PC APPROVED Minutes 03-26-15 Approved Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall,
March 26, 2015
Chairman Stoy called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the
pledge of allegiance. Ms. Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present:
Kevin Anderson Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Heather Graham Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Tim Kelley Christina Janssen, Planner
Mike Phillips
Susan Scott
Joe Stay
Sam Wood
Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission
Ms. Horton handed out amended March 12, 2015 minutes in which some spelling and grammar
corrections had been made since they had been distributed to the Planning Commission. Commissioner
Wood moved to accept the March 12, 2015 minutes as amended. The vote to approve the minutes as
amended was seven in favor, zero against. The motion passed.
COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners Wood reported he attended the March 24, 2015 City
Council Meeting.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow reported Mr. Mike Connelly, who was
scheduled for Planning Commission training at this meeting was unable to attend. The training would be
changed to the April 9, 2015 meeting. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners the next Comprehensive
Plan Update meeting would be April 15, 2015 at CenterPlace.
PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
Planning Commission Discussion regarding Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
19.140 Administrative Exceptions:
Previously Ms. Janssen and Ms. Barlow discussed SVMC 19.140 Administrative Exceptions with the
Commissioners. Staff discussed having the Commission assist in developing the criteria and
parameters for an amendment prior to bringing the language to them for approval. They continued
the discussion asking if the Commissioners felt if SVMC 19.140 as currently written met the needs
of the community and provided adequate direction to staff to administer. Below is SVMC 19.140 as
it is currently written:
19.140: 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:
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.
03-26-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 3
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.
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
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 Commissioners felt the current general purpose statement no longer applied and should be
rewritten feeling it was too rigid. They agreed the new criteria should be plain, straight forward and
simple. Ms. Janssen stated staff would clarify the general purpose statement at the beginning of the
section, and requested the Commission provide direction on the items listed below, which staff
regularly get requests for exceptions:
• Setbacks
• Lot area
• Building coverage
• Lot width
Ms. Barlow clarified the other items in the section are not being considered because either staff does
not receive request for relief on those items, or those items are being addressed in other areas of the
code.
Discussion continued on the four items and what reasonable guidelines would be for the community.
There was discussion regarding lot width and not allowing an exception to create additional density
where it would not be allowed. The Commissioners debated what exception tolerances should be
allowed. The exceptions they felt would most fit the community were:
• Setbacks— 10% reduction
• Lot area— 10% reduction but must have language which states this option cannot be used to
create additional density.
• Building coverage for accessory buildings—Lots up to 10,000 square feet would be allowed
accessory structures up to 1,000 square feet; Lots 10,000 square feet or greater would be
allowed accessory structures up to 10% of the lot size.
• Lot width and lot depth— 10%reduction
Staff thanked the Commissioners for the dialog and explained they would be bringing back a code
text amendment in the future reflecting the suggested changes.
03-26-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3
GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Scott asked if the Comprehensive Plan would be coming to
the Commission soon, and would it require extra or longer meetings in order to maintain the desired
deadline of December 31, 2015. Ms. Barlow and Mr. Driskell stated the Comprehensive Plan was in the
early stages of development but would come before the Commission after the review of the Vision
Statement report, which would guide the changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff could not predict
what kind of meetings would be required in the future in order to review and recommend the draft
Comprehensive Plan.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m.
(G.
Joe p
Stoy, Chairperson' Date signed
ke4AiirediS,
•
Deanna Horton, Secretary
03-26-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3