactured home means a residential unit on one or more chassis for towing to the point of use and designed to be used with a foundation as a dwelling unit on a year around basis, and which bears an insignia issued by a state or federal regulatory agency indicting that the manufactured home complies with all applicable construction standards of the U S. Department of Housing and Urban Development definition of a manufactured home. A commercial coach, recreational vehicle, or motor home are not a manufactured home. Due to updates in the state agency, the Marijuana Retailer definition was updated as follows: Marijuana Retailer: Marijuana retailer means a person licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Control Board to sell useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products in a retail outlet. A state licensed marijuana retailer is classified as a commercial land use and is subject to the standards for a commercial use. The Commission was in favor of deleting the definition of Off-Site Hazardous Waste Treatment and Storage and On-Site Hazardous Waste Treatment and Storage and moving the definition of on-site to the chapters where it is used: Commercial & Industrial. The Commission discussed , the definition of Parking Lot: Parking lot means any area of land, a yard or other open space area, used for or designated for the parking of motor vehicles. They noted that this definition would apply to residential driveways. They discussed setting a limit on the number of spaces to be considered a parking lot, but did not come to a conclusion. The Commission discussed Parking Space: They recommended to remove the 9 x 20 requirement from this section and just defer to the parking standards section for the size Processing or Handling: To be removed. Hazardous wastes will be regulated per state standards. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 27, 2016 Page 3

5 The State, in RCW , has modified the definition of recreational vehicle to eliminate the limitation to temporary or seasonal use. The Commission was in favor of changing the Municipal Code to match: Recreational Vehicle: Vehicular type unit primarily designed as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, or travel, or seasonal use that either has its own motive power or is mounted on, or towed by, another vehicle. Recreational vehicles include camping trailers, fifth-wheel trailers, motor homes, travel trailers, and truck campers. The Commission was in favor of deleting Senior Citizen Dwelling and move it to MLMC 18.54, the only chapter where this phrase is used. The Commission discussed Treatment. This refers to treatment of dangerous waste. The Commission was in favor of deferring to state definitions and regulations. The Commission was in favor of changing the Zoning Administrator definition to specify a particular person, as follows: Zoning Administrator: Zoning Administrator means the Community Development Director or designee the person who is charged, by the City Manager, with the administration and enforcement of this title. MLMC 18.09, Zoning Districts and Map Senior Planner Anne Henning stated that she had reviewed a number of other codes, and none had a section like this that listed all the zoning changes. She presented three options for the Zoning Map Adopted section. The Commission preferred the Puyallup language: This title includes a map known, cited, and referenced as the Official Zoning Map of the City of Moses Lake, which shows the location and boundaries of the various zoning districts, references and other information shown thereon, which map is incorporated by reference as part of this title. A true and correct copy of the Official Zoning Map shall be kept in the Community Development Department, and shall be revised to reflect all zoning map amendments within five days of said amendments. Said zoning map shall contain the date of initial adoption and the date of each subsequent revision. This would replace the existing text for MLMC : The city adopts in its entirety the 1996 digitized zoning map which is derived from the 1976 comprehensive zoning map as amended as the official zoning map for the city in compliance with the intent of RCW Chapter as adopted and hereafter amended. Section ,.026, and.027, describing changes to the Zoning Map would be deleted. MLMC 18.10, Citywide Regulations The Commission reviewed staff s proposed amendment to Community Street and Utility Standards and City Design Standards: Uses must be in compliance with the City Community Street and Utility Standards and City Design Standards in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit except that enlargement, alteration, replacement, or repair of street or utilities permitted after the issuance of the building permit must be to current city standards at the time of issuance of the street or utility permit. The Commission concluded this section needs additional work for clarity. The Commission was in favor of adding clarification into Structures Over Easements or Right-of-Way: No building or structure shall be constructed or placed over dedicated right-of-way or PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 27, 2016 Page 4

6 over a public utility or municipal easement, except as specifically allowed in other sections of this Code. This section shall not be construed to prohibit permitted signage. In commercial zones, awnings, roof overhangs, and similar structures may project over city sidewalk when attached to buildings sited on property line and fronting on a city street subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director and Building Official. The Commission had previously requested clarification of which items were included in Maintenance of City Right-of-Way. Staff provided the following amended provision: The property owner shall be responsible for the maintenance of city right-of-way from the back side of the curb, including but not limited to sidewalks, planter strips, driveways, and landscaping. Where there is no curb, the property owner shall be responsible for the maintenance from the edge of asphalt, back of ditch, or traveled way. The Commission was in favor of deleting , Household Pets, since there are provisions in Title 6, Animals. The Commission directed staff to amend Prohibited as follows: B. Abandoned structures or buildings in a state of disrepair as defined in MLMC 16.08, Dangerous Buildings, and MLMC 8.14, Nuisances. MLMC Agricultural Zone Staff proposed deleting this chapter, since this zone is not used and the Commission has already directed to amend to no longer default to the Agriculture Zone when annexations don t specify a zone. The Commission directed to retain this zone due to right to farm laws. They suggested comparing this zone to the R-4 Residential Zone. They noted that use was missing from the end of the last sentence of Intent. They were in favor of deleting G since it duplicated the household pet regulations. In , they questioned whether 40 from adjoining residential uses should be reviewed in C, and the number of animals allowed in E. The agenda for the next meeting is already full, so the Commission will start the review of MLMC 18.20, Residential Zones, at the December meeting. Staff Reports and Comments Shoreline Master Program: Anne Henning, Senior Planner, mentioned that the Council adopted the Shoreline Master Program with Ecology s changes and the negotiated buffers for wetlands. Planning Commission Comments Commissioner Adams mentioned the importance of façade improvements for improving the overall look of the City. Anne added that she had attended the Moses Lake Business Association and they discussed this issue as a group. There being no further business, Chair Heimark adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Vicki Heimark, Planning Commission Chair PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 27, 2016 Page 5

7 November 3, 2016 TO: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Herring jet-ski lift, boat-lift and dock W. Peninsula Drive Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and C-R Zone Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing Dan Herring submitted an application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a C-R Zone Conditional Use Permit to install a dual jet-ski lift, boat lift, and a 640-square foot dock. The site is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential. The Comprehensive Plan Designation is Low Density Residential. The Shoreline Designation is Rural. Findings Agencies and City Departments Contacted: Grant County Assessor=s Office, Moses Lake Irrigation and Rehabilitation District, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historical Preservation, Army Corp of Engineers, Yakama Nation, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, United States Bureau of Reclamation, Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, City of Moses Lake Municipal Services Department, and City of Moses Lake Planning Division. Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity map/aerial photo Attachment 2: Land use application Attachment 3: Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance dated Attachment 4: Shoreline permit application (2 pages) Attachment 5: Site plan (2 pages) Attachment 6: Washington State Department of Ecology letter dated Attachment 7: United States Bureau of Reclamation letter dated Attachment 8: Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation letter dated Attachment 9: Wetland Delineation sketch A. Site and Project Information: The site is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential and is located at 3365 W. Peninsula Drive. The Comprehensive Plan Designation is Low Density Residential and the Shoreline Designation is Rural. The site is approximately 3.69 acres. A single-family house is under construction at the site. A Category III Lake Fringe Wetland exists on the site. A wetland buffer that is a minimum of 25 wide is required. The initial proposal was to install a 640 square foot dock with a 9 x10 boat lift and a 6 x12 dual jet-ski lift. Existing shoreline vegetation would be cut to make room for installation. Filter-cloth and large rocks were proposed to be placed along 12 feet of shoreline, under the dock and two feet beyond the dock on each side. An 8 wide brick paver path was proposed to be built from the edge of the dock through the wetland buffer to the house that is being constructed on the site. Note that the project description was modified in the MDNS.

8 Vicinity Data The surrounding uses are residential areas zoned R-1. Moses Lake borders on the east side of the property. B. Applicable Codes: MLMC 14.06, State Environmental Policy Act, contains the basic requirements that apply to the SEPA process. MLMC 18.20, R-1 Single-Family Residential Zone, is intended to provide for and to protect single family residences in specified low density residential areas and to preserve land for single family residential uses. Residential density generally ranges from one to four dwellings per acre. MLMC 18.45, C-R, Conservation and Reclamation Zone, establishes standards for lands below one thousand fifty feet (1,050') elevation, within the city, including the waters of Moses Lake. The standards are intended to prevent any use or development within the zone which will have any negative effects on the lake quality while encouraging recreational use of the lake, which adds to its usability and attractiveness. A dock over 200 square feet and 25' long requires a Conditional Use Permit in the C-R Zone. Any part of the structure that is over water is considered part of the dock. MLMC Conditional Uses: Conditional uses shall only be permitted after a public hearing before the Planning Commission finding that: 1. The use furthers the intent of the zone in which it will be located and conforms to the general plan. 2. The use will not create undesirable traffic congestion or parking problems. 3. The use will not be detrimental to surrounding properties or their uses because of appearances, noise, use, or other undesirable features. 4. The use will meet all standards and regulations for the zone in which it is to be located. 5. The use will not create undesirable environmental problems: A. The Commission can make special requirements in conjunction with its decision following a public hearing if they are necessary to more closely fulfill the intent of the zone in which a development is permitted. B. Conditions, if any, which may be imposed on any proposed project requiring a conditional use permit, shall be endorsed on the conditional use permit and failure to comply therewith shall be grounds for revocation of the conditional use permit. Revocation of the conditional use permit shall be final after thirty (30) days written notice of the violation is given by certified mail to the owner and/or occupant of the land or improvements for which the conditional use permit was

9 issued, if in the mean time, the violation is not corrected. C. If no development has taken place on the proposal or if no building permits or subdivision applications have been issued or received within a twenty-four (24) month time limit from the date of issuance, the conditional use permit shall become null and void. D. The decision of the Commission in approving or conditionally approving a conditional use permit shall stipulate whether the conditional use permit is issued to a person or whether the permit shall run with the land. Person shall be defined as an individual, corporation, company, firm, association, partnership, or joint stock company, a state, and all political subdivisions of a state or any agency or any instrumentality thereof having an ownership interest in the land as an owner, renter, or lessee. A use permitted as a conditional use is subject to the limits in the permit and conveys no greater rights than expressly permitted. A request for a revision to a conditional use permit shall be processed as an application for a new conditional use permit. MLMC Title 20, Development Review Process, regulates the permit review process. Relevant findings and conclusions from Section that must be made are as follows: 1. The development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the requirements and intent of the Municipal Code. 2. The development adequately mitigates impacts identified under Chapters 14 through The development is beneficial to the public health, safety, and welfare, and is in the public interest. 4. The development does not lower the level of service of transportation below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. The City of Moses Lake Shoreline Management Master Plan, contains the local regulations that implement the Shoreline Management Act. Page 2 of the SMP explains the Rural Environment and the allowed uses. Page 12 of the SMP outlines the docking facilities goals, policies, and use regulations that this project must follow. The applicable regulations are as follows: The Rural Environment The Rural Environment shall protect agricultural land from urban expansion, restrict intensive development along undeveloped shorelines, and maintain open spaces and opportunities for recreational uses compatible with agricultural activities. Permitted Uses a. Agriculture b. Residential R-1 density only c. Transportation access only d. Utility System e. Recreation

10 f. Landfills g. Dredging h. Marinas Note that the Agricultural Environment designation was placed when this area of the shoreline was still orchards. Docking Facilities: Goal: To discourage the construction of docking facilities which could be detrimental to the shoreline or aquatic habitat. Policy: All docking facilities should be constructed and regulated in a manner so that they do not hinder water flow or boating traffic. Use Regulations: 1. Docking facilities constructed in residential developments shall be encouraged to be used jointly by adjoining property owners. 2. All docking facilities shall be constructed so that they do not restrict water flow or hinder boating traffic. RCW 90.58, the Shoreline Management Act and WAC and regulates development within 200 feet of the shoreline. Washington=s Shoreline Management Act was passed by the State Legislature in 1971 and adopted by voters in The overarching goal of the Act is "to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state=s shorelines." The Legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation. In addition it finds that ever increasing pressures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines of the state. The Legislature further finds that much of the shorelines of the state and the uplands adjacent thereto are in private ownership; that unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. WAC gives the following review criteria for substantial development permits: 1. A substantial development permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with: a. The policies and procedures of the act; b. The provisions of this regulation. 1. Local government may attach conditions to the approval of permits as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the act and the local

11 master program. C. A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) with 12 conditions was issued on October 25, The conditions are related to reducing or eliminating environmental impacts by modifying the development to minimize the cutting or removal of bulrush, narrowing the walkway out to the dock, eliminating the proposed fabric cloth and large rock placement at the shoreline, narrowing the pervious path within the wetland buffer to no wider than 4, shoreline vegetation preservation and retention, contacting the Community Development Department before and after construction, obtaining the necessary permits or authorization from agencies with jurisdiction, delineation of the landward buffer edge with a visual marker, sediment control, discovery of shoreline archaeological resources, and deleterious material handling, containment and cleanup. D. Department, Agency, and Public Responses: 1. The Washington State Department of Ecology commented that based upon Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the project is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area and that a Floodplain Development Permit may be required. Comments were also made concerning the Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program. 2. The United States Bureau of Reclamation stated that the proposal is within the Moses Lake Irrigation and Rehabilitation District and does not involve any Columbia Basin Project facilities. 3. The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation letter recommends a cultural resource survey be completed prior to any ground disturbing activity associated with this project. E. Relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Comprehensive Plan Policy Vision Statement: The 2012 Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement states that the City should support, preserve, enhance, invest in, and promote citizen access to the lake. Environmentally Sensitive Areas Goal 12: Protect and preserve environmentally sensitive areas by reducing the negative impacts of development. Policy 12.1: Environmentally sensitive areas should be conserved and protected from loss or degradation. Policy 12.6: Environmentally sensitive areas must be managed and maintained if they are to continue to provide benefits to the public. Wetlands Policy 12.15: Because of the water quality, flood prevention, and habitat functions they provide, wetlands should be preserved. The size and environmental or habitat value of the wetlands shall determine the amount of development allowed. Wetlands Policy 12.16: Per State law, on a city-wide, long-term basis,

12 Moses Lake shall achieve no net loss of wetland environmental and/or habitat functions and values. Moses Lake should maintain wetland acreage over the long term. Wetlands Policy 12.17: In undertaking public projects and deciding development applications, Moses Lake shall first seek to avoid wetland impacts. Where impacts cannot be avoided, the impacts shall be minimized and any adverse impacts mitigated. On-site, in-kind mitigation generally is preferred. Conclusions: The facts and findings support the following conclusions: 1. Comprehensive Plan/Municipal Code: The development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it creates access to, and encourages use of the lake while maintaining the shoreline. With the conditions in the MDNS, it is consistent with the goals and policies on environmentally sensitive areas and wetlands. As conditioned, the development meets the requirements and intent of the Municipal Code. 2. Impacts: No impacts have been identified under Chapters 14 through 19 that will not be mitigated through existing regulations and conditions. 3 Public health, safety, welfare, and interest: The development is beneficial to the public health, safety, and welfare and is in the public interest by increasing recreational opportunities and citizen access to the lake while mitigating for impacts. 4. Shoreline Management Master Plan: The cumulative impacts of similar projects remain consistent with the policies of RCW by not producing significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment, and not interfering with the normal public use of the shoreline. The proposed use is compatible with other authorized uses in the area. With the conditions of the MDNS, there will not be significant detrimental impact to the shoreline or aquatic habitat. Water flow and boating traffic will not be hindered by this development. 5. Conditional Use Permit criteria in MLMC for the C-R Zone Conditional Use Permit: With the conditions of the MDNS, this project furthers the intent of the C-R zone by having no significant negative impacts to lake quality and by encouraging recreational use of the lake. The dock, jet-ski lift, and boat lift will not be detrimental to surrounding properties because of appearance, noise or undesirable features. The conditions of the MDNS prevent significant undesirable environmental problems during and after construction and installation of the dock, jet-ski lift, and boat lift. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and C-R Zone Conditional Use Permit subject to the following conditions and any other conditions the Commission deems appropriate: 1. Revised site plan and construction drawings that meet the conditions of the MDNS shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the commencement of any shoreline work

13 associated with this permit. 2. Any approvals and/or permits from agencies with jurisdiction, including the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, must be obtained prior to beginning any construction. 3. The proponent shall contact City staff for a final inspection once construction and installation are complete. Public Hearing: A public hearing has been scheduled. Public notices have been published and posted and property owners and residents within 500' of the project area have been notified. The Commission should hold a public hearing and take testimony on the proposed project. Action: The Planning Commission should review the application for a Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit and approve, conditionally approve, or deny the permit. Action: The Planning Commission should review the application for a C-R Zone Conditional Use Permit and approve, conditionally approve, or deny the permit. Respectfully submitted, Daniel Leavitt Associate Planner Community Development Department

14

15

16 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Project Name: Herring Dock, Boat Lift, Watercraft Lift, & Path File Number: LUA Description of proposal: Install an approximately 640 SF dock with a 9'x10' boat lift and a 6 x12 dual personal watercraft lift. An 8 -wide brick paver path is proposed. NOTE: See required project modifications in #1 below. Proponent: Dan Herring, 928 Laguna Drive, Moses Lake Location of proposal: 3365 W. Peninsula Drive. The property is located in the R-1 Single Family Zone and is described as Battery Orchard Tract 35 less Tax #9589, Assessor Parcel # Lead agency: City of Moses Lake The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment provided the following mitigation measures listed below are complied with. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The decision was made after review of a completed checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public upon request. Mitigation Requirements: 1. As originally proposed, the development would have significant adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, the following modifications are required: a. Cutting or removal of bulrush shall be minimized by the following: i. Move the main portion of the dock and the lifts out beyond the bulrush area. This may increase the overall area of the structure but will place it in an area that has less impact. ii. Narrow the walkway out to the dock area to 4 wide until it is beyond the bulrush. iii. In the area of the walkway through the bulrush, bulrush under the walkway may be cut to facilitate installation but not uprooted. b. Eliminate the proposed filter cloth and large rock at the shoreline. Erosion protection should not be needed if the existing width of bulrush is maintained. Alternatively, the proponent shall provide a geotechnical analysis showing that stabilization is required and detailing the stabilization method with the least environmental impact. c. Within the wetland buffer, the path must be pervious and no wider than 4. These modifications will reduce the environmental impacts while still allowing access to the lake. 2. Emergent plants (such as cattails or bulrushes) absorb wave energy and protect the shoreline from erosion. The proponent shall retain the emergent plants that grow adjacent to the property. 3. The applicant shall notify the Community Development Department prior to beginning construction to arrange for a site visit to confirm the location of the proposed construction. The applicant will notify the City again once construction is complete and arrange for a final inspection to verify that the completed project is consistent with the conditions of approval. 4. Other than the area directly impacted by the project, the shoreline area, wetland, and buffer shall not be disturbed. The existing vegetation shall be retained in order to anchor the bank and maintain the existing shoreline. The wetland buffer area may be enhanced by the addition of native plants. Any proposed enhancement shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to planting. 5. The developer shall maintain appropriate vegetative cover in the buffer zone. Except for the approved pedestrian access point, the entire landward buffer perimeter shall be clearly delineated with a visual marker such as a split rail fence, hedge, or curbing to prevent incremental encroachment by subsequent

17 landscaping activities on the site. The proponent shall install the visual marker before the project is completed. With the City s approval, the buffer area may be enhanced with additional appropriate plantings. Proposed method of visual marker shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval before installation. 6. Shoreline areas have a high probability for containing archaeological resources. These resources would be destroyed by ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, if archaeological materials (e.g. bones, shell, stone tools, beads, ceramics, old bottles, hearths, etc.) are observed during excavation or other project activities, all work shall immediately stop and the proponent shall notify the City, the Washington State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation (DAHP), and the Colville Confederated Tribes. Before work can resume, all requirements of the DAHP must be met. Archaeological sites are subject to the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16USC470), RCW (Indian Graves and Records), RCW (Archaeological Sites and Resources), and WAC (Archaeological Excavation and Removal Permit). 7. If there is a possibility of sediment entering the lake, wetland, or buffer, the proponent shall protect the lake, wetland, and buffer from construction impacts using sediment control measures such as a silt fence during construction. The sediment control measures shall be installed upland of the resource to be protected before the start of any earthwork and shall remain in place until all earthwork is finished. The proponent shall ensure that the sediment control measures are inspected no less often than after every runoff event, and that the sediment control measures are maintained when necessary to ensure proper function. At the end of construction, the proponent shall remove or stabilize any accumulated sediment to prevent its entry into the lake, wetland, or buffer. 8. Since ground disturbance leads to weeds and dust, the portions of the site not proposed for development at the current time shall remain undisturbed as much as possible to minimize the need for weed and dust control. The proponent shall ensure that such nuisances do not develop or are immediately controlled. Weed control after construction may need to include establishing beneficial species to prevent colonization by weeds. No disturbance of the wetland, buffer or shoreline is authorized except the minimum necessary for installation of the pervious path through the wetland buffer and the walkway over the wetland and out to the dock. 9. During construction, any release of oil, hydraulic fluids, fuels, other petroleum products, paints, solvents, or other deleterious materials must be contained and removed in a manner that will prevent their discharge into water or soil. The cleanup of spills shall take precedence over other work on the site. 10. The proponent shall ensure that all waste from construction is disposed of properly. 11. The proponent shall ensure that all contractors and sub-contractors are aware of the relevant conditions. 12. The proponent shall obtain all necessary permits or authorizations for construction from the following agencies for work that will occur within their jurisdictions: a. United States Department of Army Corps of Engineers b. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife c. Washington State Department of Natural Resources d. Washington State Department of Ecology Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) Comment Period: This MDNS is issued under (2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by November 8, 2016 to the Responsible Official. Responsible Official: Anne Henning, P.O. Box 1579, Moses Lake, WA, 98837; (509) Date: October 25, 2016 Signature: Appeals You may appeal this determination to the Moses Lake Planning Commission, P. O. Box 1579 (321 S. Balsam), Moses Lake, WA 98837, no later than November 8, 2016 by writing to the Responsible Official at the above address. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Anne Henning to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals.

18

19

20

21

22

23