Loading...
Agenda 03/26/2015 S1T%olane Valle H Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. March 26, 2015 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 12, 2015 VI. COMMISSION REPORTS VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: • Commission Training: Mike Connelly, PS, Etter, McMahon, Lamberson, Van Wert & Oreskovich, P.C. • Discussion—Administrative Exceptions X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT Spokane Valley Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes Council Chambers— City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. March 12, 2015 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Stoy called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS Present Absent CITY STAFF Joe Stoy-Chair x r Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Kevin Anderson—Vice Chair x E Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Tim Kelley Christina Janssen Mike Phillips x r Susan Scott x Sam Wood x r- Heather Graham x Carl_Hinshaw,Office Assistant IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Anderson made a motion to approve the March 12, 2015 agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Graham made a motion to approve the February 26, 2015 minutes as presented. Commissioner Scott noted on the first page the very last sentence it says, (next to the hives and an adequate supply of water shall be located close by each of the hives.) Commissioner Scott asked that it be changed to (the hives) due to the fact you only have to have one water supply. Also on the very last page, fourth paragraph says, (Commissioner Scott asked why there was no recommendation.) Commissioner Scott wanted it corrected to say findings instead of recommendation. She recalled that her question was not to say that there was no recommendation but rather why there weren't findings that reflected the discussion that had taken place. Commissioner Kelley stated that on page 2 of 6 under the testimony of Mr. Daren Mumau where it says, (Honeybees do not crawl into soda cans that would be a wasp or yellow jacket.) Commissioner Kelley stated that Mr. Mumau said honeybees do crawl into soda cans. Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4 The past president Jerry Tate is the one who said that honeybees do not crawl into soda cans. Commissioner Anderson stated that the word sting is misspelled wrong in the prior sentence. Commissioner Graham stated on page 4 of 6 that the word EpiPen is spelled incorrectly. Having no other discussion, the chair called for the vote to approve the minutes as corrected. The motion passes unanimously. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Kelley and Commissioner Scott reported they attended the Comprehensive Plan Visioning Report Back meeting. Commissioner Graham reported she attended the presentation on the Barker/Sprague intersection proposed improvement. She stated that it was interesting and she is looking forward to seeing what comes of it. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: Senior Planner Lori Barlow went over and highlighted the Planning Commission advanced agenda. She also thanked the Commissioners who attended the Comprehensive Plan Visioning Report Back meeting on March 4, 2015. The next meeting will be held on April 15, 2015. At that time the vision report will be available with the consultants there to provide an overview of the vision statement report. They will also be introducing the beginning stages of what they have learned so far and how it's going to influence the goals and policies that we have in place right now. Ms. Barlow added that they will be highlighting the Citizen-initiated Amendment requests that have been received and some text amendments and policies. Ms. Barlow stated that this meeting will be a great preview for the Planning Commissioners. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS Planning Commission Findings of Fact—CTA-2015-0001 Ms. Barlow stated that in keeping with the direction of the Planning Commission at the last meeting item 5 was added to the list of beekeeping requirements which states (the beekeeper shall have certification from the Washington State Bee Keeper's Association), other than that there are no changes that reflected on this particular document. Ms. Barlow continued that the City Attorney looked it over and found a few housekeeping changes. Under 19.40.150 under item (A) he added the language (the lot or track shall exceed 40,000 square feet in area). The word must in the document has been changed to shall thru out. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations for CTA-2015-0001, as presented. In the text of the amended code Commissioner Graham discussed section I number 4. She asked that since everything has been referred to as hives not colonies and that the word each has been removed in the minutes; she stated that they should continue with the same language. With group discussion this was agreed upon. Commissioner Anderson moved to amend the motion CTA-2015-0001 to incorporate the changes discussed. The motion passes unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 The chair called to approve the amended motion to CTA-2015-0001. The motion passes unanimously. Planning Commission Discussion regarding Administrative Ms. Barlow gave an overview regarding the discussion for the evening. She stated that in the past staff would research a code text amendment then brought it to the Commission for review. This time staff would like to incorporate the Planning Commission's input at a much earlier stage. Planner Christina Janssen stated the preliminary discussion for this evening would be regarding Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)19.140 Administrative Exceptions. • The purpose of SVMC 19.140 and circumstances • Review of the City's regulations that were adopted in October 2007. • Discussed how many applications the city reviews each year. • Gave an in-depth explanation of different types of exceptions • Showed examples of other jurisdictions • General criteria for an administrative exception • Allowed exceptions • Proposed Solution: Based on the research, staff has proposed 3 scenarios.Allow exceptions for the following: Scenario 1: An exception may be given for any dimensional requirement for 1 foot or less. This scenario provides for unique consideration which require minor adjustments.The HEX would handle other requests. Scenario 2: a. Residential setbacks up to 10% b. Lot area reductions up to 5%(down from 25%) c. Accessory building coverage requirements up to 25% d. Lot width requirement up to 5% of the lot width e.Minor variations may not allow an increase in dwelling units on a parcel 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: a. Residential setbacks up to 10% b. Lot area reductions up to 5% (down from 25%) Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 c. 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. Planning Commissioners decided they would like time to process all of the information, and to continue the discussion at the next planning commission meeting March 26, 2015. Commissioner Kelley asked if there could be a discussion at the next meeting about the letter of the code and the intent of the code. He thinks that it will help to find why they should vote for or against different scenarios. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order. XI. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business adjourn was the meeting at 8:33 p.m. Joe Stoy, Chairperson Deanna Horton, PC Secretary Date signed Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: March 26, 2015 Item: Check all that apply: n consent n old business ® new business n public hearing ® information n admin.report n pending legislation FILE NUMBER: TBD AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Continued 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. On March 12 staff presented an overview of the issue and considerable discussion occurred. At the March 26th meeting staff will provide more information regarding the purpose of the Administrative Exception amendment. The Commission should be prepared to discuss the issue and provide comment that will assist staff with developing the code text amendment. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Continue discussion—No action recommended at this time. STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen,Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. Memo—March 5,2015 B. Powerpoint presentation RPCA for Administrative Exception Study Session SOU V,,leY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .'P NG DIVISION Planning Commission March 26, 2015 Administrative Exceptions SVMC 19. 140 (Continued Discussion) SpokaneCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7PtANNING Divrsiory -� Administrative Exceptions - Definition Chapter 19. 140 SVMC Administrative Exception : A minor deviation from standards pursuant to Chapter 19 . 140 SVMC. Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TtANNING DIVISION -� Administrative Exceptions - Purpose Chapter 19. 140 SVMC 19. 140.010 Purpose. An administrative exception may be considered only for adjustments necessary to correct errors resulting from the inadvertent and unintentional placement of structures or incorrect identification of lot boundaries in the following circumstances : j� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT N�I�,�G Divrsibro. Current Regulations A. Any dimensional requirement which does not exceed 1 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. j� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �P Nl� G DIVISION -� Current Regulations 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 building 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. j� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �P N�I�,�G Divrsibro. Current Regulations F. Maximum building coverage requirements where the deviation is the 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 I greater than 10 percent; provided, that the department may require notice to affected agencies resulting in conditions of approval. j� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �P N_I� ivrsibro. Current Regulations I. F 'n str t r setback • rovid�d,•that: H. p o�n��ia��e the,pulbj��t parcel was�egally crea efdo�ehe appproperfSypwa�zoiled 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� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT N�I�,�G Divrsibro. Current Regulations J. Any improved property rendered non-conforming 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. Spilka COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �P Nl� G Divrsiory -� 19. 140.010 Purpose. An administrative exception may be considered only for adjjuulttnecilsaarOatooretrnerEarsultsntt l i v: i r the in, ;,u trilt trn duànfnlititiuhialapkni eni ifts4xIü1truet tare s or incomattiiiinhitifi8titvontroldbdoinatfirriias thetlfiel fo1!rai' gng circumstances : SpokaneCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT !MANNING DIVISION! �- When is an Administrative Exception appropriate? An administrative exception may be considered only for adjustments necessary to correct errors resulting from The inadvertent and unintentional placement of structures or incorrect identification of lot boundaries in the following circumstances : Spril:an COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IPtAN ING DIVISION V alley What types of Administrative Exceptions should be available? Lot Width Building 1 . Any dimcnsional r cqui cmcnt lcss than 1 foot. Height 2. Lcgal Nonconforming lots, SF dwclling, or duplcxcs 3 . Setbacks Lot 411116. 4. Building IIcight Coverage Setbacks 5 . Lot area Lot Size 6. Building coverage Lot 7. Lot width Width 8. Tower impact area's 9. Nonconforming duc to ROW dcdication, cmincnt domain, or purchase of property by government agency. Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT !P NIXING DIVISION! How much relief is acceptable? SPokluleCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TtANNING Divrsiory -� 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. Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT_r TANNING DIVISION 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 Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT_r TANNING DIVISION 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 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4ANI ING SpOUne DIVISION! Questions ? Sioliane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANT TNGDIVISION — Winfield Estates `r�E— vd■■ �r,w*®1—�•r� �° n 1,,,,,,N,,,. .tit ° r ti}1 I g1 fl-A1• I • �� � ,,� �.' � I �1 may- ' ' r r '-:',-.:• `' :i, ... { I z * I� I _I . Illeil ��I ■��■L�Si'I fi t, n. -- -T .I'-' UM Lui IL I J I 1 f I I�r i ��tst L'i :4 s t, {4v M, 42145241.3148 1 — •rd 'v mg k I' 7 .■.,.E T. . y� 3. Li _ sill m . -,. , II am* y..�ll"% li-+S,— , N. V A L LIE` s IN 7 41±1-ARIM!A == 6= . us Mil LIM z... I IM IME N.07. le 1 I� hL� iti 144 - - I { WAILJ.tt�F.Lt4 'A M. ml Ili — 4..r1 - N. • (# 45 92 E - LR - .}h�}4�.1 u I r7 ■ pl l ' ' =rt. ■■E ■ 7 I Sly. L,-th7 .v� TO 'UPI vim v iv 1 L'- 1 A4' 45245.9146c'.1...'_,...;,...., F 7 55039064 5519�3.9Wt r � my -ti-1111111*'Lthtft:Ln– e -9-A I' ., - tbL i mg lip '�' aIR ll e CC J 41 A'.. Pr 4 1 th L' I a _ �1+ 1 s if In r i...L. .. .. 02,c r=,,_ . _ , 55193.5066 , yu. 1. = r J /PI en 4- # I 55154.9076 tet,Rd ti T r� ti 1 �. I ! ...1% i'''` �` r. 552 .912 I { th11�dti�— �- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PlAN11�ING DIVISION J HOPUT '47"01 6-57.77. F. .. S X5,15' E5.15. 05..1.6 06.42' '-. ] 9Eb C i'1''E iE WWII 115J11 r i,_ • N , m * lY �a W dt _ u' S , rt IDU rj' =fig , W 's~ i .n. co CI 'r t dr F kn r m k Y; y " N � 4 _ x •a z i R Q �° m L - D rw �¢ • u7 4 I J �1 " \r r m _ 55 X 62 �• �v-- - r { Z - - ' L i 0' > Building 20' —p—1134,1) . i . A _n97.3rti,' ` E 5n Envelope ° , ' . o� !4� � � , ' kms. k�a�..�.:.iti�li . fir!J I i in', r ea ._ Pas Es ,11 4' wY e* .0Eiz n6 I el eEli nig 74.al• r'.Cd' ..1 7.1 {' s dna il7_b3' — — -- .. '9 [I .0-0°\...... Stioliane lirilrill ,1,47- , .000 Valley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING.DIVISION --4.-* — -.Agigni...i Rau Estates I 5, , I--0 A A -r-,13 1 1-Ji,1 - , xi ii 1 i N _cf, 1--.. .H. --n _ - NEFF . T Ul Lrl. 11 I r,1„, II i_. cc, 1 — —1 —= —.Nag ___L2 1 1 Q --1 1. _ _., . , .....6„... _ LI %':,I''r' A r + V . ,, 1111 I I • , „ , • 4 II -71-j--111____Fq ...1. Thli . !-.. :L:. 1 1_17. or). .0...„. 0i. I rci5 4 01301 ::. -- 1 L 145153 0405 96 , ril - Si3ririegfield Av a. _ .--: lilt Spri , I L 0 ri 64.caca — -- 1 -- I — .. .., c, . , 2 , .0 g. I — r. _,,, , p... . _ „ 45153.0411 . 1—Aiki 54, " . 1.-' 1 1 -Ill- . I LrL • NM -' o _ Aik1-010.:v .4 a r--1 1_-0 L'L _ iiiiAv, i. wi ‹ ni -4, -1-, ±. . .,, o.- ' 111111 - M 11 1 III, 11 ‘'' " 1 1—` .,.:, —LI a) ,,.-I V_ I , i kij:dm 10 !I; tin, 45154.004 z _, -P ,-, - _ _ . 1 I — rri 01'lie Ae1 - -0-K .17111144Vi -iiiM , ‘ .ri,.. 11111 'i, _:Echjgi' A '8 !. :, 1 — rip al 3ZI al. co 'MVP 1-k 1 rZtji [ 1-1.-- ? -I E p I I , Livlial4ywayFAv, . gnu trt ZiCj -I5i, milli im mi T - g FM7' 1. El 9 II - Ill - g ijji -\-- mI 3.-1 . - 1st iKon.,Etti- --°- ± ±-1 .- L d"7-4 Ill LLITI riP11 ± 1 ZI=I-Ei— —in 1 SU ,__9• 71-7 Ma I rii7Av[ izqpHi /IA 1 r. ail rd V1 1E1 H IT 'M ' = 11/411.a i IIIA VI F -2' V.— 'Rivesi .:1 NI 1 1de-A1 _, sidevi_Ii- FilversideI Riverside _ --CI- i _A X7- I I i FP- 1 [11111 C-Lij -r-A 1-41- Irt . 4?-2_ 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NIXING - ._. . r I 11,..../J I SKr Fil 4: . .. . ,,d--.. 5' izo,2 or' d 6ll- �$ jrei - ir- r- ----- 2t)9 3L I. . 20' KV _.--- .7- et - - - Q 'r M1 L • I r - 0. 000 4 34 j a 14 E� i11 u — 41 1 i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTPLANII�I.NG DIVISION J {r I 1 4 s - 712 i' 317 in, . - 1 } 20' i IIJ I I k II ' �j �y 1 ? 5' L 0nT r1�1 F 1 illi i Fr- , JAI. our! I I = I ilio ti `-5Y' 1� 20 — 1 7 S r- ® .1 1 . . _ 1 I I 7 0' R- '•y' 1 r�5' - --1- _1r WI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AN ING -DIVISION ' , ..,.Ridemont_Estates .... . ,. ,.. . 3rd Addn. ,,,.. ...lim . . ,r, . . . . . 0 ... . ,. __ ._ .. , _,....._ ic- _. % . . .. , . . : y� {+ 1 4 • .. , '.. 20t • .% °d A • f • 4 aai 1 , * . `tea"„ .. t Ct r P.' • • . , _$ 22nd Av Cf x f4 • • T , # , . • 13 • i 3rd +A V 4 ,- .. , , a 1 , -tom , w y 41G►5 cr7. . •pt Ln Spaane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -PLANNING DIVISION - J Val lew 35' X 140' Lot6.°F;I:co.0,44011111111111tV6-540 Building Dimensions Envelope at widest points - iiv approx. ' 2p� 75' X 150' 7 1 I 22 i r „. I" I 0 iii ii:54i -.1 q 4. i m _ - . . I. dm i 4 I- e 205 N JL E i Spoka ne COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4 ANNING DIVISION Vag A. Any dimensional requirement which does not exceed 1 foot; = (� B. Under the following conditions: 1 . A parcel established prior to March 31, 2003, that s • - - meet the buildable square footage requirements for a . . - es g district; or 2. Ale all nonconfo �� ' - s height and size legally ml• 11- g which • COVV-f°1 constructed; or 3. A dup On _ • 1r arch 31, 2003, that does not meet the minimum parcel _, .• is could not otherwise be reconstructed. C. Yard setback requirements where the deviation is for 10 percent or less of the = 39 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 = 1 equivalent height of adjacent building in areas where the maximum building height is generally exceeded. kan COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT N 9. Drvlsiow E. Minimum lot area requirements where the deviation is for 25 percent or less of the = 17 required lot area. (Lot size) F. Maximum building coverage requirements where the deviation is the 25 percent or = 16 less of the maximum building coverage. (Lot 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. = 13 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. Sp kant COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTPIAN NG DrvrS�O�v Val H. Up to one-half of a private tower's impact area off of the applicant's property = 0 I. 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 N/A 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 non-conforming through voluntary dedication of = 0 right-of-way, the exercise of eminent domain proceedings or purchase of right-of- way by the City, county, state or federal agency. Spilkane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT !NANI ING DIVISION Val Setbacks Yard setback requirements where the deviation is for 10 percent or less of the required yard. Required Setback Setback with maximum (from edge of border exception easement) Front yard 20 ft. 18 ft. Side yard (Interior) L 5 ft. 4 1/2 ft. Flanking Street Yard or 15 ft. 13 1/2 ft. Rear yard 20 ft. 18 ft. .0•"11 WW1111111, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1PLANII�ING DIVISION -4' J Setbacks _ , . 1 r ` � _ II ir ,li k °4 '—.4,1-1 VIM ok 50''.. . .: -7'...1 . , ., !Ulf ' li ION . , . ,• %! .r S o r • ir.: I 11' 451532904 e 1 yI X Y I - r . s--L 1 II % 44 ., _ oI • r• moi • , ■ • 1 5. �� s7 y ` '■ �.::• ' MI 4 .. � ice— 07.,. �. . Tr r. . .1.424..1' 1r ■ • ! % v A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT_r Spokane DIVISION � J TANNING Lot Width 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. Stiokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IPLANNING DIVISION -y J -, Lot Width -- -- 155.00 EXISTING STEEN LANE N -�-- '` - 5 Lot Short Subdivision ■w, m ` I it --- 2 feet was needed to 1 611 l[, TEEN LANTE — M 4 I j � int- I � on'. n- accommodate 1 more lot. I I I L1-513C D212 trirt. 0. La PROF'ER JLajL. All other development I 1 .5.0C I standards were being met or _1 sci exceeded. 00 CM J Constrained by existing _ L_ _. improvements .0-0.N.... IIIMPFIRIFW ,.111.11.07-7ii4:: •-•• *aline COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IPLANNING DIVISION ---- .0,00.Valiey _ - Es I 1..„--- 50-.- 50' 50' 50' I I e , u-c-) e ...6 -[ /- d ID n 1 0 Lot Width . .., .4 .6. A.. , .--, & 1 1f4---lc' .z . cr., —ir , 0 AM a51 -05 10 AP1-... A ...,109 z—.1--. _., in a,cila p..,, ..... 03 0C2 , 1:1 til t"' 12 Lot Subdivision CArdpe-' --3 CA 3, '''4 '---1 (..1 RI P ' r4 CO ,.,A 0 LTL -. ''j /2 .' ILf .-11_, — i 1 1 — , 5 < , ,2,_F 71' .. LI o . , i it • 2.5 feet was needed to • 6- I - .„ k.,.. ,. .... .,, _ i . . ,, in_.. , accommodate 1 more lot ..., ., 50' - ... \1:1,cir i;_t. .. 55. , 50' 501 50 47.3r UNION ANE 7:- __,------ "' All other development I , __j, . -7.: - 1 . • .. - _ i ''.-- 76' I 1 .107 5 5' 5.1," --..„,,s.t. '1-.'., 22' \ ' standards were being , iz,. met or exceeded. . .... ,--- ---- im izic '74 ici 0 SA 1..7 b t.. 1..) .t_. ru .71 - CrUt IZINk 1 r2 71 \ 0--.."' _, --------id) .-- li 0 -7, 0 '-.1 -1 rl ri) .-.1E —. e) Q 0 —1. ..... Z- 9. —p ''''3 1-4 -'20. Impacted by existing ..3 E ..,.'..._ " LF, , at Cili w IA , i 153. ill . __ _. - ° - , ./ . improvements -` I -,, Pi -,, _ 0 74 -•i H I X, WKIER LrNE:.5 ,, .___ ,71 _,, , , 851 31 51 El, t 51' 1 51 A 172' '0_ N -' — •— Sp kane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT N _NG D�viSiON Valle Lot Size Minimum lot area requirements where the deviation is for 25% or less of the required lot area. Zone Minimum Lot Siz Minimum Lot Size Lot size with maximum Single Family Duplex exception R-1 40,000 sq. ft. N/A 30,000 sq. ft. R-2 10,000 sq. ft. N/A 7,500 sq. ft. R-3 7,500 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. ft. 5,625 sq. ft. / 9,000 sq. ft. R-4 6,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 4,500 sq. ft./ 7,500 sq. ft. *Mane COMMUNITY1DEVELOPMENT _3tAN I NG DIVISION -4' - - • - • ,.-,- -,-:.;:%!,,,: •'-r...-., - °. ':--. „- . kia.. .-7* _ - I in • 4a. a 41 Lin . _••• ••16• - ° - • Drx. , itliir., . it .: . - ,. .• - -. . . , i7 '7'AO .1. - .. . A Ln V•1.1 i1/411 1., r• : gP.: a A..'„:.% ; ir li i..•. .-k" -...1-gr. Ilk-1 P1/4.1. • ILL 1 IUJI • • — ..''4::''•::;* .,• :.. p. ': -' 452330303 'kr 45234.0507 L 1.1 = L..1 i L J.. • --....I ' .% - 111 :-'" . . U.) .... ' " T IlL't r 114 _ : .. .,...1 1 . fo t: 1 1.1 , 4 —• 4 g:' ' .• =, . . . . g. ` ' _ . - "1 . "• — -. :17 ig:" .-1..• 0 w kaLli - . - : .. •: .. • - '. ( ) 1!.:• .7- --i • In .' .7 .. - •I 1 .. "._,... SI. NIL °- ..' t •:-j r 1•_41 ,L: I - r.1 , fil '• . ,, PI:.•.1, -'.•t• • •,„• , ''''_'• • • . '..4%11 . - 2„.•.-, " • ' ' • - " . • . 't% 91 iii44 Alt5iMilirj 71111111.14WCIT -11- - .. • .-1-,— ." ' ' 1 : ... '"' — 4 • .'. 45234 0618 . ._ . ___ Jeri, . . '..% . 0 _ . ' S )...r11.1 , Abrn IA . 1 IP 5 Di) — :„ .1 .- ; - , 4 L. li , 1 IQ a 45213 - - - - - ' 4111161 11.0 , __ —• u.i • 17.234 06 20 .PI '1 4523. Z - . i in • Fam . ill -. I . 1 A 1 . 1 t • • - - - I I •• • . 1 e 01 1 45233...1507 45233.1503 CI- .• • L__ .111N, 'It1 1 4523 .,_ , L , . . 1 ' . • • ""- - • •°7 . - _ rtivilkm., ;•...m.o. ', 'Ali- •".;: ' . - ft 6/1 ' •• . -_'' :°. ... . _ .1 ' : : ..: .:'. ••.„ Li••, "g-: 1 ' I ' 1 • - -Y51 X " ..,4. lc •. -, ,1517 z: 11523. ) 45234.5301 3 . a . "ige11ik _.3 • Pu; ' 3...1. 18 . .-- , • .--- . ,..- . - • • 1' tasein;72-4,- . 4 .,, , ..... 1 __Ar- ft.. ir - Spokane 400,0 Val Iey COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -PLANNING DIVISIONJ F 632 14,369 11,998 L_ I 45224 5006 .... x . , ..-: ..� 45224 5004 : -,.I- - 13885 - _ I. 45224'5005 -■ , , 2,g 6•43 0 • it" ■ .. - , .'._.. 7a.P , ■� "'i�ray. r" r f,_ #: 45224 5007 t r li■ • Vi u . it _'I r , 109097 iI 24 ' 02, " '' 45224.5003 . • S 45224.5002 . 45224 5002 45224 5001 ii 1 `3 • o ill r 1 2.47 acres Z 6 I midi ilm.! v e r •1• r e d ... , 45224:1708 � r ■ sookanee1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PI AN NG DrvisION - Lot Coverage Maximum building coverage requirements where the deviation is the 25 percent or less of the maximum building coverage. Zone Maximum Lot Accessory Structure Coverage allowance 19.40.020 SVMC 19.40.090 SVMC R-1 30% 10% R-2 50% 10% R-3 50% 10% R-4 55% 10% SOOka JeCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P1ANNNG DIVISION 111e What aAc c e s s o ry • Detached Garages ,-'11 x t r � Wit. �' 0. t. • Pole Buildings F. _", , r4 liwON11111 •y ,1_ • Detached Carports .., • Garden Sheds • Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 4" ,. • Playhouses y F '�lip" v :.--'- ---;- -'-'. 7 • Gazebo's I a • Above Ground Pools , "1-m ' r�A I' WIllirliiri; _: Sp{;ha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT N 1111E DivisION Valle __ I Y , 0 , � t It 116 I 421 Sg WALLEY . 174 :231 i N e li 1 3HThira— ir=-. Lot Size — 19,554 sq. ft. Allowed Accessory Structure Sq. Ft. — 1,955 sq. ft. Actual Accessory Structure Sq. Ft. — 2,350 sq. ft. linarliirWM.111 ,ii: -. Sp{;ha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IPtAN IMG DIVISION _ IL I Lot Size ,,- y , ., G -.. . z Lot Size — 14,000 sq. ft. y i 9T", � � r Allowed Accessory a _I Ilifik 0 Structure Sq. Ft. — 1, { 400 h 'D. sq. ft. ,,iimpir Riti,- c I op i i A C Actual Accessory Structure ilm Sq. Ft. — 1,740 sq. ft. i 3 s ■ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANT ING DIVISION - r: Lot Size 30 X 40 ti Lot Size — 11,889 sq. ft. ti Allowed Accessory Structure Sq. Ft. — 1,189 w 1 sq. ft. 46354.3513 14905 •- Actual Accessory Structure Sq. Ft. — 1,200 � .. i s sq. ft. _71 r: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT = PLANTNG DIVISION - J T Pole Bldg. Square Footage Dimensions ion 24 X 24 1 576 24 X 30 720 4 X 36 864 30 X 30 900 30 X 36 1 .080 40 X 60 '.400 .00 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTPIANNLNG diviSioN J 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 required required required required required City of _11= Millii Spokane ' ariance Required City of Liberty Director may consider alternative methods of compliance that meet the intent of the code Lake City of 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 City of 10% or 10% or 10% or 10% or 10% or 10%0 or 10% or Richland less of less of less of less of less of less of less of required required required required n required required required City of Aubtnn u i }ariance Require,,