2021-07-22 Agenda Packet00
Spokane
jVa11ey
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 E. Sprague Ave.
July 22, 2021 6:00 p.m.
1. PLEASE NOTE: Meetings are being held electronically in response to Governor Inslee's
March 24, 2020 Proclamation concerning our recent State of Emergency, which waives and
suspends the requirement to hold in -person meetings and provides options for the public to
attend remotely.
2. Public wishing- to make comments will need to email planninQ(@,spokanevallev,�M prior to
4:00 pm the day of the meeting in order to be to speak during the comments period during
the meeting. Comments can also be emailed. Send an email to plannina(2cspokanevalley.org
and comments will be read into the record or distributed to the Commission members
through email.
3. LINK TO ZOOM MEETING INFORMATION:
https://spokanevaIley.zoom.us/o/86262747051
One tap mobile
US: +12532158782„86262747051# or+16699006833„86262747051# US
Dial by your location
US: +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
Meeting ID: 862 6274 7051
4. CALL TO ORDER
5. ROLL CALL
6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 8, 2021
8. COMMISSION REPORTS
9. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
10. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda.
11. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a. Discussion: Storage Containers
12. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
13. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers — City Hall
July 8, 2021
I. Planning Commission Chair Bob McKinley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The
meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting.
H. Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard took roll and the following members and staff were
present:
Fred Beaulac
Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Karl Granrath
Jenny Nickerson, Building Official
Walt Haneke
Chaz Bates, Senior Planner
Bob McKinley
Arielle Anderson, Housing & Homeless Coordinator
Nancy Miller
Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant
Paul Rieckers
Marianne Lemons, Administrative Assistant
Sherri Robinson
III. AGENDA: Commissioner Robinson moved to approve the July 8, 2021 meeting agenda as
presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against
and the motion passed.
IV. MINUTES: Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the June 24, 2021 minutes as
presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against
and the motion passed.
V. COMMISSION REPORTS: There were no Commission reports.
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson stated that City
Council has returned to in -person meetings with a hybrid format and hopes that Planning
Commission will be able to move to that format for the July 22, 2021 meeting. Ms.
Nickerson also mentioned that the City email server was recently updated and it has caused
issues with the Commissioner email addresses. She stated that IT is working to correct the
issues and staff will email or call once the problem is fixed.
VII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a. Public Hearing: 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
The public hearing was opened at 6:09 p.m.
Senior Planner Chaz Bates gave a staff presentation regarding the 2021 Comprehensive Plan
Amendments. He explained that local jurisdictions are allowed to make amendments to the
07-08-2021 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2 of 5
Comprehensive Plan once each year. The amendments are initiated by property owners,
residents, or by the City. The application deadline to submit is October 30th. Notice was
published 60 days prior to October 1st and sent to agencies, organizations, and adjacent
jurisdictions. The amendments were docketed by the City Council and then sent to the
Planning Commission for consideration. He explained that the purpose of the meeting is to
hold the public hearing and create recommendations for the City Council. Findings of Fact
documenting the recommendations will be presented on August 12, 2021 for approval.
Public hearing notices were published twice in the newspaper, posted on the properties, and
mailed to property owners within 400 feet of the site -specific map amendments.
Mr. Bates outlined the four amendments to be heard during the 2021 cycle.
CPA-2021-0001: Request to change the .68 acres from Multiple Family Residential (MFR) to
Corridor Mixed Use (CMU).
Mr. Bates stated that this amendment is privately initiated for the property located at 22 N.
Skipworth Road. It is owned by Homtomi Partners. The request is to rezone the property
from Multi -Family residential (MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). The property to the
east, south, and west are all zoned CMU. The property to the north is zoned MFR. Findings
show there are no critical areas on the site, the site would support the redevelopment and
infill of the parcel, would support the increase of housing opportunities, is supported by the
transportation network, and is compatible with the surrounding uses.
Commissioner Miller commented that she was concerned about the fire access for the
proposed expansion so she contacted Traci Harvey with Spokane Valley Fire Department and
was told that the access is most likely adequate for the proposed change based on a
preliminary review.
Commissioner Haneke asked if the property is at the max capacity for development based on
the current MFR designation. Mr. Bates answered that the MFR designation allows fifteen
units and the property currently has fourteen units. Mr. Haneke asked how many units would
be allowed if the property was rezoned to CMU. Mr. Bates answered that it would only be
restricted by Title 24 of the International Building Code.
The item was opened for public comment. Chairman McKinley read the guidelines for
public testimony.
Lindsay Goodman, Glendale, CA stated that he is a managing partner of the applicant and
an architect. He explained that the Skipworth Apartments have been owned by his family for
thirty years. He stated that there is a lack of affordable housing in Spokane Valley so they
requested the change to the zoning of the property so they can add four additional studio
units and carports to the apartment complex.
Commissioner Miller asked the applicant if they are committed to keeping the apartment
complexes. The applicant stated that they are planning to keep them and are not planning to
tear them down.
No additional public testimony was offered.
CPA-2021-0002: Request to change 5.56 acres from Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) to Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space (P/OS).
2
07-08-2021 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3 of 5
Mr. Bates explained that this amendment is City initiated for the property located across the
street from City Hall on Sprague Avenue and the future proposed use is to expand Balfour
Park. The City owns this property and requests to rezone the property from Corridor Mixed
Use (CMU) to Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (P/OS). The property to the west (Balfour
Park) is zoned P/OS, the property to the west and south is CMU, and the property to the north
is MFR. The property is currently vacant. Findings show there are no critical areas on the
site, the site would support Park Level of Service, is supported by the transportation network,
is compatible with the surrounding uses, and implements the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan.
Commissioner Beaulac asked if the Appleway Trail will be connected to Balfour Park. Mr.
Bates answered that work is being done to extend the trail along Appleway Boulevard from
University Road to Farr Road. There will also be a portion of the trail running along
Dartmouth Road to Sprague Avenue. The City is currently seeking grant funding to improve
the crossing on Dartmouth and Sprague to allow trail users to get to Balfour Park.
There was no public comment offered.
CPA-2021-0003: Request to change 46 acres from Industrial (I) to Parks, Recreation, and
Open Space (P/OS).
Mr. Bates stated that this amendment is City initiated for the four parcels located between the
Spokane River and Union Pacific railroad east of Flora Road (the property is unaddressed).
The City owns the property and requests to rezone the property from Industrial (1) to Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space (P/OS). The properties to the north, west, and east are all zoned
I, and the property to the east is zoned P/OS. Findings show that the proposal would support
Park Level of Service, it is a newly acquired property purchased specifically for park land,
and is compatible with surrounding uses.
Commissioner Beaulac asked about access to the property via the Union Pacific railroad
crossing and if there are proposed improvements to make the railroad crossings safer for the
residents. Mr. Bates answered that there are approximately nine trains per day that utilize
that railroad crossing. There has not been any discussion regarding the improvements yet but
he explained that he anticipates that will be in the long-term master planning process as the
development moves forward.
There was one written public comment read into the record from Tom Rees in support of the
land use change. There was no additional public comment offered.
CPA-2021-0004: Add goals, policies, strategies, and background text related to
homelessness.
Housing and Homeless Coordinator Arielle Anderson explained that the text amendment is
City initiated to add goals, policies, and strategies to formalize the City's position on
community resources ranging from homeless services to housing instability. She stated that
the Comprehensive Plan currently lacks goals, policies and strategies for people who are
unsheltered and facing housing instability. The proposed text amendment formalizes the
City's commitment to a regional approach to reduce homelessness and address the lack of
guidance in the development of zoning regulations regarding site housing and homeless
services. The proposed amendments ensure that current publicly funded programs are
equally accessible by City residents, formalizes the City action to develop implementing
regulations to build out services in the community, supports continued regional cooperation,
3
07-08-2021 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4 of 5
and ensures that all facilities sited in the City have commensurate on -site support. She
explained that the amendment is non -site specific and does not detail where services will be
located but it will address an identified deficiency within the Comprehensive Plan and
support the development of a Homeless Response System specific to the needs of the City.
There was no public comment offered. The public hearing was closed at 6:46 p.m.
Discussion and recommendation regarding CPA-2021-0001
Commissioner Haneke stated that he is opposed to this amendment because there is no
restriction that would keep the owners from tearing down the affordable housing units.
Commissioner Miller, Rieckers, Granrath, Beaulac, McKinley, and Robinson stated that they
are in support of the amendment because the change is appropriate with the surrounding uses
and the proposed plan will add additional housing units that are needed within the City limits.
Commissioner Miller moved to recommend approval of CPA-2021-0001 and forward it to
the City Council. There was no additional discussion. The vote on the motion was six in
favor and one against, with Commissioner Haneke dissenting. The motion passed.
Discussion and recommendation regarding CPA-2021-0002
There was no discussion. Commissioner Miller moved to recommend approval of CPA-
2021-0002 and forward it to the City Council. The vote on the motion was seven in favor,
zero against and the motion passed.
Discussion and recommendation regarding CPA-2021-0003
There was no discussion. Commissioner Miller moved to recommend approval of CPA-
2021-0003 and forward it to the City Council. The vote on the motion was seven in favor,
zero against and the motion passed.
Discussion and recommendation regarding CPA-2021-0004
There was no discussion. Commissioner Miller moved to recommend approval of CPA-
2021-0002 and forward it to the City Council. The vote on the motion was seven in favor,
zero against and the motion passed.
IX. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Building Official Nickerson stated that anyone who wishes to
apply for appointment to the Planning Commission should contact City Clerk Chris
Bainbridge for application deadlines.
X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Beaulac moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:19 p.m.
There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the
motion passed.
4
07-08-2021 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5 of5
Bob McKinley, Chair Date signed
Marianne Lemons, Secretary
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: July 22, 2021
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
® information ❑ study session
FILE NUMBER: N/A
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Discussion of current Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) regulations
related to shipping containers.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: N/A; discussion topic only.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapters 19.40, 19.60, and 19.65 SVMC
PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN: CTA-2017-0002; Planning Commission
held a public hearing June 8, 2017 on the proposed amendment and voted 6-1 to recommend that the City
not approve the proposed amendment.
BACKGROUND: During discussion related to Batch Code Text Amendment CTA-202 1 -000 1; members
of the Planning Commission expressed interest in discussing the current Spokane Valley Municipal Code
regulations related to shipping containers. CTA-2021-0001 included a proposed amendment to the
language contained in SVMC 19.40.030 (D) (6) which reads "Cargo shipping containers and similar
enclosures are not a permitted accessory structure in any residential zoning district." The proposed
amendment consists of striking the section from the Accessory dwelling unit development standards
heading and relocating the language to a more accurate heading: SVMC 19.65.130 (A) (3): Supplemental
use regulations related to residential accessory structures. Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend
City Council approve of CTA-202 1 -0001 as proposed.
On March 21, 2017 Council directed staff to begin a review and update of the City's regulations related to
shipping container use. The Planning Commission discussed the current and proposed regulations at the
March 23 meeting and provided input on the development of the draft shipping container regulations. The
Planning Commission conducted a study session on May 25, 2017.
On June 8, 2017 Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment. There
were no public comments on the proposed amendment.
The Planning Commission deliberated on the proposed amendment following the close of the public
hearing. During deliberation several commissioners stated they did not support the use of shipping
containers in residential areas because property owners have no way to verify if the containers are safe.
Contamination of the containers from hazardous spills was a primary concern in regards to the health,
safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Following deliberation the commission voted 6-1 to
recommend that the city council not approve the proposed amendment.
On August 15, 2017, an Administrative Report was presented to Council on CTA-2017-0002. There was
agreement from four City Council members to move the item forward. During the December 19, 2017 City
Council meeting, staff presented the proposed code text amendment language. There was consensus from
six City Council members to not move the item forward.
CTA-2017-0002 related specifically to shipping containers utilized as accessory storage structures in the
residential zones. However, shipping containers are commonly stored on properties within the commercial
and industrial zones as part of the normal transportation and distribution of goods and merchandise.
Pursuant to Chapter 19.60 SVMC, general outdoor storage is an outright permitted use in the IMU, and I
zoning districts. Supplemental regulations applicable to general outdoor storage MU, CMU, NC, and RC
zones require that outdoor storage areas are paved and screened with a 6' sight -obscuring fence or
equivalent (refer to 19.65.170(B) SVMC).
Future editions of the International Building Code will include prescriptive structural design standards and
a definition for "Intermodal Shipping Containers" which are defined by the International Code Council as
"A six -sided steel unit originally constructed as a general cargo container used for the transport of goods
and materials." It is not yet known whether the State of Washington will adopt or amend the model
International Building Code code language related to Intermodal Shipping Containers. In addition to
structural standards, a shipping container proposed for any occupied use would be reviewed for compliance
with fire protection, life safety (exiting), sanitation, and energy conservation -related standards as described
in the Washington State Building Code. Neither the Washington State Building Code nor the current
Spokane Valley Municipal Code includes aesthetic design standards for commercial or residential
buildings.
Noteworthy is that a portable moving container such as a PODS storage container is not consistent with the
above -referenced definition of an Intermodal Shipping Container. Further, portable moving containers are
typically no greater than 200 square feet in floor area which is the maximum area of an accessory storage
building which does not require a building permit. Residential accessory storage buildings are required to
be located at least 5 feet from side and rear property lines and are not allowed within the front yard setback
pursuant to 19.70.050 SVMC. Commercial (i.e. non-residential) accessory storage buildings are required
to comply with the required setbacks in the underlying zoning district.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A; no action or motion is recommended at this time.
Staff will present information related to current regulations.
STAFF CONTACT: Jenny Nickerson; Building Official
ATTACHMENTS:
A. CTA-2017-0002 Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation to City Council
B. December 19, 2017 City Council meeting packet materials for CTA-2017-0002
C. December 19.2017 City Council meeting minutes
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
CTA-2017-0002 — Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMQ
Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150 (E) the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare
and forward a recommendation to the city council following the public hearing. The following findings
are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation that City Council does not adopt the
amendment.
1. Background:
Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, Spokane Valley adopted its 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and
updated development regulations on December 13, 2016, with December 28, 2016 as the effective date.
CTA-2017-0002 is a City initiated code text amendment to SVMC 19.40.030 to remove the prohibition
on the use of shipping containers in residential zones, to amend SVMC 19.65.140 to allow the use of
shipping containers as an accessory structure in residential zones, and to amend SVMC Appendix A by
adding a definition for shipping containers.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and conducted deliberations on June 8, 2017. During the
public hearing deliberation the Planning Commission discussed the necessity and cost burden of placing
the container on a concrete or asphalt surface, whether permits would be required if a property owner
chooses to alter or modify the shipping container, and the lack of any official shipping container industry
or governmental agency oversight regarding the safety of the containers for use by the general public.
Several Commissioners expressed concern that it could be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of
the public should a property owner use a container that has been contaminated during its use as a shipping
container. The Commissioners voted 6-1 to recommend that the City Council not adopt the amendment.
2. Planning Commission Findings:
The City may approve amendments to the SVMC if it finds that the amendment is consistent with the
applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and bears a substantial relation to public health, safety,
welfare, and protection of the environment.
The proposed amendment is not consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies:
a. Land Use Goal LU-G 1— Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane
Valley.
b. Natural Resources Goal NR-G2 — Protect the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie sole source
aquifer from contamination and maintain high water quality groundwater.
The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council does not approve the proposed
amendment for the following reasons:
a. The materials that have been shipped in the containers are not monitored or documented.
b. Prospective owners cannot verify the previous use or contents of the shipping containers.
c. The shipping container industry does not practice any certification that would deem the
containers free from hazardous content prior to use by the general public.
d. Hazardous preservative and insecticide chemicals may have been applied to the container.
e. Contaminated shipping containers may be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare if
used for storage in residential areas.
f. Contaminated shipping containers may be detrimental to the environment should leaching or
other decomposition of the container occur while used for storage in residential areas.
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2017-0002 Pagel of 2
Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is not consistent with Comprehensive Plan and does not bear
a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment.
3. Recommendation:
The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council DOES NOT adopt
CTA-2017-0002, a proposed amendment to the SVMC.
Approved this 22"d day of June, 2017
Heather Graham, Chairman
ATTEST
Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2017-0002 Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: December 19, 2017 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Shipping Containers: Proposed Amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal
Code (CTA-2017-0002)
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Admin Report 8-15-2017 with City Council.
BACKGROUND: Since 2009, the City has not allowed shipping containers or any similar structures, in
residential zones. City Council directed the Planning Commission to consider the issue and develop
appropriate regulations. The draft regulations would allow shipping containers to be utilized as accessory
structures in residential zones and in mixed use zones where a residential use is established. (See attached).
The review of shipping containers was prompted by a citizen request to reuse a shipping container for
personal storage in a residential zone. City staff has received minimal public query into the use of shipping
containers for residential storage.
The Planning Commission conducted a study session on May 25, 2017 and a public hearing on June 8,
2017 to consider the amendments. Following the public hearing and deliberations, the Planning
Commission voted 6-1 to recommend that the proposed code text amendment not be approved. On June
22, 2017, the Planning Commission approved the Findings of Fact and Recommendation to City Council.
On August 15, 2017, staff presented an administrative report to City Council on the amendment.
OPTIONS: Council discretion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council Discretion.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
STAFF CONTACT: Marty Palaniuk, Planner
ATTACHMENTS: A. Planning Commission's Findings and Recommendations
B. Proposed amendment to SVMC Appendix A
C. Proposed amendment to SVMC 19.40.030
D. Proposed amendment to SVMC 19.65.130
E. PC Meeting Minutes 5/25/2017
F. PC Meeting Minutes 6/8/2017
G. PC Draft Meeting Minutes 6/22/2017
H. CC Meeting Minutes 8/15/2017
I. Staff Report CTA-2017-0002
J. PowerPoint Presentation
CTA-2017-0002 RCA for Administrative Report
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
CTA-2017-0002 — Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150 (E) the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare
and forward a recommendation to the city council following the public hearing. The following findings
are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation that City Council does not adopt the
amendment.
1. Background:
Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, Spokane Valley adopted its 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and
updated development regulations on December 13, 2016, with December 28, 2016 as the effective date.
CTA-2017-0002 is a City initiated code text amendment to SVMC 19.40.030 to remove the prohibition
on the use of shipping containers in residential zones, to amend SVMC 19.65.140 to allow the use of
shipping containers as an accessory structure in residential zones, and to amend SVMC Appendix A by
adding a definition for shipping containers.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and conducted deliberations on June 8, 2017. During the
public hearing deliberation the Planning Commission discussed the necessity and cost burden.of placing
the container on a concrete or asphalt surface, whether permits would be required if a property owner
chooses to alter or modify the shipping container, and the lack of any official shipping container industry
or governmental agency oversight regarding the safety of the containers for use by the general public.
Several Commissioners expressed concern that it could be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of
the public should a property owner use a container that has been contaminated during its use as a shipping
container. The Commissioners voted 6-1 to recommend that the City Council not adopt the amendment.
2. Planning Commission Findings:
The City may approve amendments to the SVMC if it finds that the amendment is consistent with the
applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and bears a substantial relation to public health, safety,
welfare, and protection of the environment.
The proposed amendment is not consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies:
a. Land Use Goal LU-G 1— Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane
Valley.
b. Natural Resources Goal NR-G2 — Protect the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie sole source
aquifer from contamination and maintain high water quality groundwater.
The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council does not approve the proposed
amendment for the following reasons:
a. The materials that have been shipped in the containers are not monitored or documented.
b. Prospective owners cannot verify the previous use or contents of the shipping containers.
c. The shipping container industry does not practice any certification that would deem the
containers free from hazardous content prior to use by the general public.
d. Hazardous preservative and insecticide chemicals may have been applied to the container.
e. Contaminated shipping containers may be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare if
used for storage in residential areas.
f. Contaminated shipping containers may be detrimental to the environment should leaching or
other decomposition of the container occur while used for storage in residential areas.
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2017-0002 Page 1 of 2
Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is not consistent with Comprehensive Plan and does not bear
a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment.
3. Recommendation:
The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council DOES NOT adopt
CTA-2017-0002, a proposed amendment to the SVMC.
Approved this 22°d day of June, 2017
Heather Graham, Chairman
ATTEST
Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2017-0002 Page 2 of 2
Spokane Valley Municipal Code
APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS
APPENDIX A
DEFINITIONS
Page 1/1
Container, Shipping!: A standardized. reusable unit that is or appears to be:
( I ) Oriuinalk. speciticaik or formerly designed fbr or used in the packin-'. "hippie«. movement or
transportation of frelght. articles. woods or commodltlCs: and/or
(2) Desisned For or capable of beim-1 mounted or moved on a rail car: and/or
(3) Designed For or capable of being_ mounted on a chassis or boLie. Cor movement b% truck trailer or
loaded on a shin.
The Spokane Valley Municipal Code is current through Ordinance No. 17-006, passed May 9, 2017.
DRAFT
19.40.030 Development standards —Accessory dwelling units.
A. Site.
1. An ADU may be developed in conjunction with either an existing or new primary dwelling unit;
2. One ADU, attached or detached, is allowed per lot; and
3. One off-street parking space for the ADU is required in addition to the off-street parking required for the
primary dwelling unit.
B. Building.
1. The ADU shall be designed to meet the appearance of a single-family residence and shall be the same or
visually match the primary dwelling unit in the type, size, and placement of the following:
a. Exterior finish materials;
b. Roof pitch;
c. Trim; and
d. Windows, in proportion (relationship of width to height) and orientation (horizontal or vertical);
2. The entrance to an attached ADU shall be located on the side or in the rear of the structure or in such a
manner as to be unobtrusive in appearance when viewed from the front of the street. Only one entrance may be
located on the facade of the primary dwelling unit in order to maintain the appearance of a single-family
residence;
3. The ADU shall not exceed 50 percent of the habitable square footage of the primary dwelling unit, nor be
less than 300 square feet;
4. The footprint of the ADU shall not exceed 10 percent of the lot area or 1,000 square feet, whichever is
greater; and
5. The ADU unit shall not have more than two bedrooms.
C. Additional Development Standards for ADUs.
1. ADUs shall be located behind the front building setback line and placed on a permanent foundation;
2. ADUs shall preserve all side yard and rear yard setbacks for a dwelling unit pursuant to Table 19.70-1;
3. ADUs shall not be allowed on lots containing a duplex, multifamily dwelling, or accessory apartment
contained within the principal structure; and
4. Existing detached accessory structures may be converted into detached ADUs; provided, that all
development standards and criteria are met, including side yard and rear yard setbacks.
D. Other.
1. The owner, as established by the titleholder, shall occupy either the primary dwelling unit or the ADU as
their permanent residence for six months or more of the calendar year and at no time receive rent for the
owner -occupied unit. The application for the ADU shall include a letter from the owner affirming that one legal
titleholder lives in either unit, meeting the requirement of owner occupancy.
2. Prior to issuance of occupancy, a deed restriction shall be recorded with the Spokane County auditor to
indicate the presence of an ADU, the requirement of owner occupancy, and other standards for maintaining the
unit as described in the SVMC.
Chapter 19.40.030 Development Standards — Accessory Dwelling Units Page 1
DRAFT
3. Home businesses are prohibited in the ADU.
4. Approval of an ADU may be revoked if the ADU is no longer in compliance with the development standards
and criteria outlined in the SVMC.
5. The owner may cancel an ADU's registration by filing a letter with Spokane County auditor. The ADU may
also be cancelled as a result of an enforcement action.
ng distFiet (Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016).
Chapter 19.40.030 Development Standards — Accessory Dwelling Units Page 2
DRAFT
19.65.130 Residential.
A. Accessory Structures. The combined building footprint of all accessory permanent structures in residential zoning
districts shall be:
1. Up to 1,000 square feet for parcels up to 10,000 square feet in size; or
2. Up to 10 percent of the lot size for parcels greater than 10,000 square feet in size.
�hiiyin- containers m,.\ he used as accessory structures provided that:
a. All requirements. permits and approvals of Title 19 Sk"NIC pertainim., to accessory structures shall apple.
including but not limited to setbacks. lot coverage and paving:
b. Permits and approvals of Title 24 SVMC pertaining to structures shall apply if the shipping container is
used or altered for any residential or habitable use_ but shall not apply to uninhabitable uses such as storage.
\yorkshops. or other similar type of use;
C. Shipping containers shall be placed on a level concrete or asphalt surface:
d. Shipping containers shall not be stacked:
e. Shipping containers may be used as an accessory structure on a lot in a mixed use zone only if a Igually
established residential use exists;
f. Shinning containers shall only be allowed as an appurtenance to the nrimary use:
g. Shinoin_ containers shall be painted to match or compliment the primary color of the residence if the
container is visible from abuttiMg rights -of -way or adioining lots:
h. Shinnin« containers shall not he located between the residence and h-olit nroncrt% lip-
B. Dwelling, Accessory Units. Accessory dwelling units shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC,
Alternative Residential Development Options.
C. Dwelling, Caretaker's Residence. A caretaker's residence is limited to custodial, maintenance, management, or
security of a commercial property and is only allowed accessory to another permitted use on site.
D. Dwelling, Cottages. Cottages shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential
Development Options.
E. Dwelling, Duplex. Duplex dwelling units shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative
Residential Development Options.
F. Dwelling, Industrial Accessory Dwelling Units. Industrial accessory dwelling units shall comply with the
provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options.
G. Dwelling, Townhouse. Townhouse dwelling units shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC,
Alternative Residential Development Options.
H. Manufactured Homes on Individual Lots. Manufactured homes on individual lots shall comply with the
provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options.
1. Manufactured Home Park. Manufactured home parks shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC,
Alternative Residential Development Options.
J. Recreational Vehicles.
1. Recreational vehicles shall not be used as permanent or temporary dwelling units in any residential zone,
except as permitted pursuant to Chapter 19.40 SVMC;
Chapter 19.65.130 Residential Accessory Structures Page 1
DRAFT
2. A recreational vehicle shall not be parked within a required front yard setback for more than 15 consecutive
days and not more than 30 days cumulative in any 12 consecutive months; and
3. Guests may park and/or occupy a recreational vehicle while visiting the occupants of a dwelling unit located
on the same lot for not more than 30 days in one consecutive 12-month period. (Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Att. B),
2016).
Chapter 19.65.130 Residential Accessory Structures Page 2
APPROVED Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers — City Hall
May 25, 2017
I. Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood
for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff
were present:
Heather Graham
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
James Johnson
Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Tim Kelley, arrived at 6:18 p.m.
Micki Harnois, Planner
Mike Phillips
Marty Palaniuk, Planner
Michelle Rasmussen
Jenny Nickerson, Asst. Building Official
Suzanne Stathos
Matt Walton
Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission
Hearing no objections Commissioner Kelley was excused from the meeting; however, he arrived late
and joined the meeting immediately.
II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the May 25, 2017 agenda as presented. The vote
on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
III. MINUTES: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the May 11, 2017 minutes as presented. The
vote to approve the motion was six in favor, zero against, the motion passes.
IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Rasmussen reported she attended the ribbon cutting of
the new transit line, which is going to run out in the Valley. The other commissioners had nothing to
report.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a) Public Hearing: CTA-2017-0001 — Proposed changes to Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC) 19.65.020, 19.78 Urban Farming and Animal Keeping, and other associated changes:
Chair Graham opened the public hearing at 6:09 p.m. Planner Micki Harnois gave the
Commission a presentation reviewing the proposed amendments to SVMC 19.65, 19.78, the
additions to the permitted use matrix and Appendix A, Definitions. Ms. Harnois explained the
current regulations. Then she explained the proposed changes to the regulations.
• The large and medium animal keeping, along with the community garden section, will be
struck from SVMC 19.65.
• Animal shelters and kennels would remain in SVMC 19.65.
• Return the allowable lot size for large animals from one acre, to 40,000 square feet to be
in line with the R-1 zoning.
• New language for animal keeping and urban gardening will be placed in a new section of
the municipal code as SVMC 19.78 Urban Farming and Animal Keeping.
• Three new definitions are proposed for Appendix A, Definitions: agricultural products,
community garden and residential produce sales.
• Animal categories are divided into large and small animals.
• Large animal keeping would be allowed in all residential zones on lots equal to or greater
than 40,000 square feet, or in mixed -use zones on lots which have a legally established
residential use.
2017-03-23 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2 of
• Residential Produce Sales will be added to the Permitted Use Matrix t to allow for the sales
of produce grown in home gardens in Residential and Mixed Use zones.
Chicken ratios will be changed from one bird per 2,000 square foot to one bird per 1,000
square feet.
• Beekeeping regulations will be changed to require moveable framed hives, and no
beekeeping certification will be required.
Chair Graham then opened the hearing for public testimony
Bryan Cook, 15717 E 11" Ave.: Mr. Cook stated he had heard the City was going to copy the City
of Spokane animal keeping regulations. He was concerned because Spokane regulated animal
keeping to certain zones of their city, which he felt was discriminatory. He did not want to see
Spokane Valley use the same type of zoning practice when allowing animals in the City. He was
able to see this was not how animals were going to be regulated, and was fine with the rest of the
regulations.
Chair Graham seeing no one else who wished to testify closed the public hearing at 6: 39 p.m.
The Commission began deliberations with discussions of the beekeeper's certification. Staff noted
the requirement was removed because it would not be enforceable except at the time of an
enforcement case. Commissioners noted when they reviewed the beekeeping regulations in 2015
the beekeeper's association members said it helps to train new beekeepers. It was noted it was
helpful in assisting code enforcement cases as well. Commissioner Walton stated when he
suggested the moveable frame hives this was also to foster proper beekeeping habits.
Commissioner Kelley stated he felt bees should be restricted to a 40,000 square foot lot. The
Commission members noted they would like to have the beekeeper certification requirement
returned to the regulations.
Commissioner Johnson clarified that community gardens definition needed to be refined to say,
"contains raised planting beds and/or gardens." There need to be an `and/ added between beds and
or so it is not so restrictive. The rest of the Commissioners agreed with this clarification.
Commissioner Stathos clarified the intent was not to have the structure housing the animals be 75
feet from any primary residence and have any fenced area containing the animals which they may
roam in also be 75 feet from any residential structure. In order to clarify this in the language the
Commission determined they would remove the word "yard" from the list, located in
19.78.030(D)(1). Ms. Harnois commented in the listing of items in 19.78.030(D)(1) is the word
`runway', which by definition in the SVMC is an airport runway, should also be changed to a `run'
which is a confinement for animals. The Commissioners agreed with this change as well.
The Commissioners had discussion regarding allowing animals, chickens, or bees in other zones
where they were not being proposed. The concern was not restricting people who, through time,
have had their property rezoned but still lived in the same home being allowed the same rights to
have animals. The Commission agreed to allow animal uses, as appropriate, on any legally
established primary residential use.
The Commission raised concerns regarding the upkeep of structures needed to maintain and house
animals. If the structures are not maintained, disrepair could harm the animals and allow them to
roam free of enclosures. After discussion, the Commissioners agreed to add adequate maintenance
and upkeep of structures housing animals in order to protect them and contain them.
Commissioner Graham moved to recommend approval of CTA-2017-0001 to the City Council with
the following amendments:
• Appendix A, change the definition for Community Garden by adding 'and/' between
the words 'beds' and 'or' in order for it to read: "An area that contains raised planting
beds cin, / or gardens for agricultural products, other than eggs, that are used by
citizens for personal or non-profit use. "
2017-03-23 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3 of 3
• 19.78.030 and 19.78.040, eliminate the work yard' and change the word `runway' to
`run' in any and all relevant sections.
• 19.78.030 and 19.78.040, all relevant sections add language which will require upkeep
and maintenance to structures which house or secure animals.
• 19.78.060, add a requirement for a Washington State Beekeeper's Certification.
• Allow animal keeping on all legally established primary residential uses, regardless of
the zone.
Commissioner Kelley, stated for the record, he was opposed to allowing beekeeping in next to
residential homes. They cannot be contained on a person's own property like other animals and
have the ability to cause harm to some individuals, if they are allergic.
Commissioner Walton called for the question. The vote on this motion was seven in favor, zero
against, the motion passed.
The vote on the original motion was seven in favor, zero against, the motion passed.
The Commission took a five-minute break.
b) Study Session: CTA-2017-0002 Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC) 19.65 Supplemental Use Regulations.
Planner Marty Palaniuk gave the Commission an overview of the proposed amendment to the
municipal code to allow shipping containers as accessory structures in residential and mixed -use
zones for non-commercial use. Shipping containers are currently not allowed in these zones. All
permits and approvals pertaining to accessory structures would apply, including paving if the
containers were being modified to be used as a garage. They would only be allowed as an accessory
use to a primary residential use. The container must meet all setback requirements, cannot be
placed between a building and the front property line, must be set on a hard surface, can't be
stacked, must be painted a matching or complimentary color, and maybe used in a mixed use zone
on a legally established residential use.
The Commissioners clarified modifying a container would require a building permit, and at that
time, then the container would be treated as a structure regulated by the building code.
Ms. Barlow informed the Commissioners the public hearing is scheduled for June 8, 2017.
VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Kelley wanted to clarify he felt his discussion point
regarding bees was in line with the deliberation on the proposed amendment.
IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:39 p.m. The vote on
the motion was unanimous in favor, motion passed.
Heather Graham, Chair Date signed
Deanna Horton, Secretary
APPROVED Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers — City Hall
June 8, 2017
I. Chair Graham called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for
the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were
present:
Heather Graham
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
James Johnson
Jenny Nickerson, Asst. Building Official
Tim Kelley
Micki Harnois, Planner
Mike Phillips
Marty Palaniuk, Planner
Michelle Rasmussen
Suzanne Stathos
Matt Walton
Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission
II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the June 8, 2017 agenda as presented. The vote
on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
III. MINUTES: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the May 25, 2017 minutes as presented.
Commissioner Kelley noted he did not feel the Good of the Order reflected the point he was trying to
convey. However, he would not request a change to the minutes. Subject of the May 25 Good of the
Order: Commissioner Kelley had earlier expressed his concern over allowing bees on lots less than
40,000 square feet, and it becoming a potential health hazard to community members. Commissioner
Walton had called for a Point of Clarification. He inquired if the debate had strayed too far from the
topic of the motion on the beekeeping. The motion on beekeeping regulation change was requiring
movable framed hives and Washington State beekeepers certification. Commissioner Kelley stated
he felt others discussed the general topic of beekeeping and so he gave his opinion on it, but recognized
the need to return the topic of motion. The vote to approve the motion to approve the minutes was seven
in favor, zero against, the motion passes.
IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a) Commission Findings of Fact: CTA-2017-0001, Proposed changes to Spokane Valley
Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.65.020, 19.78 Urban Farming and Animal Keeping, and other
associated changes.
Planner Micki Harnois presented the Commission's Findings of Fact. Ms. Harnois stated the
findings represented the changes the Commission had requested after the public hearing held on
May 25, 2016.
The Commissioners reviewed the findings and Commissioner Phillips asked if the enclosures in
the amendment applied to dogs. City Attorney Cary Driskell clarified the rules for cats and dogs
are different from those in the proposed amendments.
Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Planning Commission findings and recommendation
to the City Council. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, the motion passed.
b) Public Hearing: CTA-2017-0002, A proposed amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal
Code regarding storage containers in residential zones.
Planner Marty Palaniuk gave a presentation to the Commission and audience of the proposed
changes to the SVMC regarding the allowance of storage containers in residential zones. Storage
containers are currently not allowed in residential zones. The proposed amendment would:
0 allow them as an accessory structure,
2017-06-08 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2 of 3
• restrict them to being placed on a level, solid surface of concrete or asphalt,
• a building permit will be required if the container is to be altered in any way,
• restrict them from being stacked
• allowed as an accessory structure on legally established residential uses in mixed use zones,
• allowed as an appurtenance to a primary residential use,
• containers shall be painted to match or compliment the primary structure,
• all requirements of Title 19 pertaining to accessory structures but not limited to setbacks,
lot coverage and paving must be met, and
• containers shall not be located between the residence and front property line.
Commissioners clarified the reason for having a solid surface requirement is based on the weight
of the container, and the desire to make sure the container is level in order to keep it from tipping
over. Commissioner Stathos asked if there were many inquiries to have these storage containers.
Mr. Palaniuk said the amendment was a direction from Council, so he was certain there had been
an inquiry. Commissioner Walton asked about surrounding jurisdictions and the city of Spokane
allows them, Spokane County and Liberty Lake do not. Commissioner Stathos clarified there are
no regulating standards for the containers or any contents that are shipped in them. Mr. Driskell
said there would be no way for the City to police which containers might have had hazardous
chemicals since there are no regulations to enforce.
Chair Graham opened the public hearing at 6: 32 p.m. Seeing no one who wished to testy then
closed the hearing at 6:33 p.m.
Commissioner Phillips stated he would not have a problem if the container were set on a bed of
gravel instead of on concrete or asphalt. He said a solid surface was expensive, and gravel would
not allow the container to sink. Commissioner Walton stated he was not convinced this change
was necessary. He stated there did not seem to be a flux people wanting one in their back yard,
they appeared to be expensive, a person can't be sure of the quality, or how if it will be welcome
by the neighborhood. Commissioner Kelley said he agreed. If we are, unable to verify where they
came from or what has been in them, he is against allowing them as residential structures.
Commissioner Stathos stated she was concerned about the lack of standards for the containers. She
was concerned the containers might have held chemicals, they might not have been cleaned
properly, which could lead to hazardous material clean up after the container has been placed on a
residential property. She said unless there is some kind of safety net for the consumer and the
surrounding properties she was not in favor of the amendment. Commissioner Johnson said the
points raised were valid and he was in agreement with them.
Commissioner Phillips stated the points raised were valid however, he felt worrying about what the
contents shipped in the container was getting too much. He would not have a concern putting one
in his own yard, because they were sturdy and could handle snow. Commissioner Graham said the
previous amendment required keeping animals enclosures to be kept clean, she would want one of
these containers clean of chemicals if there were any in them.
Commissioner Walton moved to close debate. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero
against, the motion passed.
Commissioner Johnson moved to not recommend approval CTA-2017-0002 to the City Council.
The vote on the motion was six in favor, one against, with Commissioner Phillips dissenting.
VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: The Commissioners discussed the point of clarification from the previous
meeting.
2017-06-08 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3 of 3
IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:55 p.m. The vote on
the motion was unanimous in favor, motion passed.
Heather Graham, Chair Date signed
Deanna Horton, Secretary
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers — City Hall
June 22, 2017
I. Chair Graham called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for
the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were
present:
Heather Graham
James Johnson
Tim Kelley
Mike Phillips
Michelle Rasmussen
Suzanne Stathos, absent excused
Matt Walton
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Marty Palaniuk, Planner
Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission
Hearing no objections, Commissioner Stathos was excused from the meeting
II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the June 22, 2017 agenda as presented. The vote
on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
I1I. MINUTES: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the June 8, 2017 minutes as presented. The
vote to approve the motion to approve the minutes was six in favor, zero against, the motion passes.
IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Rasmussen reported she had attended the City sponsored
event CraveNW! She stated she felt this has potential and was good for the community.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a) Commission Findings of Fact: CTA-2017-0002, A proposed amendment to the Spokane
Valley Municipal Code regarding storage containers in residential zones.
Planner Marty Palaniuk presented the Commission's Findings of Fact. Mr. Palaniuk stated the
findings represented the discussion the Commission had after the public hearing held on June 8,
2017.
The Commissioners reviewed the findings and Commissioner Graham clarified this proposal only
addressed shipping containers in a residential zone.
Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Planning Commission findings and recommendation
to the City Council. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, the motion passed.
VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the Good of the Order.
IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:09 p.m. The vote on
the motion was unanimous in favor, motion passed.
Heather Graham, Chair Date signed
Deanna Horton, Secretary
MINUTES
SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING
STUDY SESSION
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
Spokane Valley, Washington
August 15, 2017
Attendance:
Councilmembers
Staff
Rob Higgins, Mayor
Mark Calhoun, City Manager
Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor
John Holtman, Deputy City Manager
Caleb Collier, Councilmember
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Pain Haley, Councilmember
Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Mike Munch, Councilmember
Mark Werner, Police Chief
Ed Pace, Councilmember
Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director
Sam Wood, Councilmember
Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director
Marty Palaniuk, Planner
Micki Harnois, Planner
Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
John Pietro, Administrative Analyst
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present.
1. Crave NW Report — John Hohman, and Tom and Karen Stebbins
Deputy City Manager Hohman introduced Tom and Karen Stebbins with Crave NW, and Crave NW's
Culinary Director and Chef Mr. Adam Hegsted, to give a follow-up report of the Crave NW Event held
over Father's Day weekend at the CenterPlace Event Center. Via their PowerPoint presentation, Mr.
Stebbins explained about the objectives for the event, mentioned the celebrity chefs, spoke of the feedback
both good and "not as good" and said the event was well attended; he spoke highly of Visit Spokane and
their media team's coordinated effort for the event; said a lot of excitement was generated by Cheryl Kilday
as well as a great deal of support; said next year they plan to hold the event July 12- l5 which will hopefully
be the least rainy week of the year. Mr. Hegsted mentioned that people came from all over the United States
and said it was great to have so many together in one place. Councilmember Haley asked about them
donating the proceeds to the food bank and Mr. Stebbins explained that there wasn't any food to donate,
but they donated $5,000 to the Second Harvest. Councilmembers expressed their appreciation for the event
and for tonight's follow-up report.
2. Urban Farming and Animal Keeping — Micki Harnois
Via her Memorandum included in the Council packet, Planner Hamois went over the discussion points
brought up at the previous meeting, i.e., (1) gnawing animals; (2) swine; (3) animal non -fencing enclosures;
(4) animal fencing enclosures; (5) community gardens; (6) beekeeping; (7) contract with SCRAPS/Spokane
County; and (8) animal keeping certification; followed by discussion and options concerning each point.
Ms. Harnois also noted that SCRAPS Regional Director Nancy Hill and WSU Small Fanns Coordinator
Patricia Munts are available if there are additional questions.
Councilmember Haley expressed concern with enforcement since we only have one code enforcement
officer; said she received some letters from citizens who don't have livestock next to their home, and said
she personally does not want livestock next to her home either. Councilmember Pace said he feels this is
Council Study Session: 08-15-2017 Page t of 4
Approved by Council: 09-12-2017
"partly a property rights thing" and some will like it and some won't; said this is part of the tradition of
Spokane Valley and we can mitigate some concerns by requiring the certification, which lie said he was
strongly against at first, but now feels it will give others confidence; also said it doesn't seem too bad adding
that amount to the SCRAPS contract; and that he feels the other items noted in the memorandum seem like
a good compromise. Councilmember Haley said that she is aware of the history of the valley and that certain
people's property rights should not infringe on other's property rights. Deputy Mayor Woodard said that
he feels mink and chinchilla must be removed; and that lie agrees about keeping rabbits and guinea pigs;
said he feels it is not right to put these animals in a high density area; if someone wants to be a fanner they
could get a larger area; said he already sees problems with pigs or other animals getting above the regulated
size, and he asked how that would be enforced; said we can't enforce the nuisance regulations we have now
and it's not right to add more; and feels that this is part of a faddish move; said he would not support having
farm animals in our urban area. Councilmember Munch said lie also feels this is a property rights issue and
if this causes issues, then the neighbors could complain; said we have a right to use land as we see fit, and
that he doubts there would be many having the farm animals; adding that he too can see the benefit of
requiring the certification. Councilmember Collier said lie agreed with Councilmember Munch; said that
it works in Spokane and lie feels it could work here. Councilmember Wood said this is not a "cut and dried"
issue; that he is a property rights advocate and we won't have people running out buying these animals;
some will but not a lot, and he supports this. Councilmember Munch and Wood both said they do not
support including pigs. Mayor Higgins stated that this is not a property rights thing but is a common sense
type issue; he rhetorically asked if what we have is broken; said we can do some modifications if needed,
but said that sheep have a terrible smell; said we need to think about the neighbors and the animals. There
was agreement from Councilmembers Munch, Pace, Collier and Wood to move this forward.
Ms. Munts said the City of Spokane does not allow male goats as you can smell a goat fi•om a mile away;
and in response to Councilmember Munch's statement about a neutered goat no longer having a scent, she
said she feels it is probably better to exclude them, adding that neutering an adult requires vet services.
SCRAPS Director Hill said she reviewed the draft code and has a few concerns that enforcement and
penalty are not clearly defined; said animal owners will be more successful if they know the penalty and
know what to expect; said SCRAPS primarily handles at -large impounding, holding and re -homing if
needed; said she also recommends including a noise component that is enforceable; said SCRAPS already
responds to neglect. City Attorney Driskell said they will review the existing interlocal as well as any
modifications to bring back to Council; said they examined some penalty provisions, and that what we have
now concerning noise usually relates to dogs; said there are some noise issues addressed in the nuisance
section, but he would need to do further review, adding that it will take some time to bring all this together.
Ms. Hill mentioned the new Washington law regarding animal tethering, which she said became effective
July 23 and which the City of Spokane adopted last night; she said SCRAPS automatically enforces the
law. Councilmember Pace said he hopes to make this specific that dog barking or sheep bleating is all a
part of that; and add noise and smell to put a hard limit because it will happen, include penalties, and leave
out male goats and sheep. City Attorney Driskell mentioned that it is difficult to put a hard cap on smell;
and that he will research the noise language.
3. Shipping Containers — Marty Palaniuk
Planner Palaniuk explained the background of the proposed changes, which he said came about from a
citizen request to reuse a shipping container for personal storage in a residential zone; said that the Planning
Commission held a meeting May 25, 2017 and a public hearing June 8, 2017 and following the hearing and
deliberations, the Commission voted six to one to recommend that the proposed code text amendment not
be approved. Via his PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Palaniuk explained what shipping containers are and
their general purpose; explained they are currently prohibited in residential zones, and then went over the
draft regulations including permits, placement requirements and criteria, residential character, and that they
only be allowed as an accessory structure. Mr. Palaniuk noted the Planning Commission discussion which
led to their Findings and ultimate vote of six to one in favor of not adopting the amendment.
Council Study Session: 08-15-2017 Page 2 of 4
Approved by Council: 09-12-2017
Councilmember Collier asked about the painting requirement, said these containers are used throughout the
country for various reasons, and said he hasn't heard about a nationwide crisis of people dying of hazardous
materials. Councilmember Pace said he agreed, and rhetorically asked who are we to determine a public
need as this is a property rights issue; said it makes sense to require a building permit, and said Spokane
allows thetn and they don't have any problems. Councilmember Haley said she is against this amendment;
and she also asked how many code enforcement officers Spokane has; she also speculated about what we
want the landscape of the valley to look like and have anyone put anything on their property regardless of
the neighbors; said we are letting the minority rule which means the majority will have to put tip with it;
said we keep adding things for code enforcement to take care of; said we don't want the picture of the
Valley of shipping containers and goats. Councilmember Wood asked if a building pen -nit is required for a
garden shed, and Mr. Palaniuk explained that a permit is not required for a structure under 200' square feet,
but it would still have to meet lot coverage and setback requirements. Councilmember Wood also asked
about the complementary colors and who would judge if something were complementary. Mr. Palaniuk
said the idea behind that is to allow the City the opportunity to address these containers if they had graffiti
or were rusted; and Councilmember Wood said there are a lot of rundown sheds in the valley and we can't
force people to do things to sheds or barns, and these containers look a lot better than sheds. City Attorney
Driskell explained that we use code compliance to respond and make reference to the Police Department,
or to notify the Police if we have some gang component; said we would look at the graffiti abatement
program as we try not to re -victimize the property owner. Councilmember Munch said he would like to
remove the regulation of having concrete or asphalt underneath; said there will likely be some ugly
comments but a metal box on a wooden floor is very secure; said we have a lot of property theft issues and
these containers would be a good way to secure goods, adding that they are not cheap, that he doesn't see
an issue with allowing them on properties, but would not allow them in the front yard. Councilmember
Haley replied that these containers are not very expensive, as they range from about $500 to $2100. Mr.
Palaniuk replied that the concrete under the structure would make the container stable, and Councilmember
Wood added that we don't need concrete slabs. There was agreement from Councilmembers Munch, Pace,
Collier and Wood to move this forward.
4. Public Defender Agreement Amendment — John Pietro
Via his PowerPoint presentation, Administrative Analyst Pietro went over the background of the public
defender agreement, as well as the summary of the changes, including the indirect rate, investigator
allocation basis, general adininistration and maintenance and operation costs, annual impact cost, and
multiyear cost reconciliation, with the next steps of bringing a inotion before Council to consider approval
of the amendments, and once approved by both parties, changes would be made retroactive to their effective
dates. Mr. Calhoun added that the $114,000 mentioned is in the public safety budget as a contingency, and
Mr. Pietro added that the goal is to make the estimates as close as possible, and staff feels we will be able
to stand on these changes for several years. There was Council consensus to bring this forward at a future
meeting for a motion consideration.
5. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins
There were no suggestions to the Advance Agenda.
6. Council Check -in — Mayor Higgins
There were no comments from Council.
7. City Manager Comments — Mark Calhoun
City Manager Calhoun mentioned the draft letter at the dais addressed to Attorney General Sessions
concerning the current administration's consideration to withhold some future grant monies to communities
designated as sanctuary cities; and to avoid any confusion between Spokane Valley which has not been
designated as a Sanctuary City, and the City of Spokane which has, Mayor Higgins suggested we send this
Council Study Session: 08-15-2017 Page 3 of 4
Approved by Council: 09-12-2017
letter, drafted by City Attorney Driskell, along with our Resolution 16-002 Declaring that we are not a
Sanctuary City. There were no objections to having Mayor Higgins sign and send the letter. Mr. Calhoun
noted a motion for an application for the JAG grant will be before Council at the August 29 meeting and
Mr. Koudelka is working to determine what we would seek to fund in the Police Department. Mr. Calhoun
also noted that the City Hall building is nearing completion and the building will be turned over to us by
September 30; and as part of that, we will have departments beginning to pack up and move over to the
new building in waves; he said it won't happen all at once, and there is a lot involved in moving the
technology; said some of the equipment in the Council Chambers will move to the new building, so we
may have a meeting or two without video, but we will continue Council meetings and can simply audio
record them. Mr. Calhoun said we don't know exactly when all this will occur and he will keep the Council
appraised; adding that a grand opening/open house dedication is tentatively set for Saturday September 30,
and more information on that will be forthcoming as the time gets closer.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 7:34 p.m.
A S L.R. Higgi
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Study Session: 08-15-2017 Page 4 of 4
Approved by Council: 09-12-2017
Spokane
,,;oOValleyx
STAFF REPORT DATE: May 31, 2017
COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING & PLANNING
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CTA-2017-0002
HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: June 8, 2017, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall
Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane
Valley, Washington 99206.
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A text amendment proposing to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC) 19.65.130 Residential to allow the use of shipping containers as an accessory structure to a
primary residential use in the residential and mixed use zones.
APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
Title 17 General Provisions.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: Move to recommend approval of CTA-2017-0002 to City Council
STAFF PLANNER: Martin Palaniuk, Planner, Community and Public Works
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Proposed text amendment to SVMC 19.65.130
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The
following summarizes application procedures for the proposal.
Process
Date
Published Notice of Public Hearing:
May 19, 2017
Sent Notice of Public Hearing to staff/agencies:
May 19, 2017
SEPA - Pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(19)(a) this action
is exempt from SEPA review.
Department of commerce 60-day Notice of Intent to
Adopt Amendment
May 26, 2017
PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: Shipping containers are currently prohibited as an accessory structure in
residential zones. They are permitted in the industrial, commercial and mixed use zones. Accessory
structures such as sheds, shops, detached garages, accessory dwelling units, swimming pools, free-
standing decks, pergolas, etc... are all permitted as accessory structures within the residential zones. The
proposed amendment will add shipping containers to the type of structures that are allowed as an
Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2017-0002
accessory structure within residential zones. The use of accessory structures in the residential zones will
not be affected by the amendment; it will add a new type of permitted structure.
SVMC 19.40.030(D)(6) — Development Standards — Accessory dwelling units (ADU) states "Cargo
shipping containers and similar enclosures are not a permitted accessory structure in any residential
zoning district." The location of this provision within the development standards for accessory dwelling
units is not ideal for addressing the use of shipping containers. The location within the SVMC leads to
ambiguity as to whether the provision applies to all shipping containers throughout all residential zones or
only shipping containers accessory to an ADU.
The proposed amendment will address shipping containers in SVMC 19.65.140 — Supplemental Use
Regulations, Residential. This section of the code provides supplemental regulations that apply to
residential uses and includes regulations that address accessory structures. This section is a more intuitive
place within the SVMC to address the use of shipping containers as an accessory structure to a residential
use.
The prohibition contained in SVMC 19.40.030 will be stricken with the new purpose of allowing the use
of shipping containers as an accessory structure in all residential zones. Language will be added to
SVMC 19.65.130 that will permit the use of shipping containers provided they meet the criteria set forth
in the language. The criteria has been crafted to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents and
to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood.
The proposed amendment will require shipping containers to meet the requirements applicable to all
accessory structures, to include setbacks and lot coverage requirements. If the container will be used as a
habitable space then a Residential Structure permit must be obtained from the City of Spokane Valley and
the provisions of SVMC Title 24 shall apply. The containers must be placed on a level concrete or paved
surface and shall not be stacked. The shipping container must be painted to match or compliment the
primary residence and shall not be placed between the front of the house and the street. They are only
allowed if a primary residence already exists on the property.
The Planning Commission conducted a study session on this amendment on May 25, 2017. A public
hearing is scheduled for June 8, 2017.
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT
AMENDMENT
1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
a. Findings:
SVMC 17.80.150(F) Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria
The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment, if it finds that
(1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan;
Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is
consistent with the following goals and policies:
Land Use Goal — LU-G 1: Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane
Valley
Land Use Goal — LU-G2: Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents,
employees, and visitors.
Land Use Goal — LU-G4: Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and
infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality.
Page 2 of 3
Staff Report and Recommendation
CTA-2017-0002
The use of shipping containers will provide residential home owners with an alternative method
of securing property. The containers will provide a secure, enclosed storage space that will serve
to protect personal property from damage from the elements and theft or vandalism. The
containers may offer an alternative to a pole or stick -built storage building. When blended with
the primary residential use the shipping containers can serve to reduce yard clutter and improve
the appearance and character of the neighborhood. Other accessory structures are already
allowed. The addition of a new type of accessory structure will have no impact on the adjoining
property owners beyond the types of structures that are already allowed.
(2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety,
welfare, and protection of the environment;
Staff Analysis: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and
protection of the environment. The shipping containers will provide secure storage for personal
property and may serve to inhibit acts of property theft and vandalism. The aesthetics of the
neighborhood will be improved by property owners who use the storage to reduce the personal
property items stored in the open.
b. Conclusion(s):
The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC.
2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments
a. Findings:
No public comments have been received to date.
b. Conclusion(s):
In the absence of public comments, staff makes no conclusions.
3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments
a. Findings:
No agency comments have been received to date.
b. Conclusion(s):
In the absence of agency comments, staff makes no conclusions.
C. OVERALL CONCLUSION
The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals.
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division makes no recommendation on the proposed amendment.
Page 3 of 3
0
N
L
a�
m
L
N
E
.l
L I -A
N
o
�
O
0
N
�
N
O
l..
•
O
N
�
�
.N
Ul
-N
� �
O)Ja
o
V
s
a
-
—
._
N
O
Q
a
O
s
00
N
X
•�
�
�
O
—
O
O
s
a
N
a
40
cn
CN
N
"
V
N
�
�—
N
�
E
N
V
oo
V
N
O
N
c
A
�J
r -1
u
I
Eel
_
E
0-
0
O
O
E
a
N
N
•-
U
�
�
O
N
O
/�/�
�-♦
`^
N -
N
}
N
r_
�
L
O
� �
.�
C
N
�
N
4-
O
tn
N
%4- '-
'
L-
O
i
'
X N
L
o
N
a
Q O
Q +-
U
•E
a
O
i
•
4-
Q
S
+-
a �-
•�
N
E
•C
r_
O
•�
•a
N
in
+-
}
O
4-
Q
y�-
N
O
a
O
D
O
Q Q
'a
V a
in
a
O
�
��
�
0-
o
()
Dtn
O
N
O
N •�
"O
1 a
N
�
N
O
N
o,
4-p
N
j
E a
o
a
O
i
N
a
c� ?
`+-
u
O
io
N>
•- p
a��
0
u
p
H
a
O A
O
O
+-
p a
Q>
N
N
sa
3
in
O
Q.Q
-
N
O
N
a
>•�•
E
o
in
N
3
p
�•�
a
O .Q
to p
N
-a
a
N
a •X
o
-0
Q N
N •a
N
N
-0 N=
a'
inO
N}
p
Q
-4
H i
> >
>
0-4-
-0}
N
}
in
0
(leii
a
}E
°�Q
a
a
>'�_
a w
a
aE
O
a
,,,
N 0
Q
>
O
i
i in
N
.}
vi D
Q O
O
r_-0
r
�
Ss04-
3=
a
*N
a
-a
a%
= N
'O
p
N
D
a
p
O
O
p
O
O
•?
V
a N
O
N
a)
a)
�_
a)
'Q
N L
°'
+-
N
'Q
'Q
'Q
•Q
'Q a
'Q
i
E .�
a
Q
Q T
Q O
Q
to
Q Q
s
s
N
cn a
s
to "
to
M
6 a-6
Ov
5n)
c�
N
a)s
s
y-
a
El
0
N
N
L
CD
W
W
010.0
V
J-
0
4-
0-
0
�
o
a
E
Q
i
i
.N
.�
0
N
0
+N--
o
N
a
O
L-
so
Q
O
O
E
0
O
`
}
O
o
}
O
a)
o
a
• —
0
}
>
o
Q
}
V
•3
0
a
Q
.E
[;
0
R
�,li 4�
V
to
♦'
O �`
N
�
0i-
'
�
=
O
•N �
O
�
-0
O
O
��s�
A ��
x
L
s
to
RM
L
0
N
N
0
V
V
LJ
4-
0
0
0
4-
r-7
i
0
s
�J
Lat
8
POJ
'u
0
P4,
N
�
U
03
bl)
Cld
U
c�
ct
C!�
cn
cn
U
�
ct
�
4S.14
En
.�
n
7�
ct
c
Ln
.
.�
.m
.m
L DOE `ZZ aunt
uoiIupuatutuOaaH 79 tuipul.A Dd ❑
L i OZ `8 aunt
tupuaH aiiand 3,1
L i OZ `SZ , PPW
uoissas SPnjs ad
r E
U
�
U
U
ct
N
ct
U
O
.�
5
ct
�
�
Cli
-,-- L kOz `ZZ ounp
uoijupuammoaa-d W tuipuij Dd
L I OZ `8 aunt
�WIAUaH ailgnd ad
*
L I OZ `SZ X'PIN
uoissaS SPHIS Dd
O
C
4-4
7
o
C�3
U
�
�
U
•o
O
U
cd
N
�0
o
O
U
U
�
N
091
tuipua-d pUZ pauno3 ,,rqi3 F-I
Gal ❑ �uipua2I BSI paunoa S4I3
L I OZ `6I aaquzaoaQ
poda-danije.ijsiuitUPV
paunoD f4iD
MINI JTFS
SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING
STLJDY SESSION
Spokane Valley City I -tall Council Chambers
Spokane Valley, Washington
December 19, 2017
Attendance.
Councilrnembers
Staff
Rod Higgins, Mayor
Mark Calhoun City Manager
Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
I'am Haley, Councilmember
Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director
17A face, Councilmember
Frik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Brandi Peetz, Councilmember
John I lohman, Deputy City Manager
Linda Thompson, Councilmember
Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Sam Wood, Councilmember
Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director
Gloria Mantz, Engineering Manager
Bill 140big, City Engineer
Marty Palaniuk, I'lanner
Mark Werner, Police Chief
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Higgins called the mectin- to order at 6:00 pan.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll, all Councihnembers were present.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. CONSENT AGENDA: consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any
member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately.
Proposed Afodon: I r»uve to approve the Consent AgClyda.
a. Approval of claim vouchers on Dec 19, 2017 Request for Council Action Form Total: $2,894,610.49
b. Approval of December 5, 2017 Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session
It:'was arc»led by Del)uty iWayor Woodard. seconded and unanimously agreed to apjrrove the Consent
Agenda.
2.Motion Consideration: Change Order Euclid Ave. Reconstruction Project—GloriaMantz, Craig Aldworth
It was moved ky Deputy.Lllapor Woodard and seconded to authorize the City il,1 nrager or his designee to
execute Change Order rl`o. b' to iIdn,bJ Corr.ctrrretinrr in the alrto:rrrt n1 ,S I l 7G(.4(. l ngineering Manager
Mantz explained the background of the project and the previous change orders, of the amounts the City
pays and the County pays, and that the purpose of tonight's ehange order is to pay for work needed to
temporarily open Euclid [toad to the public during the winter suspension, and grant thirteen and a half
working days for the winter suspension. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were
offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: thranhnous. C)ppnse& Mone. Afotio►l carried.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NON-ACTION 1TJtrMS:
3. Open Space Requirements for Residential Projects in Mixed Use Zones — Lori Barlow
Senior Planner Barlow explained that this came up as a request. from Councilmember Wood to discuss
section 19.70.050(g) of our City code dealing with the open space requirements for residential projects in
mixed use zones. Ms. Barlow explained that the open space requirement in the mixed use zone has been in
existence since 2007 with essentially the same language; she mentioned that part of the requirement states
that projects with residential components shall provide 210 sq. ft. of open space per dwelling unit; that the
requirement does not apply to development. of less than ten new dwelling units and does nol apply to
residential development located within 1,300 feet of a public park, and that a fee in lied of land dedication
Council Study Session: 12-19-2017 Page 1 or3
Approved by Council: 01-09-2018
may be assessed for the development of public parks but that option has never been used. Via her
PowerPoint she explained what types of uses trigger the requirement, what zones permit residential uses,
exceptions to the open space requirement, and our standard compared with the City of Spokane, Spokane
County, and liberty [Jake. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked if Council were to make a major change and take
out the 210 sq. ft. or fee in lieu of requircrnent, would this have to go before the [Tanning Commission. Ms.
Barlow said this has not been to the Planning Commission, but if Council direction is for a text amendment,
it would follow that process and go to the Commission. Ms. Barlow also noted that we do not have anything
in place to dictate how a "ice in lieu of' would occur or be implemented. Deputy Mayor Woodard said lie
would like to see this go to the Planning Commission and get some input from the public and developers.
Councilmember Wood said that lie and Councilmember Pace met regularly and went through the City Code
and building regulations, and came across this; that although 210 sq.11. is a small amount, they didn't see
the benefit; said he contacted the Horne Builders and they would like to see this go away as they don't like
the restrictions; and he would also like to see this go before the Planning Commission. Councilmember
Thompson said she would also like to see more study oil this and get more information, as she feels we
need more open space; and she would like to explore that and have this go through the process. There was
Council consensus to move this through the Planning Commission.
4. Shipping Cortairicrs — Marty Palaniuk
Planner Palaniuk went through his PowerPoint presentation explaining about shipping containers, the
proposed regulations, and the outcome ofthc Planning Commission's study, public hearing, and findings,
in lliat they voted six to one to recommend that Council not make the amendineW. Mr. Palaniuk mentioned
that the Commission discussion included the: requirement to place the container on paved surface, whether
there wags a public it"(], building permits for structural changes to the containers, and the industry standards
to ensure safe containers; and he mentioned some of the Commission's Findings, including that there is no
industry certification, coIltaiiicrs tiiay be contam i nated or havardous to the public and the environment, and
that the previous container content and use cannot be verified. Councilmember Wood asked who the one
vote was on the Planning Commission, and it was mentioned that was Commissioner Phillips, and that the
minutes were included in tonight's Council packet, and Councilmember Wood said he would also look up
that information. Councilmember Haley asked for confirmation that the Commission vote was six against
moving the regulations forward, and one vote not to move it forward, and Mr. Lamb acknowledged that.
was correct. T?xccpt for Councilmember Pace, there was Council consenus to not move this forward.
5. Small Cell Reaulations — Cary Driskell Erik Lamb
Via his PowerPoint presentation, Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained about the proposed small cell
deployment regulations, including an explanation of existing laws, and briefly explaining small cell
t.cehnology; and said if we were to move ahead with implementing this, it would be via a franchise
agreement, which would come to Council in the form of an ordinance. City Attorney Driskell stated that he
has been working with Vcrizon and are almost in total agreement to bring a draft. franchise forward, which
would set out how to do what they want to do in our rights -of -way, Mr. Lamb added that some cities have
a long process and require each structure to have a permit, but we would recommend thirty sites per permit.
Counciltnember Wood asked about snow covering those boxes on the ground, and whether we would have
any liability. Mr. Driskell said he assumes the boxes are waterproof; that it is the right-of-way and there are
meters ore the ground now, so it hasn't been an issue and feels we would not have any liability. There was
Council consensus to move this forward to the Planning Commission.
6. Unfit Dwellings -Cary Driskell, Erik Lamb
Deputy City attorney Lamb went. through the PowerPoint presentation explaining about unfit dwellings
and our City code enforcement issues dealing with public nuisances; and that with state law chapter 38.80
RC:W, which relates solely to unlit dwellings, buildings and structures, that provision allows the City to
recover all costs of abatement as a priority lien of equal rank with state and local taxes; lie showed some
photos of examples of unfit dwellings, and wentover the required procedures as stated in RCW 35.80.030.
Councilmember Haley asked who would enforce this ordinance and Mr. Lamb explained that this would
go through the code enforcement division, with the building official signing off on the complaint; and that
Council Study Session: 12-19-2017 Paige 2 of 3
Approved by Council: 01-09-2018
the fire department or code enforcement would likely make us aware of these structures. City Attorney
Driskell added that to address code compliance, we can only do what our code says we can do, and
throughout time, we have found gaps; said these nuisances can represent a substantial investment to abate
but with this ordinance; we could actually recover costs for fixing a problem, which helps us help the
neighborhood. There was Council consensus four staff to move this forward for a first ordinance reading.
7_Police Department Monthly Report — Chief Werner
Chief Werner went over sonic of the highlights of his monthly report, again extending thanks to S.C.O.P.E.
for their great effort, and thanking Council for recognizing S.C.O.P.F, last week with a proclamation. (thief
Werner mentioned that Va11UUS scams are continuing and he reminded the public if someone calls for
banking information or to fix your computer that you have not previously contacted, it is a scam, and he
cautioned members of the public not to give out important banking information, or purchase gill. cards in
response to these scams. Chief Werner also noted that the property crimes unit has been extremely busy
over the last week weeks and issued numerous search warrants, made numerous arrests and charged about
twenty --seven people with over 500 charges, including, fraud, vehicle theft, and other crinics.
Councilmcmber Thompson asked if he is seeing an increase in packages being stolen off people's porches,
and he replied that it has been occurring, but there has irot. necessarily been an increase.
8. Advance Agenda— Mayor I liggins
There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda"
9. Department_ Reports
These were for information only and were not reported or discussed.
10. Council Clieck-in — Mavor Hiumiris
C:ouncilmember Pace mentioned that as tonight is his last CouIIcil nlcet.rrrg, he wanted to thank everybody;
said it: was a privilege to serve the Cite and he thoroughly enjoyed his term, and is proud of his term and of
his perfect attendance; and he thanked staff for doing a great job of running the City; and ended by wishing
div new Councilmembers all the best, and encouraging; Council to keep up the good work.
Deputy Mayor Woodard applauded the public for their work on clearing tic sidewalks of snow, particularly
the Sate Routes to School; and applauded the plows for flreir work as well, and also extended thanks to
C.ouncilmernber Pace for his service. Mayor I liggins wished everyone it merry Christtnas, and said Council
will return January 2.
11. City Manager Comments. —\dark Calhoun
City Manager Calhoun reminded everyone that there is no Council meeting next Tuesday, December 26,
and the next meeting will be January 2, at the regular 6 p.m. time, but oil that saine Clay at 5 p.m., we will
have the swearing, in of the five new Councihnernbcrs. Mr. Calhoun also acknowledged Councilmember
Pace's last meeting; said Mr. Pace was successful in the election of 2013 and served a four-year period
from 2014 through 2017, and served on the Finance Committee, Governance Manual Committee,
Wastewater Policy Advisory Board, the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) Board, the Health Board, and
Slt'l'C; (Spokane Regional Transportation Council), so he has been it very busy man and was fully engaged
in his role. Mr. Calhoun said it has been a pleasure working with Mr. Pace and will miss his dry sense of
humor; he presented Mr. face with a commemorative plaque and everyone thanked him for his service.
it was moved by Deputy :tdayor Ff'owlur(l, st cemded and errianimousdy a Ted 1t act ow-n. The meeting
adjourned at. 7:29 pan.
L.R. Higgins, }
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Study Session: 12-19-2017 Page 3 or3
Approved by Council: 01-09-2018