PC APPROVED Minutes 03-12-15 Spokane Valley Planning Commission
APPROVED 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 CITY STAFF
Joe Stay-Chair Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Kevin Anderson—Vice Chair Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Tim Kelley Christina Janssen
Mike Phillips
Susan Scott
Sam Wood
Heather Graham Cari 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 states, "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 states, "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 states, "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. The past Inland Empire Bee Association 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 in the prior sentence. Commissioner Graham stated on page 4 of 6 that the word
EpiPen is spelled incorrectly.
Planning Commission Minutes 03-12-15 Page 1 of 4
Having no other discussion, the chair called for the vote to approve the minutes as corrected.
The motion passed 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 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. 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 March
12, 2015 item 5 was added to the list of beekeeping requirements which states "the beekeeper
shall have certification from the Washington State Beekeeper's Association",. Ms. Barlow
continued the City Attorney reviewed the document and found a few housekeeping changes.
Under 19.40.150 (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 throughout.
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 passed unanimously.
The chair called to approve the amended motion to CTA-2015-0001. The motion passed
unanimously.
Planning Commission Minutes 03-12-15 Page 2 of 4
Planning Commission Discussion regarding Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
19.140 Administrative Exceptions:
Ms. Barlow gave an overview regarding the discussion for the evening. She stated in the past,
staff would research a code text amendment then bring 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: .
• The purpose of SVMC 19.140 and circumstances
• Review of the City's regulations that were adopted in October 2007.
• The number of 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 three 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 Hearing Examiner 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 area's 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 Hearing Examiner.
Scenario 3: Allow exceptions for the following:
a. Residential setbacks up to 10%
b. Lot area reductions up to 5% (down from 25%)
c. Lot width requirement up to 5%of the lot width
Planning Commission Minutes 03-12-15 Page 3 of 4
Scenario 3 relies on the same rationale as Scenario 2, except 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.
M. ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business adjourn was the meeting at 8:33 p.m.
-,zia, (.1
Joe Stoy, Chairperson
Deanna Horton, PC Secretary
Date signed 3 `a2CC JC
Planning Commission Minutes 03-12-15 Page 4 of 4