Loading...
Agenda 03/12/2015 po ne .000Valley® Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. March 12, 2015 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 26, 2015 VI. COMMISSION REPORTS VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: • Planning Commission Findings of Fact— CTA-2015-0001 • Discussion—Administrative Exceptions. X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: March 12,2015 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ® old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin.report ® pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-2015-0001 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Findings and Recommendation — Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: City-initiated Code Text Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40.150 Animal raising and keeping by adding beekeeping requirements, clarifying various terminology and prohibiting the keeping of nutria. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: A Public Hearing was conducted on February 26, 2015 followed by deliberations. BACKGROUND: The proposed amendments have been developed by the Community Development Department in response to direction received from City Council. A study session on the proposed amendments was held February 12,2015 followed by a public hearing on February 26,2015. The planning commission heard public testimony from several concerned citizens. The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the amendment with additional criteria as indicated in the attached findings. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation to City Council. STAFF CONTACT: Micki Harnois-Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. Planning Commission's Findings and Recommendations B. Revised language FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CTA-2015-0001 March 12,2015 The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision to recommend approval. Background: 1. Spokane Valley development regulations were adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28,2007. 2. CTA-2015-0001 is a city initiated text amendment to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40.150, Animal Raising and Keeping by adding beekeeping requirements, clarifying various terminology and prohibiting the keeping of nutria. 3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and conducted deliberations on February 26, 2015. The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval as modified to City Council. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150F Approval Criteria a. The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Finding(s): i. Land Use Policy LUP-1.1 Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. ii. Land Use Policy LUP-13.1 Maximize efficiency of the development review process by continuously evaluating the permitting process and modifying as appropriate. iii. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency,predictability and clear direction. iv. Economic Policy EDP-7.1: Evaluate,monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they are equitable,cost-effective,and expeditious. v. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity, consistency and predictability. vi. Neighborhood Goal G-2 Preserve and protect the character and quality of life of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. vii. Neighborhood Policy-2.1 Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. viii. Neighborhood Policy- 2.4 Encourage the dedication of open spaces for local food production in and adjacent to residential areas. ix. Neighborhood Policy-2.6 Encourage community gardens in residential areas. b. The proposed city-initiated amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare,and protection of the environment. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 1 of 2 Finding(s): i. The Planning Commission recommended the following additional beekeeping requirement to SVMC 19.40.150(I)to insure beekeepers are knowledgeable regarding appropriate conditions to maintain the bees in a safe and responsible environment. 5.The beekeeper shall have certification from the Washington State Beekeeper's Association. 2. Conclusion(s): a. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.150(F). b. The Growth Management Act stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends City Council adopt the proposed city- initiated code text amendments to SVMC 19.40.150,Animal Raising and Keeping as attached. Approved this 12th day of March,2015 Joe Stoy,Chairman ATTEST Deanna Horton,Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 2 of 2 19.40.150 Animal raising and keeping. Where permitted,the keeping of poultry and livestock(excluding swine and chickens)is subject to the following conditions: A. The lot or tract shall must exceed 40,000 square feet in area; B. The keeping of swine is not permitted; C. Beekeeping for noncommercial purposes is limited to 25 hives; PVC. Any building or structure housing poultry or livestock including,but not limited to,any stable,paddock,yard,runway,pen,or enclosure,or any manure pile shall be located not less than 75 feet from any dwelling habitation; E-D. No building or structure housing poultry or livestock including,but not limited to, any stable,paddock,yard,runway,pen,or enclosure,or any manure pile shall be located within the front yard nor be closer than 10 feet from any side property line; E E. The keeping of animals and livestock is limited as follows: 1. Not more than three horses,mules,donkeys,bovine,llama or alpacas shall be permitted per gross acre;or 2. Not more than six sheep or goats shall be permitted per gross acres;or 3. Any equivalent combination of subsection(F)(1)and(F)(2)of this section; FT,F. Small Animals/Fowl. A maximum of one animal or fowl(excluding chickens), including duck,turkey,goose or similar domesticated fowl,or rabbit,mink,nurtria, chinchilla or similar animal,may be raised or kept per 3,000 square feet of gross lot area. In addition,a shed,coop,hutch or similar containment structure shall must be constructed prior to the acquisition of any small animal/fowl;and 14 . Structures,pens yards,enclosures,pastures and grazing areas shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. EH. In residential areas,the keeping of chickens is subject to the following conditions: 1. A maximum of one chicken may be raised or kept per 2,000 gross square feet of lot area,with a maximum of 25 birds allowed, 2. The keeping of roosters is prohibited; 3. Coops,hutches,or similar containment structures shall must be kept a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line,five 5-feet from side and rear property lines,and 15 feet from flanking streets;-. 4. Coops,hutches,or similar containment structures shall must be kept a minimum of 25 feet from dwellings occupied structures on neighboring properties and 5. All chickens shall must be rendered incapable of flight. I In residential areas,beekeeping is subject to the following conditions: Formatted:Font:(Default)Times New Roman, 12 pt 1. The number of beehives shall be limited to one beehive per 4,356 gross square Formatted:List Paragraph,Indent:Hanging: feet of lot area. 0.13",Numbered+Level:1+Numbering Style: A,B,C,...+Start at:1+Alignment:Left+ 2. Beehives shall be setback a minimum of five feet from a side or rear property Aligned at: 0.25"+Indent at: 0.5" line and 20 feet from the front or flanking street property line. Formatted:List Paragraph 3. A flyaway barrier shall be provided that shall be at least six feet high and Formatted:List Paragraph,Numbered+Level: consisting of a solid wall,solid fencing material,dense vegetation or 1+Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+Start at:1+ combination thereof,that is parallel to the side or rear property lines and Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 1"+Indent at: P P Y ( ) 1.25" extends beyond the beehive(s)in each direction that bees are forced to fly at an elevation of at least six feet above ground level over the property lines in the vicinity of the beehives;and 4. Beekeepers shall maintain an adequate supply of water for bees located close to each colony. 5. The beekeeper shall have certification from the Washington State Beekeeper's Association. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: March 12,2015 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin.report ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study session—Administrative Exceptions DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Discuss Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 19.140 Administrative Exceptions GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: Since City incorporation in March 2003,development regulations have included Administrative Exceptions. The intent of the Administrative Exception is to allow minor exceptions to specific code requirements when necessary to accommodate development. With the adoption of the City's development regulations in October 2007,language was included that significantly narrowed the circumstances in which the administrative exception may be applied. As a result of this,administrative exceptions have been used regularly to make adjustments to the code requirements which do not strictly meet the requirements for approval,but do fall within the parameters of SVMC 19.140.010. The attached memo summarizes the issues,identifies the types of exceptions requested and typical conditions associated with the various requests. Staff has developed several alternatives for discussion with the Planning Commission. The discussion will assist staff with developing the code text amendment. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time. STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen,Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. Memo—March 5,2015 RPCA for Administrative Exception Study Session Spokane .0,00Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum Date: March 5, 2015 To: John Hohman-Director Lori Barlow-Senior Planner From: Christina Janssen-Planner Re: Administrative Exceptions (SVMC 19.140) Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 19.140-Adminstrative Exceptions Issue SVMC 19.140 allows for minor adjustments to the City's development regulations when necessary to correct errors resulting from the inadvertent and unintentional placement of structures or the incorrect identification of lot boundaries in certain circumstances. Beginning with incorporation in March 2003,the administrative exception has been used regularly to make adjustments to code requirements. The Interim Code requirements,which were adopted at incorporation,are outlined below: 1. Any dimensional requirement which does not exceed one (1)FOOT 2. Under the following conditions: a. A parcel established prior to March 31, 2003 that does not meet the buildable square footage requirements for a parcel in a particular in a particular zoning district; or b. A legally non-conforming dwelling with respect to setbacks, height and size which otherwise could not be expanded or reconstructed; or c. A duplex constructed prior to March 31, 2003 that does not meet the minimum parcel size, which could not otherwise be reconstructed. 3. Yard setback requirements where the deviation is for ten percent(10%) or less of the required yard. 4. Building height requirements where the deviation is for ten percent(10%)or less of the maximum building height. Additional building height may be granted to the equivalent height of adjacent buildings in areas where the maximum building height is generally exceeded. 5. Minimum lot area requirements where the deviation is for five percent(5%) or less of the required lot area. 6. Maximum building coverage requirements where the deviation is for five percent(5%) or less of the maximum building coverage. 7. Lot frontage and/or width under the following circumstances: a. Lot frontage and/or width requirements where the deviation is for ten percent(10%) or less than the required lot frontage. b. Lot frontage and/or width requirements where the deviation is greater than that listed in 14.506.020(7a) 1 Administrative Exceptions(SVMC) 19.140 March 5,2015 provided that the Department may require circulation to affected agencies resulting in conditions of approval. 8. Up to one-half(1/2)of a private tower's "impact area"off of the applicants property. 9. Flanking Street Yard setbacks,provided that: a. At the time the subject parcel was legally created the property was zoned under a zoning classification of the pre-January 1, 1991 Spokane County Zoning Ordinance, and subsequently on January 1, 1991 a new zoning classification from the Zoning Code of Spokane, Washington was assigned to the subject property; and b. Any Flanking Yard Setback deviation granted under this section shall not exceed the required Flanking Street setbacks standards of the pre-January 1, 1991 Zoning classification of the subject property. 10. Any improved property rendered non-conforming through voluntary dedication of the right-of-way, the exercise of eminent domain proceedings or purchase of right-of-way by the City, the County or State or Federal agency. Since the adoption of the City's Development Regulations in October 2007,the administrative exception has been used regularly to make adjustments to the code requirements,which do not correct errors as outlined above,but do fall within the parameters of SVMC 19.140.010 shown below: A.Any dimensional requirement which does not exceed one foot. B. Under the following conditions: 1.A parcel established prior to March 31, 2003, that does not meet the buildable square footage requirements for a parcel in a particular zoning district; or 2.A legally nonconforming dwelling with respect to setbacks, height and size which otherwise could not be expanded or reconstructed; or 3. A duplex constructed prior to March 31, 2003, that does not meet the minimum parcel size, which could not otherwise be reconstructed. C. Yard setback requirements where the deviation is for 10 percent or less of the required yard. D. Building height requirements where the deviation is for 25 percent or less of the maximum building height. Additional building height may be granted to the equivalent height of adjacent buildings in areas where the maximum building height is generally exceeded. E. Minimum lot area requirements where the deviation is for 25 percent or less of the required lot area. F. Maximum building coverage requirements where the deviation is for 25 percent or less of the maximum building coverage. G. Lot width under the following circumstances: 1. Lot width requirements where the deviation is for 10 percent or less than the required lot width. 2. Lot width requirements where the deviation is greater than 10 percent;provided that the department may require notice to affected agencies resulting in conditions of approval. H. Up to one-half of a private tower's impact area off of the applicant's property. 2 Administrative Exceptions (SVMC) 19.140 March 5,2015 L Flanking street yard setbacks;provided that: 1. At the time the subject parcel was legally created the property was zoned under a zoning classification of the pre- January 1, 1991, Spokane County zoning ordinance, and subsequently on January 1, 1991, a new zoning classification from the zoning code of Spokane County, Washington, was assigned to the subject property; and 2.Any flanking yard setback deviation granted under this section shall not exceed the required flanking street setback standards of the pre-January 1, 1991,zoning classification of the subject property. J. Any improved property rendered nonconforming through voluntary dedication of right-of-way, the exercise of eminent domain proceedings or purchase of right-of-way by the City, county, state or federal agency. The interim regulations and the City's Code requirements are generally the same with the following exceptions: 1. Building height deviation was increased from 10%up to 25%of the maximum building height; 2. Lot area deviation was increased from 5%up to 25%of the maximum lot area; and 3. Building coverage deviation was increased from 5%up to 25%of the maximum lot coverage; Discussion: Since the adoption of the municipal code in 2007, 83 applications for administrative exceptions have been applied for. The number of exceptions applied for each year has fluctuated,hitting a peak in 2014 of 20 applications. The requests for exceptions are listed below by type in Table 1: Table 1 Type of Exception Requested Number of applications received Reduced Setback Front Yard 7 Side Yard 19 Rear Yard 13 Lot Width 13 Lot Size 17 Lot Coverage 16 Lot Depth 3 Building Height 1 In general,requests for side setback reductions are for interior lots and are requested to accommodate homes which would otherwise not fit on the subject lot.Front and rear setback reductions are typically requested to accommodate border easements which were overlooked during the platting/site planning processes. Lot width& size exceptions are often requested when duplexes are proposed,but the subject lot does not meet the minimum requirements for a duplex. Requests for relief from the lot coverage provision is seen regularly when accessory buildings are contemplated. The code allows for 10% of a residential lot to be covered in accessory buildings. This percentage,particularly on smaller lots,becomes an issue for homeowners planning to purchase"kits"for metal storage buildings(pole buildings) from local retailers. Kits for these buildings are limited by the width of the building,based on availability of the necessary trusses and can be as long as a purchaser likes. According to local retailers the most common sizes sold in this area to residential users range from 24 feet wide up to 40 feet wide. See Tables 2 & 3 below: 3 Administrative Exceptions (SVMC) 19.140 March 5,2015 Table 2 Table 3 Zone Minimum Lot Size Pole Bldg. Square Footage Dimensions R-1 40,000 sq. ft. 24 X 24 576 R-2 10,000 sq. ft. 24 X 30 720 R-3 7,500 sq. ft. 24 X 36 864 R-4 6,000 sq. ft. 30 X 30 900 30 X 36 1,080 40 X 60 2,400 These exceptions are also requested when homeowners do not feel that the allowed building size is adequate for their needs. These buildings are often used for seasonal storage of recreational vehicles including boats,motorhomes and classic cars or for hobbies such as car restoration or wood working. Research: Other jurisdictions in our vicinity provide a variety of different options for minor exceptions. These are summarized in Table 4 below with the specific code language following. Jurisdictions whose codes do not include a similar provision require a variance for exceptions to code requirements. Table 4 Reduced Reduced Reduced Lot Lot Lot Lot Building Dimensional Front Side Rear Width Size Coverage Depth Height Requirement Yard Yard Yard Less than 1 Setback Setback Setback ft. City of 10% or 10%or 10% or 10% or 25%or 25%or 25% or Yes Spokane less of less of less of less of less of less of less of Valley required required required required required required required Spokane 10% or 10%or 10% or Yes,with 5% or 10%or Yes County less of less of less of conditions less of less of re uired re uired re uired required required City of r Spokane 11 Variance Requir: City of Liberty Director may consider alternative methods of compliance that meet the intent of the code Lake City of • Full Variance Required Coeur d'Alene City of 10% or 10% or 10%or 10%or 10% or 10%or Kennewick less of less of less of less of less of less of required required required required required required 4 Administrative Exceptions (SVMC) 19.140 March 5,2015 City of 10%or 10%or 10%or 10% or 10% or 10% or 10%or Richland less of less of less of less of less of less of less of required re s uired required required required reuired re s uired City of Auburn 11 Variance Required Spokane County 14.510.100 General Criteria Administrative exceptions may be granted as set forth in Section 14.510.200 provided the exception is consistent with the requirements of section 14.510.200 and with the following general criteria. 1. The exception shall be a minor action only necessary to adjust or rectify an unusual situation or hardship specific to the subject property. 2. The exception shall not apply to a series of parcels; for example,it should not be used to reduce size or frontage of a series of lots to create another lot. 3. The exception shall not be contrary to conditions of approval imposed by a Hearing Body's decision. 4. The exception shall not be used to reduce dimensional or area standards for parking or landscaping. 5. The exception shall not be used to increase sign height or sign area. 6. The exception shall not create an unreasonable burden on adjacent properties/owners. 7. The exception shall not conflict with other ordinances,policies,regulations, and requirements. 8. The exception shall not be contrary to the public interest of the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code. 14.510.200 Allowed Exceptions The following exceptions may be approved by the Division consistent with the requirements for the individual exception and the general criteria listed above in section 14.510.100. 1. Any dimensional requirement that does not exceed 1 foot. This exception does not apply to landscape standards,parking standards, signs,or nonresidential fences. 2. Yard setback requirements where the deviation is for 10% or less of the required yard. 3. Building height or area requirements where the deviation is for 10%or less of the maximum building height or area. Additional building height may be granted to the equivalent height of adjacent buildings,in areas where the maximum building height is generally exceeded. 4. Minimum lot area requirement where the deviation is for 5%or less of the required lot area. The 5% deviation shall not be used to increase a density bonus. 5. Lot frontage and/or width,under the following circumstances: a. Lot frontage and/or width requirements where the deviation is for 10% or less than the required lot frontage. b. Lot frontage and/or width requirements in the RT,R-5,RCV, and UR zones where the deviation is for 30%or less of the required lot frontage. c. Lot frontage and/or width requirements where the deviation is greater than 5a and 5b above,provided that the Division finds that the exception is clearly related to an unusual situation or hardship specific to the subject property. The deviation shall only be granted for the least reduction in frontage that will remedy the hardship. The Division's review may include circulation to affected agencies and may result in conditions of approval. 6. A residential development may be allowed up to a 25% deviation from required minimum lot area, frontage, and maximum building coverage standards if any of the following apply. a. The deviation(s)is necessary to achieve the maximum density allowed under the zone. b. The deviation is for lots where the buildable area is limited because land in the development is designated for common open space and associated recreational facilities,stormwater drainage facilities,or tax-exempt open space. 5 Administrative Exceptions (SVMC) 19.140 March 5,2015 7. Setbacks for a legal nonconforming lot may be modified to allow reasonable use of the lot. The extent of the modification shall be limited to the setback requirements within a zone that allows the lot size of the nonconforming lot and the uses permitted for the nonconforming lot. 8. Public utility local distribution facilities and public utility transmission facilities(non EPF) shall be exempt from strict compliance with the dimensional standards of the underlying zone. Provided that the deviation requested is deemed by the Director of Planning to be the least amount necessary to accommodate the proposed facility. City of Spokane No Administrative Exception provision City of Coeur d'Alene No Administrative Exception provision City of Liberty Lake 10-1B-8 Alternative Methods of Compliance. The Director or designee,in consultation with the City Administrator or Building Official, as applicable may accept alternative methods of complying with the development standards of this Code,provided it could be demonstrated that the alternative method is at least equivalent to such standards in terms of implementing the general purpose of the Code.The Director or designee shall not accept alternative methods of compliance that are inconsistent with the City Comprehensive Plan or with conditions of approval imposed through a land use action. Decisions on Alternative Methods of Compliance need to be documented in the project file and can be appealable in the same manner as an Administrative Interpretation. The Director or designee shall periodically forward decisions on Alternative Methods of Compliance to the Planning Commission and/or the Design Review Subcommittee for its information. City of Kennewick The Planning Director may approve,without notice, a reduction in lot area, setback and width and an increase in lot coverage and building height,none of which exceeds 10%of the standards of the zone in which the use is located. Minor variations may not allow an increase in the number of dwelling units on a parcel nor permit a reduction in lot area of any lot created after January 1, 1977. If the Planning Director denies a minor variation,the applicant may apply for a variance to the Hearing Examiner. Application fee= $25.00. City of Richland The administrative official may approve without notice a reduction in setback,lot width and/or depth and an increase in lot coverage and building height,none of which exceeds 10%of the standards of the zone in which the use is located. Minor variations shall not allow an increase in the number of dwelling units on a parcel,nor permit a reduction in lot area of any lot. If the administrative official denies a minor variation request, an applicant may request approval of the variance request from the board of adjustment through the filing of a variance application. City of Auburn No Administrative Exception provision Proposed Solution: Based on the research, staff has proposed 3 scenarios for consideration. Scenario 1: An exception may be given for any dimensional requirement for 1 foot or less. This scenario provides for unique conditions which require minor adjustments. The HEX would handle other requests. Scenario 2: Allow exceptions for the following: 1) Residential setbacks up to 10% 2) Lot area reductions up to 5 %(down from 25%) 3) Accessory building coverage requirements up to 25% 4) Lot width requirement up to 5% of the lot width. 5) Minor variations may not allow an increase in dwelling units on a parcel. 6 Administrative Exceptions (SVMC) 19.140 March 5,2015 Scenario 2 retains the 10% setback reduction,reduces the lot area reduction from 25%to 5%,focuses the building coverage requirement from any building to accessory buildings only(which is how it is used), and reduces the lot width from an undefined amount(subject to review)to 5%. The rationale behind this scenario is that allowances can be made that don't affect the character of the neighborhood,or allow for an increase in density. Lot area and lot width reductions are used often to allow for a duplex. While a 5%reduction results in an unnoticeable allowance of width or area,up to 25% challenges the assumptions of adjacent property owners who reasonably assume that the lot does not meet the criteria for a duplex. Criteria should stipulate that the exception may not allow an increase in the number of dwelling units on a parcel or indicate that a density increase may not be allowed unless duplexes already exist in the immediate area so as not to change the character. Criteria for front setbacks should address consistency with adjacent properties, and whether or not improvements exist in the border easement or the likely design of future improvements. All other situations would be considered by the HEX. Scenario 3: Allow exceptions for the following: 1) Residential setbacks up to 10% 2) Lot area reductions up to 5%(down from 25%) 3) Lot width requirement up to 5%of the lot width Scenario 3 relies on the same rationale as Scenario 2,except that it would eliminate the accessory coverage exception. In this scenario we would propose an increase to the accessory structure 10%rule. The proposal would allow lots less than 10,000 sq. ft.to have a shop up to 1,000 sq. ft. in size; Lots greater than 10,000 sq. ft. would be limited to 10%of the lot size. All current standards would still apply. This is based on the common kit sizes which typically result in an approximate 900 sq. ft. shop. 7 Administrative Exceptions (SVMC) 19.140 March 5,2015