Agenda 12/08/2011 �CITYok�..ne
�
Val�e �
�
Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
December 8, 2011 6:00 p.m.
L CALL TO ORDER
IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IIL ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
VL PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda
VIL COMMISSION REPORTS
VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS:
A. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING-CTA-03-11:PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
TO TITLE 22,LANDSCAPING
B. PUBLIC HEARING-CTA-OS-11: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO TITLE 20,
SUBDIVISIONS,RECORDS OF SURVEY.
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
XL ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF
Joxlv G. CA�oLL,Cxaix Joxiv HoHMAN,CD DIxECTOx
MARCIA SANDS,VICE CHAIR SCOTT KUHTA,PLANNING MGR,AICP
BILL BATES
RUSTIN HALL
STEVEN NEILL
70E MANN DEANNA GRIFFITH,SECRETARY
JOE STOY WWW.SPOKANEVALLEY.ORG
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Review
Meeting Date: December 8, 2011
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business �public hearing
❑information ❑ admin.report ❑pending legislation
FILE NUMBER: CTA-03-11
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Continued Public Hearing — Code text amendment to Spokane Valley
Municipal Code (SVMC).
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: City initiated code text amendment modifying Chapter 22.70
(Fencing, Screening and Landscaping)in the Spokane Valley's Municipal Code (SVMC).
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80150 and 19.30.040
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 11,
2011 and study session on September 22,20ll.
BACKGROUND: City Council has directed staff to proceed with modifications to the fencing and
landscaping standards (Chapter 22.70) in the SVMC. On August 25, 20ll the Planning Commission was
presented an overview of landscaping standards and outlined proposed changes.
A. Specifics related to study session held on September 22,2011:
1. The following amendments were presented;
a. Section 22.70.020(B) —Allow fences to be placed on the property line in a flanking yard
(corner lot) outside of the front yard setback.
b. Section 22.70.020(C) —Modify language to provide more clarity to the clearview triangle
definition and update references to tables and diagrams to ensure this section is
administered correctly.
c. Section 22.70.020(F)—Define which zones allow barbed, concertina or razor wire.
d. Section 22.70.040(E)(9) and Table 22.70-4 — Consolidate all landscape point calculation
requirements into Table 22.70-4.
e. Section 22.70.040(�(4) — Remove landscape requirement for new signs in developed
areas.
f. Section 22.70.040(L)(1)(e) — Add additional flexibility to landscaping requirements for
industrial zoned properties.
g. Section 22.70.040(N) — Provide a landscape point threshold for requiring a landscape
architect to prepare a landscape plan and clarifying who will certify the installed
landscaping at time of completion.
2. The Planning Commission requested the following items to be modified concerning the
proposed code text amendment.
a. Update clearview triangle diagrams to show consistency with requirement.
b. Add requirement to barbed wire standards to state; "...not allowed in mi�ed use and
commercial zones adjacent to public right-of-way". Current regulations only restrict
similar fencing in mixed use zones adjacent to the public right-of-way.
c. Clarify language in Section 22.70.0404(L)(1)(e),modifications.
d. Increase the point threshold to require a landscape architect for plan preparation. The
amendment is intended to add a threshold for smaller projects to be exempt from having a
RPCA Continued Public Hearing for CTA-03-11 1 of 3
registered landscape architect prepare a landscape plan. Discussion from the
Commission concluded 50 landscape points may be too small of a threshold number. A
threshold of 100 landscape points is being presented.
3. The Planning Commission inquired about additional items not presented as proposed
amendment during the study session. Findings below.
a. Why do barbed, concertina or razor wire fences over six (6) feet in height require a
building permit?
The City adopted the 2009 International Building Code (IBC) which is the governing
regulations for building permit requirements. Section 10522 of the IBC states Fences
not over 6 feet (1829mm) high" are exempt from permit requirements. The SVMC
allows fences up to eight (8) feet in height, but any fence over six (6) feet tall requires a
building permit.
b. Tree staking - Section 22.70.030(G)(5)(�:
The City's Municipal Code Section 22.70.030(G)(5)(� requires tree staking in parking
areas only for a duration of 12 months. The City of Liberty Lake and Spokane County
require tree staking. Concerns of tree staking are focused on improper installation,
staking too tight and not being removed after the tree has developed its root system. The
benefits of staking are protection from human activities, high winds and allowing an
unstable or immature tree trunk to mature for a minimum of one growing season.
Comments from Commissioner Steven Neill are included in exhibit 3 of the staff report.
c. Screening of loading docks - Section 22.70.030(�:
Loading docks are screened to preserve aesthetic views from the public right-of-way
from large trucks, storage areas and materials associated with large scale retail, service,
manufacturing, storage, warehousing, hoteUmotel and industrial uses. At a minimum
these uses are greater than 10,000 gross square feet of building area to require one
loading bay. Newly developed sites are designed to allow for truck circulation as well as
provide screening when necessary. Challenges that arise with e�sting sites may use the
landscape modification section 22.70.030(L) to request a deviation to screening.
B. Specifics related to public hearing held on November 11,2011:
1. Proposed code text amendment was presented with one addition by Development
Engineering to Section 22.70.020(C)(1) stating; "Clearview triangles for new development
and new commercial driveway approaches shall be calculated using the methods presented in
SVMC 22.130.040 Street Standards."
2. Thomas Pratt, Thomas Pratt Designs and Clyde Haase, Haase Landscaping, commented at the
public hearing.
3. The Planning Commission requested additional information on the following items, however
none are proposed as current code text amendments.
a. Maintenance of trees in public right-of-way;
The responsibility of all maintenance within public right-of-way falls on the property
owner pursuant to Section 1021 of the 2009 Street Standards. The City maintains trees
within the right-of-way on Sprague Avenue between University Road and Thierman
Road and along Appleway Avenue bettiveen Tschirley Road and Liberty Lake City Limits
through a maintenance contract. The contract includes assistance from an arborist when
providing maintenance of street trees and preserving clear sight triangles throughout the
City.
RPCA Continued Public Hearing for CTA-03-11 2 of 3
b. Tree stabilization and different types of tree staking;
Two methods of staking include above and underground. Attachment B is a document by
Colorado State University providing guidance and visual representation on tree staking
and stabilization methods. The City's code requires and shows a diagram of above
ground staking. Staff confirmed with the City of Spokane's Urban Forestry Department,
tree staking is not required and potential staking is determined at the time of planting
with consultation from the City's arborist on site.
OPTIONS: Planning Commission may recommend approval as presented; recommend approval of
modi�ed proposal, recommend the proposal not be adopted, or forward no recommendation to City
Council.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: The Planning Commission advance a recommendation to
the City Council.
STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Staff Report with exhibits
Attachment B: Handout regarding Tree Staking and Underground Stabilization.
RPCA Continued Public Hearing for CTA-03-11 3 of 3
COD�VIUNTTY DE�'ELOPDZENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
�crr�oH �� STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE
������ PLANNING COMMISSION
�5��.����.
CTA-03-11
STAFF REPORT DATE:November 2, 20ll
HEA�u1vG DATE A1vn LocAT�o1v: November 10, 2011, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City
Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaaa Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101,
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206.
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: City initiated, code text amendment modifying Chapter 22.70 (Fencing,
Screening and Landscaping)in the Spokane Valley's Municipal Code (SVMC).
This proposal is considered a non-project action under RCW 4321C.
PxoPOSAL LocAT�o1v: The proposal affects the entire City of Spokane Valley, Washington.
APPL�cANT: City of Spokane Valley
APPROVAL CRITERIA: Title 17 (General Provisions) and Title 19 (Zoning) of the Spokane Valley
Municipal Code (SVMC).
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission
approve the proposed code text amendment to the SVMC.
STAFF PLANNER: Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner, Community Development Department
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Draft Lan ua e of Cha ter 22.70
Exhibit 2: Public Comments
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
City Council has directed staff to proceed with modi�cations to the fencing and landscaping
standards (Chapter 22.70) in the SVMC. On August 25, 2011 the Planning Commission was
presented an overview of landscaping standards and outlined proposed changes. The following
amendments were presented at the September 22, 2011 study session before the Planning
Commission.
l. Section 22.70.020(B) — Allow fences to be placed on the property line in a flanking yard
(corner lot) outside of the front yard setback.
2. Section 22.70.020(C) — Modify language to provide more clarity to the clearview triangle
definition and update references to tables and diagrams to ensure this section is
administered correctly.
3. Section 22.70.020(F)—Define which zones allow barbed, concertina or razor wire.
4. Section 22.70.040(E)(9) and Table 22.70-4 — Consolidate all landscape point calculation
requirements into Table 22.70-4.
5. Section 22.70.040(�(4)—Remove landscape requirement for new signs in developed areas.
6. Section 22.70.040(L)(1)(e) — Add additional flexibility to landscaping requirements for
industrial zoned properties.
7. Section 22.70.040(N) — Provide a landscape point threshold for requiring a landscape
architect to prepare a landscape plan and clarifying who will certify the installed
landscaping at time of completion.
The following table compares surrounding jurisdiction's requirements relating to the proposed code
text amendment for fencing and landscaping. The City calculates required landscaping separate
from the comparing jurisdictions. Some of the code changes cannot be compared.
Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission CTA-03-11
City ofSpokane City of Spokane City of Liberty Spokane
Valle Lake Count
Flanking Yards Propose fence Must meet Must meet Must meet
along property line flanking yard flanking yard flanking yard
on flanking side setback. setback . setback.
ard.
Barbed Wire Propose to be Not allowed Allowed in RC, LI Not allowed.
Fencing allowed in except in CB, GC and HI on top'/4 of
commercial, mi�ed and I zones. RA fence. May be
use and industrial allowed for used for utility or
zones; top '/of agricultural institutional uses
fe�ce. Not purposes. 3 in other zones.
adjacent to ROW strands on top.
in commercial and
mi�ed use zones.
Landscaping Proposal to not Landscaping not Requires Requires
and Signs require required. landscaping. landscaping.
landscaping for
new signs on a
develo ed site.
Landscaping Remove landscape Yes,but not Yes,but not Yes,but not
Fleacibility for requirementfor directly related to directly related to directly related
Industrial Lots new signs on a industrial industrial to industrial
develo ed site. ro erties. ro erties. ro erties.
Landscape Propose exemption Requires Architect No Architect Requires
Architect to landscaping w/out exception. required. Architect w/out
requirements made exception.
with Director's
a roval.
B. APPLICATION PROCESSING
Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key
application procedures for the proposal.
A lication Initiated: Se tember 1, 2011
Issuance of an O tional Determination of Non-Si nificance (DNS): Se tember 30, 2011
Date of Published Notice of Public Hearin : October 28, 2011
Date of Mailed Notice of Public Hearin : October 26, 2011
C. PUBLIC COMMENT
The following are summarized comments received pertaining to the code text amendment.
1. Gavin Associates Landscape Architecture, LLC:
a. Restrict barbed, concertina and razor wire adj acent to residential zones.
b. Have a 3rd party certify completion of landscaping.
c. Modify the Type I and Type II screening calculations.
2. Steven Neill,Planning Commissioner:
a. Adding guidelines/instruction for tree installation.
b. Propose re-wording of Section 22.70.030(G)(5)(�, tree staking in parking lots
c. Add a list of recommended trees.
Page 2 of 4
Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission CTA-03-11
3. Gloria Mantz, Development Engineering:
a. Add language to clarify clearview triangle �gures shall be used.
D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA
1. Findings:
Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the SVMC, the lead agency has determined
that this proposal does not have a probable signi�cant adverse impact on the environment. An
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 4321C.030(2)(c). The
Planning Division issued a Determination of Non-Signi�cance (DNS) on September 30, 2011
for the proposal. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist
on file with the lead agency.
2. Conclusion(s):
The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) and Title 21 of the
SVMC have been fulfilled by the applicant's submittal of the required SEPA Checklist, and the
issuance of the City's threshold determination consisting of a DNS. No appeals were received.
E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE CODE TEXT AMENDMENT
1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
a. Findings:
Section 17.80150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval
criteria that must be considered when the City amends the SVMC. The criteria are listed
below along with staff comments.
i. The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with the applicable
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan;
Staff Response: The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent
with the Growth Management Act (GMA) and adopted County Wide Planning Policies
(CWPP). The proposed text amendment is consistent with the GMA, CWPPs, and the
City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan. The code text amendment is consistent
with the following goals and policies in the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan.
• Policy LUP — 1.2: Protect residential areas fi^om impacts of adjacent non-
residential uses and/or higher intensity uses through the development and
enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning.
• Goal LUG—3: Ti^ansform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive,
easily accessible mixed use areas that appeal to inventors, consumers and residents
and enhance the community image and economic vitality.
• Policy LUP — 4.5: Ensure compatibility between mi�ed-use developments and
residential areas by regulation height, scale, setbacks and buffers.
• Policy LUP—4.6: Develop community design guidelines to promote common open
space,public art, and plazas in commercial and office developments.
• Policy LUP—8.2: Integrate sidewalks, bike lanes, landscaping, and area lighting in
office areas to provide a safe and attractive working environment.
• Policy LUP — 10.2: Encourage a diverse array of industries to locate in Spokane
T�alley.
Page 3 of 4
Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission CTA-03-11
• Policy LUP — 11.3: Provide appropriate buffering, landscaping and other
development standards for industrial areas.
• LUP-14.1 requires the use of performance and community design standards to
maintain neighborhood character, achieve a greater range of housing options, and
to create attractive and desirable commercial and office developments.
• Goal EDG-2: Encourage redevelopment of commercial/industrial properties within
the City.
ii. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety,
welfare, and protection of the environment;
Staff Res�onse: The City initiated, code text amendment bears substantial relation to
public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed
amendment will provide clarity on clearview triangle standards, allow protection of
commercial and industrial zoned properties through fencing requirements and expand
options for providing landscaping associated with new development in the City of
Spokane Valley. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment
are furthered by ensuring the SVMC implements local and regional policy.
b. Conclusion(s):
The proposed City initiated code text amendment to the SVMC is consistent with the
approval criteria contained in the SVMC Section 17.80150(F).
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Division after review and consideration of the proposed city initiated code text
amendment and applicable approval criteria recommends that the Planning Commission approve
CTA-03-11.
G. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
I move to recommend approval of CTA-03-11 to the City Council.
Page 4 of 4
Chapter 22.70
FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING
Sections:
22.70.010 Purpose and intent.
22.70.020 General provisions— Fencing.
22.70.030 Screening and buffering.
22.70.010 Purpose and intent.
The use of fencing and screening reduces visual, noise and lighting impacts on adjacent properties and
provides visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. It also serves to protect the health,
safety and welfare of the community by eliminating dangerous conditions and preserving property values.
(Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007).
22.70.020 General provisions—Fencing.
A. No sight-obstructing fence more than 36 inches in height, nor any non-sight-obstructing fence
(cyclone) more than 48 inches in height may be erected and/or maintained within the required front yard
of any lot used for residential purposes.
B. Any fence or wall, erected or placed behind the minimum required front yard setback line on a flankinq,
side or rear yard may be erected or maintained to a maximum height of eight feet above the adjacent
grade in residential zoning districts. Lots with double street frontage may have a fence constructed on the
Iproperty line around the yard not used as the main point of access (the apparent�ask�a��rear vard).
C. Neither residential, commercial or industrial fencing, nor any sight obstruction including vegetation,
Iwhich constitutes a hazard to the traveling public shall be permitted on any sa�e�lot in any zone within
the area designated as the "clearview triangle" as set forth below:
1. A clearview triangle is a measurement applied at the intersection of two streets1 or the
intersection of an alley, private road or se�e�sfa-�driveway and a street to ensure unobstructed
vision of motorists and pedestrians. Within the clearview triangle, the space between three and
one-half feet and seven feet above the street, or three feet above the sidewalk, must be
unobstructed and calculated as follows:
CTA-03-11(Draft language for code text amendment)
1
Figure 22.70-1 Clearview Requirements
Sr'EICi ETA7I�!M bYf'TH[N CLS PdiS?�W TRI.ir'YG1.S
7'
. �.�,�_;,,,.� �, I+�4l�Ih�tP.[�+1
,,°� ,�� j_�_�.. A�„�rt�lL�ITw1 [v�fs.�f
���� ��
ssr��s �
Clearview trianqles for new development and new commercial drivewav approaches shall be
calculated usinq the methods presented in SVMC 22.130.040 Street Standards.
a. Uncontrolled Intersection. The right isosceles triangle having sides of 50 feet measure
along the curb line of each intersecting local access street (or five feet from edge of
pavement for a street with no curbs), °"°„ ^r^^mm°r^�°' �'r�"°,^,°„ (see Figure 22.70-2); or
Figure 22.70-2 Uncontrolled Intersection
I �n�°r. - � �--- ��.
�srF�T� ' ��i�sr�7 �ou�e
___ __--�=��r =�-w,ax
,.� --�I r�---s._ _ , � F'fl�'ER17 LRfE
1
f � -
�
' . ��� . I i } ,
�J} � . a � �
`�.r: p i;
i �'+ ���
� ..{f,.
�
• . ,�� ' t� �w�o cx���, s r���
�'r u��rr��� �.r
� .�1
il � .
�� ���_v� ����
��"���1�� {'�77�����'�
CTA-03-11(Draft language for code text amendment)
2
Figure 22.70-2 Uncontrolled Intersection
soh soh
Local Access Street Local Access Street� �CURB
� CIN
PROPERNLINE ROPERTYLINE RIGHT-OF-WAY
w
�
� �
Q N
0
z � z
a a
� � NOTE:If no curb is present,
0 o measure in 5 feet towards
� �
a a the property line from the
edge of the roadway.
�CURB�
QN CIN
RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY
b. Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection. The right triangle having a 16-foot side measured
along the curb line of a local access street (or five feet from edge of pavement for a street
with no curbs), alley or commercial driveway, and the distance shown on Table 22.70-1
based on posted speed along the side along the curb line of the intersecting street (or five
feet from edge of pavement for a street with no curbs) (see Figure 22.70-3); or
F� ure 22.70-3 Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection
+�7+LN.F70E1- � .F 704t �.�;I -
,• .,�.. _ , . _ � . . . '�
iFRYK,�I ApFFT TiiLNIFH ddIR�T= I �'
�
�
. ..__ ..�-_e�s ' _" '._... _ _ _
� �� . . . ...- -�IYAAir-�1U�T
__��� � � �- A
_ .''�� ± �-#R.�RJ7ITLI!
-'& J� �� R ' y't_ _' ' ,V
- � . 1 � .r..
�` _ ! '
i - �— -
�
.�' �• �
� � �_.. ri+� r r�n ea���xA�€:��.x ro�.+rsa n�e
, _._ �— �t •�o�r���€�n+E eacx c�n��nvr,�r
.+ ,�1 F.a �.
onrrld��wr�,r c�'r�it�r Aur
CTA-03-11(Draft language for code text amendment)
3
Figure 22.70-3 Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection
� SThrouglh Streetl � � SThrouglh Streetl � CURB
�
� �
Y �
�' .iD. CIN
° RIGHT-OF-WAY
PROPERTY
Z LINE
a
�
z
a
O
z
a
o NOTE:If no curb is present,
a measure in 5 feet towards
the property line from the
an LCURB J edge of the roadway.
RIGHT-OF-WAY
QN
RIGHT-OF-WAY
_
Table 22.70-1
_v;e�,� r,,,,+.,,��e,�Two-Way Stop Controlled
Intersection
Posted Speed(in MPH) Distance (in Feet) '�
25 70
30 95
35 110
c. In cases including, but not limited to, arterials with posted speeds in excess of 35 miles
per hour, one-way streets, steep grades and sharp curves, the City traffic engineer will
determine the appropriate measurement; or
d. Yield-Controlled Intersection. For intersections of local streets with 25 mile per hour
speed limits, the right triangle having a 35-foot side measured along the curb line or edge
of pavement of the yield-controlled street, and an 80-foot side measured along the curb line
or edge of pavement of the intersecting street. Triangles for yield-controlled intersections
on collectors or arterials, or streets with speeds higher than 25 miles per hour, will be
determined by the City traffic engineer (see Figure 22.70-4); or
CTA-03-11(Draft language for code text amendment)
4
Fit� 22.70-4 Yield-Controlled Intersection
K?. � Ao FT, !
�.
7Ft�U�QI� � � ��9�EET o �°�
-_ . . , . . . . . . . ..._'�, f� . . . . . . _ � .
�...�... _.:._'. : . . : . .. : . .�.f �. £. .. . .. _ — '.�11 I�YA flf�!
. I 5 �
� �� ��r u�
_ _ �o ., ; , —
.y,_
__�` � Y , .� .
�i'�
I
Iv�
, i i
S
�_ � -� 'Sk
�I"�f�IT�[�F'N'A�Y CJ�'Y f1C�f-{3F-�%YAY
Figure 22.70-4 Yield-Controlled Intersection
� Through9treet � � Through9treet � NRB
� �
Y
a m �
� CIN
� PROPERTY RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE
QN �CURB�
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CIN
RIGHT-OF-WAY
e. All-Wav Stop Controlled. The trianale determined bv the Citv traffic enaineer usina
AASHTO siaht distance reauirements for all-wav stop controlled intersections: or
f. Signal-Controlled Intersection. The triangle determined by the City traffic engineer using
AASHTO sight distance requirements for signalized intersections; or
g. Noncommercial Driveway Serving Three or More Residences. The right isosceles
triangle having sides of 15 feet measured along the curb line of the street and the edge of
the driveway (see Figure 22.70-5).
CTA-03-11(Draft language for code text amendment)
5
Figure 22.70-5 Noncommercial Driveway
,��r. - �rr. _
'� • ��
-��T ,.
� f .:,a . . _ •., �.,. �, �.. T� .- ��IT Fh�F11-0F�WAT
�
. , �
�
f- ` ' w ' `�'R�'�'f L�
4� � 'f, , �-k j� \.. ..�:.
_.. . _ ����} �{ _> ._ _ . i � M1� - � .k �'�,. . . �r
.. '1 ��' � � . P
�..
. 1t
. x;�� i �-� �+�.. .
� I .. � k �� �.
�1.� . . � 'C}�
Figure 22.70-5 Noncommercial Driveway
� St eet � � St eet � CURB
�
_ PROPERTYLINE �
QN
T
3 � RIGHT-OF-WAY
i .'^.
0
�
EDGEOF��EDGEOF
DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY
D. Exemptions. Clearview triangle regulations of this chapter shall not apply to:
1. Public utility poles;
2. Trees, so long as they are not planted in the form of a hedge and are trimmed to a height of at
least seven feet above the street surface;
3. Properties where the natural ground contour penetrates the clearview triangle; and
4. Traffic control devices installed by the City.
CTA-03-11(Draft language for code text amendment)
6
E. Fences in nonresidential, commercial, mixed use and industrial zoning districts shall not exceed eight
feet in height.
F. Barbed�e, concertina or razor wire may be used for security purposes in mixed use, commercial and
industrial zoninq districts in the absence of a residential component only on the upper one-quarter of the
fence �^ �^�'��°+r,�� �„n;n,. ,�,�+.;,.+� garbed�e, concertina or razor wire shall not be permitted in any
residential zoninq district (except for confininq animals, see Section 22.70.020.G and H) or in anv
commercial and mixed use zoning district adjacent to any public right-of-way.
G. In any residential zoninq district, barbed wire fences mav be used to confine animals, if the parcel
meets the requirements contained in Section 19.40.050.
H. Electric fences may be used for the confinement of animals; provided, however, that:
1. The fence is marked with warning signs at least 24 square inches in area located every 150
feet; and
2. The electric fence is located not less than 24 inches from the property line; and
3. Access to the fence is limited by conventional fencing or enclosure.
II#. A combination of sight-obscuring fences and landscaping shall be required between incompatible land
uses as established in SVMC 22.70.030.
IJ�. Fencing shall not block the view of fire protection equipment from approach. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007).
22.70.030 Screening and buffering.
A. Applicability. The provisions of this section apply only to multifamily and nonresidential projects.
B. Type I — Full Screening. .., '��,
1. Where required for full screening, a sight-obscuring fence shall be installed consistent with the
requirements for a clearview triangle. The fence shall be at least six feet high and 100 percent
sight obscuring. Fences may be made of wood, ornamental iron or aluminum, brick, masonry,
architectural panels, chain link with slats, or other permanent materials, berms, walls,vegetative
plantings, or some combination of these.
2. The required fence shall be further screened by a mix of plantings located within a five-foot
buffer strip that are layered and/or combined to obtain an immediate dense sight-obscuring
barrier of two to three feet in height, selected to reach six feet in height at maturity as follows:
a. A mixture of conifers and deciduous trees, planted at a distance of not less than 35 feet
on center, with a maximum of 50 percent of the trees being deciduous;
CTA-03-11(Draft language for code text amendment)
7
b. Evergreen shrubs shall comprise at least 75 percent of the plantings, planted at a
distance of not less than six feet on center;
c. A minimum of 24 points of landscaping shall be installed for every 25 linear feet of buffer
area;
d. Plantings used for full screening adjacent to public or private rights-of-way shall be
located outside the fence or security system.
Figure 22.70-6 Example of Type I Landscaping with Sight-Obscuring Fence (Not to Scale)
eaw�p;��t�_�� r.��
�_7E,r�ie:lA x-x r;
-;t��,x���
, i.
,� .� ti , _� � � —,^ �
i� -�,
.aPl3I��- .. �-13�¢� ~t� �{ ��� �'"Yr�.`�.� . ±�F-�` ~#�F �♦��yh��� ��j �'��
��� �Y �.� ��.- �ti,�� —'r$ ,� l �� ti1,� .�'�� �. �
.`.!„ d°6:1 , . � ` ��.�
rrtia�zn•.iirn �- � �Y.��,1� � e L. . � ,
`�>�.,�F�S t.�..,y,•_,�riir,7+s•ir:t�
3. All trees and shrubs shall be planted and maintained in accordance with the standards of the
IAmerican °°°^^�°+�^^ ^f "'��r°°r„m°^Standard for Nurserv Stock. All newly planted trees and
shrubs shall be mulched and maintained to give a clean and weed-free appearance.
�:k�.,� ��;_� -
'�' ,:4� ._.� �•..,.
� ' .1�_�lN'I'IHCi til I}:'I'IJRI:
' .x �:�F�S.� i9�
�-_°'� '�J �, - ,�, .j
{ . . .
� I'I'.111.ti1�-111.LN IkU;�IIT111 •ii'���
�n.,n r�r,r,�r���c�ri�a;:,i i:�,,,:i.
Figure 22.70-7 Type I Full Screening
C. Type II —Visual Buffering.
1. Where required to minimize the incompatibility between adjacent land uses, a visual screen of
not less than five feet in width which may consist of fencing, architectural panels, berms, walls,
vegetative plantings, or some combination of these shall be installed as follows:
a. A mixture of conifers and deciduous trees, planted at a distance of not less than 35 feet
on center, with a maximum of 75 percent of the trees being deciduous;
b. Evergreen shrubs shall comprise at least 50 percent of the plantings;
CTA-03-11(Draft language for code text amendment)
8
c. A minimum of 18 points of landscaping shall be installed for every 25 linear feet of buffer
area.
2. All trees and shrubs shall be planted and maintained in accordance with the standards of the
American o��,,,,,�+,,,n „f n�,,.�o.,,Y„on �� ,. „f�.�hi.�h ;� ., fuo ;n +ho n��n.,;.,,.
�'°^°�i;Standard for Nurserv Stock. All newly planted trees and shrubs shall be mulched
and maintained to give a clean and weed-free appearance.
Figure 22.70-8 Example of Type II Landscaping
Eueir�reen Tre� D�ciduoUS �hiub�
5
I 5
� �1
� f�
. � �� , _� s� � � � � � Y � � � � �� �
� ��� � � � ���
� � s � � _ > �-
� ��; P6�t: I ��� . ��
� � Gr33E , {� � �
�� T �. I �..
�r��: �3�-�..��
.��� � � � � � � � ��g, � ��_�
3. The buffer shall run the entire length of the abutting lot line(s). A natural, undisturbed wooded
area at least 20 feet in width may substitute for landscaping.
D. Full screening and buffering are required for land use classification as shown on Table 22.70-2.
Table 22.70-2
—Buffers Required by Type
R-1, R-2, MF-1, NC, C, CMU, City
Zoning Districts R-3, R-4 MF-2 O, GO RC MUC Center I-1, I-2
Planned Residential Development I I I I I I I
Manufactured Home Parks I I I I I I I
MF-1, MF-2 I n/a I II II II I
O, GO I I n/a II n/a n/a n/a
NC, C, RC I I II n/a n/a n/a n/a
CMU, MUC I I n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
City Center I I n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
I-1, I-2 I I I I I I n/a
CTA-03-11(Draft language for code text amendment)
9
Table 22.70-2
—Buffers Required by Type
R-1, R-2, MF-1, NC, C, CMU, City
Zoning Districts R-3, R-4 MF-2 O, GO RC MUC Center I-1, I-2
I —Type I Full Screening II —Type II Visual Buffering n/a—Not Applicable
E. General Provisions— Landscaping.
1. Applicant may use any combination of planting materials to meet the requirements of this
section. Points are assigned based on the following:
Table 22.70-3
—Landscaping Point Values
Minimum Size (at time of planting)
Type of Plant
Material
Deciduous Trees Evergreen Trees Point Value
(in caliper inches) (in feet of height)
8-inch or greater 22 ft. and over 26
7-inch 19—21 ft. 24
6-inch 16— 18 ft. 22
Large Tree
5-inch 13— 15 ft. 20
4-inch 11 — 12 ft. 18
3-inch 9— 10 ft. 15
Medium Tree 2-inch 7—8 ft. 12
Small Tree Single trunk: 1-inch 5—6 ft. 9
Ornamental Tree Multiple trunk (minimum 3 trunks): smallest 5—6 ft. 9
trunk 1-inch caliper
Large Shrub 5-gallon and 24-inch height at planting 3
Medium Shrub 3-gallon and 12-inch height at planting 2
Small Shrub 2-gallon and 8-inch height at planting 1
Ornamental 1 gallon 1/2
Grasses
Groundcover 1 gallon 1/2
CTA-03-11(Draft language for code text amendment)
10
Table 22.70-3
-Landscaping Point Values
Minimum Size (at time of planting)
Type of Plant
Material
Deciduous Trees Evergreen Trees Point Value
(in caliper inches) (in feet of height)
4-inch pots 1/4
Existing Trees Greater than 6-inch caliper 22-50
Landscaped Berm 30-inch height; 10-foot length; 3:1 slope 1 per 5
linear ft.
Turf Grass n/a 1/4 per sq.
yd.
2. Landscaping must equal or exceed a minimum number of points based on the size of the lot,
parcel or tract and the number of parking spaces.
Table 22.70-4
-Landscaping Points Required for Development,Additions or Site Alterations
I Size of Developed
Number of Points Required
Area
I 5---�89-s�� -
I 500-2,500 sq. ft. Site points =25
I 2,5018-5,000 sq. ft. Site points = 50
IMore than 5,000 sq. ft. Site points = 50 plus one point for each 200 sq.ft. of area over
5,000 sq. ft.
IParking�e�s Two points per required parking space and one point for each
proposed additional parking space
3. An additional 10 percent in the number of points shall be required adjacent to the following
aesthetic corridors:
a. State Route 27 from 16th Avenue South to 32nd Avenue and Mansfield Avenue to Trent
Avenue;
b. Appleway Boulevard (south side from Park Road to Dishman Mica Road);
CTA-03-11(Draft language for code text amendment)
11
c. Mirabeau Parkway from Pines Road to Indiana Avenue;
d. Dishman Mica Road from 8th Avenue, south to City limits;
e. 32nd Avenue within the City limits;
f. Appleway Avenue from Barker Road to Hodges Road.
4. Points for required full screening or visual buffers shall be in addition to the points required to
meet landscaping requirements of this section.
5. A maximum of 25 percent of required landscape points may be claimed within the street right-
of-way.
6. A minimum of 60 percent of points shall be used for landscaping in the front and side yards.
7. A minimum of 25 percent of required points shall be used for evergreen plantings.
8. A maximum of 25 percent of required points may be used for turf grass. (Turf located within
the street right-of-way is excluded.)
oholl r
�c
nf 'I(1 r� in+c• onr!
10. The type and location of vegetation shall not interfere with utilities and the safe and efficient
flow of street traffic. Approval by the appropriate City departments responsible for street and
utilities shall be required.
11. Any turf grass planted in the street right-of-way shall be excluded from turf point credits.
12. Street trees are included for point calculation.
13. All plant material planted to meet the minimum requirements of these regulations shall be in
a healthy condition at the time of planting and shall meet quality standards set forth by the
American Standard for Nursery Stock.
14. Turf grass shall be planted, seeded or re-seeded as necessary, watered and maintained in
such a manner as to completely cover all exposed areas of soil after one full growing season.
CTA-03-11(Draft language for code text amendment)
12
15. No disturbed ground shall be left exposed. Grass and other approved and appropriate
ground covers or mulch shall cover all nonpaved and nonbuilt developed areas.
16. Landscaping may be included within stormwater facilities, providing it does not impede on
functionality and is consistent with stormwater guidelines.
F. Street Trees.
1. Street trees shall include deciduous trees planted in or within 10 feet of any public or private
right-of-way, planted at a distance of not less than 35 feet on center in sleeves designed to direct
root development as shown in Figure 22.70-9 of this chapter.
Figure 22.70-9 Root Barrier for Trees Planted Near Walkways
4i ' '
. w.
�
I
� -4� � • � L_�! ,� f]i,11'�s1�CR GFA#�
I �`, �
' . � .�,,.-.-,.,-,. S_d"-�./+}'�RLr"J���.ICr,kr�
`�, f . �,. r
.! `+ �:: I� r
.., -� �`
' '{ � � `�� �F� — 7hIFJ4"xO��'/M��uJkL RLY3T 6A��,9C.
.�'� i "
+ � � `t ; �
. ,
I�GrT ��,RRI�� F`C�R 1"LAtJl�hl��l�L'4�`? N�RR 4VAL�C.'iFIA"r�'"�
�_. ._. .—. __ —. . . ._. . k5}T74kW6i__—"_"
2. If construction is adjacent to any local access, collector or arterial, at least one medium tree
shall be planted for each 40 linear feet, or fraction thereof, for that portion of the development
abutting the right-of-way.
3. Where overhead utility lines are present, use appropriate street tree species as specified in
Appendix 22-A, Recommended Planting List, in subsection O of this section.
G. Landscaping Requirements for Parking Areas.
1. Headlight Screening. Where parking lot design includes spaces which allow vehicles to park
perpendicular to public rights-of-way or structures located on adjacent parcels, headlight
screening shall be required. Headlight screening should not exceed 30 inches in height for the
length of the parking area.
CTA-03-11(Draft language for code text amendment)
13
- �t..,�: ..
� a
_� �.
� �. .
=—'�� ' �:�� �
--t
�� ..RFk'n r.: .
Figure 22.70-10 Headlight Screening �- ' '"':�r. °",
2. When a parking area abuts residentially zoned property along any interior side or rear
property line, Type I full screening is required.
3. A maximum of 10 percent of the number of required parking spaces may be replaced with
landscaping. Ten points of landscaping shall be required for each substituted parking space.
4. A minimum of 25 percent of required points for parking areas shall be evergreen plant
materials.
��
5. Amount and Location.
a. Each parking lot island and/or peninsula shall be a minimum of 130 square feet with a
minimum average width of five feet;
b. Each parking lot island and/or peninsula shall contain a minimum of one medium tree;
c. The distance between any parking space and a landscaped area shall be no more than
75 feet;
d. All parking lot planting areas shall be protected with concrete curbs, or equivalent
barriers. Bumper blocks shall not be used for boundaries around the landscaped area;
e. All landscaping must be located between parking stalls, at the end of parking columns,
or between stalls and the property line. Landscaping which occurs between the parking lot
and a building or recreation area shall not be considered as satisfaction of these
requirements;
f. Each tree shall be planted a minimum of two feet away from the outside of any
permanent barrier of a landscaped area or edge of the parking area. Trees shall be staked
for a period of not less than 12 months after planting;
g. Ground cover or grasses shall be planted to cover each parking lot planting area within
three years from the date of issuance of the certificate of occupancy. All ground cover shall
have a mature height of not more than 24 inches. Loose rock, gravel, decorative rock or
stone, or mulch shall not exceed 20 percent of the planting area;
CTA-03-11(Draft language for code text amendment)
14
h. Space devoted to required parking lot planting areas shall be in addition to any required
front, side, and rear yard buffer requirements;
i. Stand-alone parking lots shall require three points of landscaping for each parking space
and shall be exempt from other landscaping requirements.
6. Any construction within or expansion or reconstruction of existing parking facilities in excess of
500 square feet shall be required to come into compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
7. Parking areas limited to commercial loading and truck maneuvering are limited to provision of
street trees along public rights-of-way, planted at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center.
8. Modifications to protect drainage features, easements, or facilities shall be allowed.
9. The requirements of this section shall not apply to parking garages or parking decks, or
display areas for automotive and equipment sales and rentals.
10. Proposals requirinq ten (10) new parkinq stalls or less are exempt from landscapinq points
found in Table 22.70-4.
��
H. Landscaping Required for Common Open Space.
1. Fifty percent of the required common open area shall contain irrigated plantings.
I. Screening of Loading Docks. Off-street loading spaces and apron space should be screened from view
of the abutting streets for a minimum of 35 feet:
1. By a combination of permanent architectural and landscape elements such as walls, berms,
trees and shrubs with a mature height of at least to the height of the top of the dock door but no
greater than 12 feet above the truck dock apron; and
2. Shall, when viewed at a perpendicular angle from the street, screen the loading spaces
completely, except for driveway opening(s).
J. Landscaping Requirements for Freestanding Signs.
1. New freestanding sign structures serving a new development shall provide a landscaping area
as follows:
a. Structures on Slab. A landscape border of 18 inches or more measured from the edge of
slab for monument signs.
CTA-03-11(Draft language for code text amendment)
15
b. Single Pole Structures. A landscape border not less than 32 square feet in area located
18 inches or more measured from the edge of footing if flush with natural grade, or 18
inches from the pole, provided the footing is covered with not less than 18 inches of soil.
c. Multiple Pole Structures. A landscape border not less than 60 square feet in area located
18 inches or more measured from the edge of footings. The landscape border may be
placed adjacent to the poles provided footing is covered with not less than 18 inches of soil.
2. New freestanding sign structures located within 208 swales areas require no additional
landscaping. Footings shall be installed in such a way that the biofiltration function of the swale
is not diminished.
3. New freestanding sign structures located within existing developments where landscaping
meets the requirements of subsection C of this section require no additional landscaping.
4. New sign structures on a fully developed site �^��" r ��� �..++„
„h�o,.+;,,n Ll r,f+h4o �o�+,,,n.are exempt from landscapinq.
5. Points for landscaping of sign structures may be used to meet the minimum requirements of
this chapter.
��
K. Xeriscaping.
1. The number of required points may be reduced by up to 20 percent for use of recommended
xeriscape planting materials combined with decorative hardscape. Xeriscape planting materials
need fewer waterings than typical lawn grasses and can tolerate, resist, or avoid drought after
they are established. They have attractive ornamental features and are relatively easy to grow.
Xeriscape planting materials have not been invasive in local growing conditions.
2. Use drip or trickle irrigation.
3. Mulch with three to four inches of shredded or ground bark, well-rotted compost, wood
shavings or chips at the time of installation.
L. Modification of Landscaping Requirement.
1. The director may approve alternative landscaping proposals where:
a. Only a portion of the parcel is being developed;
b. Landscaping would interfere with the adequate storage, conveyance, treatment or
control of stormwater runoff or would interfere with the maintenance of stormwater facilities
or natural drainage systems;
CTA-03-11(Draft language for code text amendment)
16
c. Applicant proposes xeriscaping in conformance with subsection K of this section;
d. Existing structures or improvements preclude installation of required landscaping and
irrigation systems as prescribed herein.
e. Additions or expansions on developed Industrial zoned properties mav be exempt from
landscapinq requirements, where it is shown that the installation of landscapinq is not
feasible.
2. Where applicant proposes to preserve existing healthy trees, a credit may be applied to points
for required landscaping; provided, however, that not more than 25 percent of the total points
may be located within the public right-of-way. Credit may be approved as follows:
Table 22.70-5
—Credits for Tree Preservation
Size of Preserved Deciduous Tree* Height of Existing Preserved Conifer Landscape Points Applied
6-inch caliper 16— 18 ft. 25
7-inch caliper 19—21 ft. 28
8-inch to 10-inch caliper 22—28 ft. 30
10.1-inch caliper to 15-inch DBH 29—32 ft. 35
15.1-inch to 20-inch caliper 33—36 ft. 40
20.1-inch to 25-inch caliper 37—40 ft. 46
Over 25-inch caliper >41 ft. 58
3. The decision of the director regarding modification of landscape requirements shall be final
unless an aggrieved person appeals that decision to the hearing examiner.
M. Installation, Maintenance, and Enforcement.
1. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, person(s)who prepared landscape plan �
n,�+oro,� ��n,��,.�no �r,.h;+o,.+ Will certify that the irrigation systems and landscaping have been
installed in accordance with approved plans and specifications.
2. The director may authorize a delay where planting season conflicts would produce high
probability of plant loss. In the event the director authorizes a delay, a limited access agreement,
not to exceed six months, may be issued to complete the installation of required landscaping.
CTA-03-11(Draft language for code text amendment)
17
Maintenance of landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property owner. All landscaping
required by this chapter shall be permanently maintained in a healthy growing condition.
Trees that become diseased, severely damaged or die shall be removed by the owner. All trees
removed under this section shall be replaced in accordance with the approved landscaping plan
for the property. Lack of maintenance shall constitute a violation of this code.
a. Tree guards are to be used around the base of each tree in lawn areas.
b. Trees are to be planted a minimum of four feet from any curb stop whenever possible.
c. Landscaping must be maintained to allow fire protection equipment to be seen from
approach.
d. All landscaping must provide for a three-foot clear area around all fire protection
equipment.
� �
Figure 22.70-11 Example of Suggested Shrub Planting
�
�� �
� C�
1't7�i� ��d�J���'�'iT� �
�
�' ��..�f+h7'�41�,��[� �
1.,�1lJ`.C.h
�fi � ��
-�
�!��rFE�PI��T�11� �
��u�. �fv'A.�i ��1'�il� �
��'��MC�� �CI� �� �'
�� �I,�.:��I��t I G
�
CTA-03-11(Draft language for code text amendment)
18
Figure 22.70-12 Example of Suggested Deciduous Tree Planting
�
��
Pl�+l'(�C7 ThA.i T�}P�]F R�� ��
d,+;.�.i I��4'�'�ti1�'il`1'fY+E �
Pr►�+�'ri�3 uRA�� ��
I' �Gli�t�i A��i'EE�fp �',�
Mi�akt4}L7[] s7AFS.�
�-; ;jT�kt`,i 5 �'�1°
p�4'EH ih�IwG a�r�Pi�pV�:S.
Ih�Cr'�N�Ca�+PE PRIO+�
T�'e��I'I l��f+l�
�F�J�+'�4�5�F��r�P,�+,�..T4E�a I
C7�:�5 7�lC+C�S��"#�°C}��'IF',� �U_.�:�r
��'P��iT N _�
— �;��
��i
SPE�IF�fi}PLAf+ffIKG M�i
tnr,�t�R*`I'�1�' �� �—
F��C]l[�AI R�CrCK._� � �J _
i f " ..
a ,x�41J,.�1�.
�
�
CTA-03-11(Draft language for code text amendment)
19
Figure 22.70-13 Example of Suggested Deciduous Tree Planting
�' - .`�
� �.
� �
�' � �
� ,,� rr �` ��
� ',
��\ �r � � � �-.
_ ��
�
r
� � �.4Y�M[�t#�ld+At1F,T��W�1
�— °—u1JY hVf�i I�Y��IJtG{IYI EA�I F�G 7��
� _; '+l�1i91Lf�1'J�'+fliS�Tll��9f 4'�f 4��6 A$1�-�
�� �L�MhT6A�L'ldi�x
�
f P�lM�14�5�D�4'i�lR��4�R u�''�1�R
� Pl+tl4Gf b�Y��1'�iF]��'[1 Gt A7 6�1i!
�a�GIh4�E
'� iILC,�
�"��� ��, �-` — LY��8�1l4it�,4�!l�94�F
�oF RS46e rJ4�s�rri�Irtne�
������ . � �-� ._ '� �:=afl�er,nb�]aTi�
� + ° Y,,� . � y '�]Cri35f�MC�2l71u�11N1
�°d��*'-}� "k�� _ °#'k' ..h $i�." _.p�J��CP {9P{��LL'�`3�iL�G 4rt.,fEWYE
�*} �, f� +�ti.w � nvti1���P.MS�•Fa747��R�[?�LFF141E1W4.
��tei'��c�,t'S" ��4��""-'t 4, �`+�,'� *�..
� ^` ,�*•�'� �,Y��.y�,, �,t�'`�'�4 ���. �,. +'wu�e4rt�x�Yal�tu�€rto
>��'*� �f�'`'��'ti -�`� ��s"?��,�'- -�RE��TD�S+rE91�#aP�EMI�
r`._ , c �r .�,�.�����,.�t.,�.
4�-*�� .^� � - GeTfLf1F
CTA-03-11(Draft language for code text amendment)
20
Figure 22.70-14 Example of Suggested Conifer Tree Planting
,.�� �
.���
�.,�� ��
S�'��� �SlI ;, �. MULCr P�,4GE�
+I�.�� � ��3'�n.,'���a+'R�wi
�i �,��il:i�'. ra�Il�S"�v!. �.+C�]
� f hYJLGti*�-r�[]b�k1�,1H
p,
a�"�Il�"I n a��pit� `>1[iA.
�r���`�4`A�v4C
►�a�77VG�C�IC�17:���
�A_ ��, ���, F���u���wirr�
?1'�L4111N�;i,179 Rlil
���I ���N r P�IP�i i,R�Df
I
i -�� -I`-
I . r
4� ��
- � : �
. . . ,. .,--�' .
1
CXI�a�F�5Clt}��
II.#W11M(r�-J�. I ��W-I.Glk, �,
N. Landscaping Plan Requirements.�A landscaping plan shall be prepared and sealed by a
registered landscape architect when proposal exceeds 100 landscape points. All landscape plans
shalla�include the size and type of landscaping materials, the dimensions of the tract, and a point
calculation showing compliance with this provision.
O. Recommended Planting Species. Refer to Appendix 22-A.
(Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007).
CTA-03-11(Draft language for code text amendment)
21
i
II
Karen Kendall
From: Steele Fitzloff[sfgavinassoc@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 3:24 PM
To: Karen Kendall
Cc: 'Timothy Gavin' i
�ubject: FW: City of Spokane Valley proposes changes to fencing and landscaping (Section 22.70) of �
the SVMC i
. .
One addotional comment that should be considered for implement with#7 is "Contractor c�nnot design, install and
approve their own work" This is really to protect the client from possible poor or incomplete work. I
_ _ _ _ _
I
From: Steele Fitzloff[mailto:sfaavinassoc@comcast.netl �
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 3:16 PM ;
To: 'kkendall@spokanevalley.org' j
Cc: 'Timothy Gavin'
Subject: FW: City of Spokane Valley proposes changes to fencing and landscaping (Section 22.70) of the SVMC
;
Karen,
Below are our review comments on the proposed changes the landseaping section of Municipal Code.
1. No comment
I�
2. No comment
3. Add "and n�t c�djc�cent to a residentia!zone"after'in the absences of a residential component'
4. i�lo comment
5. Did not see anything to comment on
6. A.)Add a total width for Type I—Full Screen
Bo)Adjust the linear feet for calculating points to be same linear feet between trees.. ex. 30' O.C.for
Trees, 35 landscape points for every 30 (inear feet
7. Licensed Landscape Architect required on sites "More than 5,000 sq.ft." We felt that for a Landscape
Architect to work on anything smaller than this would be more costly to the clients than the total cost of the plantings.
However a landscape designer or other qualified person with irrigation and landscape design and installation; and local
plant material should be highly recommended or required for the 500-5,000 sq.ft. categories. i
Thanks,
Steele Fitzloff �
i
l,andscap� D�signer !
�
Gavin Associates Landscape Architecture LI.C.
(509)869-12�3
From: Karen Kendall (mailto:kkendall@spokanevallev.oral
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 9:31 AM
To: Karen Kendall
Subject: City of Spokane Valley proposes changes to fencing and landscaping (Section 22.70) of the SVMC
The Spokane Valley City Council has directed staff to review the City's landscaping section of the
Municipal Code to ensure that the regulations are not overly burdensome on our business community.
Your input and expertise is highly valued and we encourage your review and comment on the upcoming
proposedcodechanges.
i
i
i �
;
i
i
i
At this time, Staff is proposing the following changes to the landscaping section of Municipal Code (Title ';
22.70 Fencing, Screening and Landscaping)
1. Clarify height of fences on Flanking Yards;
2. Correction to Clear View Triangle tables and definition;
3. Clarifying zones allowing barbed wire;
4. Streamline landscape point calculations;
5. Remove landscaping requirement around signs in developed areas;
6. Providing more options to modify landscaping requirements; and
7. Changing threshold when a Landscape Architect is required.
The Planning Commission will conduct a study session on September 22, 2011 followed by a public '
hearing on October 13, 2011. You are encouraged to participate and provide written feedback directly to �
me or at the public hearing before the Planning Commission regarding the proposed changes. You may �
view the proposal on the Planning Commission's page at www.s�okanevalle .6�.
Please forward information along to others you feel this would benefit.
Thank you for your time and interest.
K.�FREN ICEND��-�-
AssCstav�,tPlawv�.er, cow�w�uw�t� DeveL�>pw�eV�tDepavtw�ev�t '
c�t� of spol2av�.e val.�e� I
22�0� �ast sprague�Fvewue, su�te 20�
spo�zawe va��e�, w�99�o� �
so9.��o.so��di.rect '
so9�9�z.2oog fax
www.s�o�ia weva��eU.or� �
Cowtev�.ts of tb�i.s ew�r��� Uwd awv� cep�� p�re sub�ect to pu�I.Cc ct�sclosure.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG- www.av .� com
Version: 10.0.1392/Virus Database: 1520/3892 -Release Date: 09/12/11
No virus found in this message. ,
Checked by AVG- www.av .g com '
Version: 10.0.1392/Virus Database: 1520/3894 -Release Date: 09/13/11 ;
__�. .__. .._ _._ _ _.____._.___. ��—�.._m _.�---�-- --_ __�—.____� �
(
No virus found in this message. '
Checked by AVG- www.av .�com �
Version: 10.0.1410/Virus Database: 1520/3898 -Release Date: 09/15/11
z I
No virus found in this message. �
Checked by AVG-www.av .�com_ r
Version: 10.0.1410/Virus Database: 1520/3898 -Release Date: 09/15/11 i
�
i
'�
li
�I
�
I
I
j
;
I
I
I
�
3
i
Karen Kendall
From: Steven Neill [scneill@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 2:55 PM
To: Karen Kendall; Scott Kuhta
Cc: John Hohman
Subject: Tree Planting
Attachments: 22.70-10 rewording.doc; Ohio State University Fact Sheet.doc
I
Hello All, �I
I
I am so sorry it took this long to do this, I have no real excuse. I have been looking at various City ordinances i
and I could not find one that included the requirement to stake the trees nor did i find one that gave details on i
how to plant them. I did however get permission from the Arbor Day Society (I have been a member for a ��
decade now)to use their �;uidelines:htt�://www.arbordav.or�/trees/tips/as a resource for builders. I looked up i
what the City's of Portland, Spokane, and Seattle do since they are our closest big neighbors and they give a set �
of requirements for the type of trees planted as well as the need for permits in certain areas but again, they do 'i
not require staking the trees, they only give suggestions which I pasted below. !
Seattle: httt�://www.seattle.�ov/transportation/treeplantin .�htm the guide is below �
I
http://www.seattle.�ov/trans�ortation/newtreet�lantin .�
Spokane: httb://spokaneurbanforestrv.or�/index.bh�/Parks/pa �� /70/
Portland: http://www.portlandonline.com/�arks/index.cfin?c=39712 the guide is below
htt�://www.�ortlandonline.com/parks/index.cfm?c=3 9712&a=164329
I really like the way the City of Seattle has there guideline laid out with good basic instructions on how to plant
tree. However, we are not in the tree planting business so we may not want to go there. I am including the
rewording of 22.70-10 to include the Arbor Site as an example. Should we want to incorporate the Seattle
approach, rewording their instructions to make them our own would not be a problem. But I am not sure how
big of a can of worms you want to open. I am also including a list of outstanding trees from Ohio State
University that would be a great list for recommended and poor choice trees for our USDA Zone 5. Again, it is i
how much do we want to put into this that will determine what where we go from here. I did at least strikeout �
the unhealthy practice of staking all trees and give the property owner a good place to look for advice on ;
planting their trees. 1
i
�
Below is a guideline from the ISA on structuring tree ordinances but again,how much work do we want to do?
International Society of Arboriculture Tree Ordinance Guidelines
http://www.isa�arbor.com/education/onlineResources/treeOrdinanceGuidelines.as�x
In closing, it is my recommendation that we give a basic instruction on tree planting, it takes little work and will
benefit those who are not horti�ulturalists9 I think w� should h�v� a list of re�orr�ended trees as well as on of I
i
popular trees that are poor choices for our area because of the long term problems they will cause. I feel that
with a minimum amount of invested we can help the long term health of our City's forests, but as a private
property advocate, I think this shottld be a choice, not a mandate.
Steven Neill
�
i
i
i
�
I
�
;
�
�
i
i
i
I
z
f. Each tree shall be planted a minimum of two feet away from the outside of any permanent
barrier of a landscaped area or edge of the parking area. �' �'��" '� ���'��a �� � ~°°�';��' ^�~�°+
,��� +,�.,,, ,� ,�.,,,r+�,� .,�-oi Niuj,�iil�.Trees should be planted according to the Arbor Day Society 9
Tree Care Tips �Techniques Guide (http://ww•�v.arborday.or�/trees/tips/).
i
i
i
�
�
�
�i
I
'
�
,��
i
i
�I
Ohio State University Fact Sheet
�
Horticulture and Crop Science �
2001 Fyffe Court, Columbus, OH 43210-1096 j
i
Deciduous Trees and Shrubs With All-Season Interest
HYG-1143-96 .
Michael Loos
Jack Kerrigan
lZandall Zondag �
Developing interest in the landscape throughout the year is an objective for most gardeners.
Selecting plants that have attractive characteristics during all four seasons helps gardeners reach
their goal of a well-planned landscape. Some plants have several attributes that exhibit
ornamental qualities during each season of the year. While attractive flowers may be the !
showiest characteristic,persistent ornamental fruit may extend the display into winter,while a �
distinct growth habit or form will be attractive when the plant is not in bloom or bearing fruit. �
Plants that bloom when other plants are not in blossom deserve special consideration. �
Foliage can provide varying shades of green or distinct contrast with yellow, red, or purple
leaves. A blaze of autumn foliage color is a grand finale before the plant's more subtle winter I
characteristics are revealed. Persistent fruit that is held into winter is attractive and may attract
wildlife. Patterned or textured bark is more evident when leaves have fallen and contrast nicely �
to a snowy background. Bold or unusual plant structure and form also are more evident after
E
leaves drop in autumn. !
Not all the plants listed have all these features,but each retains at least one outstanding
ornamental characteristic all year. Planning will result in combinations of plants that complement �
each other throughout the year. An ever-changing, always interesting landscape is the result. All �
plants listed are hardy to Zone 5 (USDA);however, some may need-protection if exposed to �„
harsh winter conditions. �
For additional information on these plants, see Michael A. Dirr's Manual of Woody Landscape '
Plants. I
I
I
I
I
I
i
�
I
�
I
I
f
� � ,.;::.....
���� _ � :. - i
, _ �
g ;- _
i
� � `:. i
:: _ ,
i
... ,,. . ..
. :. : i
..::::-.::-�:::=.. :_.. �
-: =
___ ,:- . i
_ . : � '� � I
... ; . �. �
. _ � .
.:: _ _ �-�
_ ;
::::�:: ; _=::
: _.: : :
��:� ,_. :__ I
�-
. _. � .: -
:.
.
��:. � ._ - _. . . :::.
�� ; : . }::� .. ..
_...::�.. ._.
.:.
� .. :
E "�-_, ., , �..
. ,x�..,,� "� '
.c�z' " • •'e" �'s
�..:� � _... ........ r. . . .:..�....�:._. - .
� � . _
F
��� � .
�
g t . ...
. �' ,
.��� ..: :.�:
� .-: :' :_ F �: _„
��'�.;i�:`���.-:_' � ��- �;..
� .
& y� ..
���:'�.._ �� ��_ .
t.: � .
. ... � ,., ; �
.. . 3� .�.... - . .: �
� `' �. :. € . ... .. .:. .. ...
. '�`�� � ��..: . . .;:::t..-:t�', ..:
. . _
..'.: � �_:.
___......:............................._......................�:..E.......�. ":....._............................
Figure 1. The peeling bark of a paperbark maple, Acer griseum.
Medium to Large�'rees
(30 feet or taller at maturity)
Acer x campestre--hedge maple; 30 feet in height with an equal spread. Dense habit with
medium texture. Dark green foliage turns yellow in autumn. Bark is lightly ridged and furrowed,
somewhat corky. Grows in any soil,but does better in rich, well-drained soil. Tolerant of dry,
compacted soil. Grows in sun or light shade. ,
Acer x freemanii(Acer rubrum)--Freeman maple; 40 to 60 feet in height with a broad columnar i,
habit. Cultivars: 'Autumn Blaze,' 'Autumn Fantasy,' ' Celebration,' ' Lee's Red,' 'Marmo,' ' '
I
Morgan,' and' Scarlet Sentinel'have good fall color. i
Acer rubrum--red maple; 40 to 60 feet in height with spread equal to or less than height. Bark is
dark gray and rough, scaly, or ridged with age. Cultivars have an excellent red to orange autumn
color� 'Autumn Flame ' ' Embers ' and'Red Sunset.' Re uires acidic soil and needs moisture.
> > > q
Betula nigra—river birch; 40 to 70 feet in height with spread a little less or equal to height. The !,
cinnamon-colored, exfoliating bark of the River Birch is spectacular in the winter, Lustrous, '
medium-green leaves. Most borer resistant birch. Tolerant of both wet soils and dry si.uiuziers.
Avoid very alkaline soils.
Cladrastis lutea--yellowwood; 30 to 50 feet in height with a spread of 40 to 55 feet. Low- I�
branching and broad crown with bright green leaves that turn yellow to gold in autumn. White, I
wisteria-like flowers give an excellent display every 2 to 3 years. Seed pods are decorative after �!'I
leaves fall. Grow in well-drained soil in full sun. Pruning usually required to improve the tree's '�
structure. '
i
i
Fagus sylvatica--European beech; 50 to 60 feet in height with a spread of 35 to 45 feet. Many
fine forms and cultivars. They include upright, weeping, and dwarf selections. All have smooth
gray bark. There are many leaf colors and shape variations. 'Roseo-marginata' and ' Riversii' are
particularly popular. Grow in moist, well-drained, acidic soil in full sun to light shade.
Gymnocladus dioicus--Kentucky coffeetree, 60 to 75 feet in height with a spread of 40 to 50 feet.
Bold,picturesque form is this tree's most imposing characteristic. Rough, scaly, gray to dark �
brown bark and attractive pods add to interest during winter. Unfolding leaves have a pinkish to ;
purple tinge gradually turning a dark green in sununer. Flowers are greenish-white and female �
flowers have the aroma of roses. �
�
Halesia carolina--Carolina silverbell, 30 to 40 feet in height with a spread of 20 to 35 feet, often �
smaller with a spreading habit. White flowers appear in April and May before the leaves. Dark
green lea�es turn yellow and fall very early in autumn. Dry, winged fruits are effective from
September to late autumn. Multicolored, ridged and furrowed bark is interesting during winter.
Requires acid soil.
Liquidambar styraciflucz--sweetgum, 60 to 75 feet in height with a spread of 40 to 50 feet. This
tree is neatly pyramidal in form,broadening as it ages. Its bark becomes corky beginning with
young branches. The leaves are star-shaped with excellent red and orange autumn color. ' Gold
Dust'has leaves speckled with yellow.
Metasequoia glyptostroboides; Dawn Redwood rapidly grows to 75-100' or taller and 15-25'
wide,with a pyramidal shape. A truly beautiful deciduous conifer,this rapid grower that can
make an excellent shade or street tree if the lot is large enough. The overall shape of the mature
tree is conical. The bark is gray to slightly reddish in color, and the needles are a light green �
which turn a brilliant copper color in the fall before they drop. �
i,l
Nyssa sylvatica--black tupelo, black gum, or sour gum, 30 to 50 feet in height with a spread of i
20 to 30 feet. Pyramidal when young, becoming more oval when mature. Bark is almost black
and is thick with a very blocky appearance. Exhibits one of the best, bright red autumn colors. �
Plant in a well-drained, acidic soil. �
i
Oxydendrum arboreum--sourwood, 30 feet in height with a spread of 20 feet. Grows slowly with
a pyramidal form with rounded top and drooping branches. Bark is dark brown and deeply
furrowed, giving a checkered appearance. Leaves are deep green in summer becoming brilliant
yellow,red, and purple in autumn. White, fragrant, drooping clusters of flowers bloom in early
siuiimer. Requires a well-drained, acidic soil with high organic content.
Phellodendron amurense--amur corktree, 30 to 45 feet in height with a spread of 15 to 20 feet.
Horizontally spreading branches create interesting shape. Bark is heavy and corky. Deep green
leaves turn yellow to bronze in fall.
Pyrus calleryana--callery pear, 30 to 50 feet in height with a spread of 20 to 35 feet. Showy
white flowers cover tree in spring. Shiny, dark green leaves of summer turn yellowish orange to
i
r
I
reddish purple in fall. 'Aristocrat'has a broad-pyramidal outline. ' Capital,' ' Chanticleer,' '
Cleveland Select,'and' Stonehill'have a compact, upright-pyramidal habit.
�
Quercus macrocarpa--burr oak, 70 to 80 feet in height with an equal spread. Heavy in texture,
I
with coarse bark, this is one of many worthwhile oaks. Fringed nuts are ornamental. Other oaks
to consider include Q. bicolor (swamp white oak), Q. coccinea(scarlet oak), Q. imbricaria
(shingle or laurel oak), Q. robur (English oak), Q. rubra(Red oak) and Q. shumardii (Shumard
oak).
Stewartia pseudocamellia--Japanese stewartia, 20 to 40 feet in height with an equal or smaller
spread. Attractive camellia-like flowers appear in late stunmer and continue until frost. Dark
green leaves turn vibrant red and orange in autumn. The exfoliating bark creates a beautiful
pattern of white,beige and dark brown. A truly spectacular tree for the protected site. Soil should
be moist and acidic with a high organic content.
,�
f �
i
�
�
�:
� `
$�
�.w '
�� ��
_ �
�
Fk��
3 �
,::. � � .�� �n�w�'}, ., �, � u. :
Figure 2. The buds of a saucer magnolia,Magnolia x soulangiana, glistening in the winter sun. '
i
i
Small Trees and'Large Shrubs j
i
(8 to 30 feet at maturity) �
Acer griseum--paperbark maple, 20 to 25 feet in height with a spread 10 to 20 feet. In addition to
papery,bark texture,the form of this tree makes it an outstanding addition to any landscape. The
cinnamon brown bark exfoliates on young to intermediate aged trees, although this trait
decreases as the tree matures. The autumn foliage is bronze to brilliant red.
Acer japonicum--fullmoon maple, 20 to 25 feet in height with an equal to slightly larger spread.
Very similar to Japanese maple,the fullmoon maple has a more rounded palmate leaf. '
Aconitifolium'has brilliant red fall foliage. Zone 5 to 7.
I
�,
I�
Acer palmatum--Japanese maple, 8 to 25 feet in height with an equal to slightly larger spread.
Mature height varies with cultivars. Hundreds of cultivars are available that vary in leaf form,
texture, variegation, and seasonal color. ' Bloodgood'has deep purple-red foliage. 'Burgundy
Lace' does not hold the red color as well. Of the forms with highly dissected leaves, ' Crimson !
Queen,' ' Ever Red,' ' Garnet,' 'Red Select,' ' Shidare,' and ' Tamukeyama' are recommended.
Amelanchier arborea--downy serviceberry, Juneberry, or shadbush, 15 to 25 feet in height. This
shrubby tree features white blossoms early in spring. The dark green leaves become orange to
red in autumn. Smooth bark with narrow fissures becomes ridged and furrowed with age. The
fine, elegant texture is attractive even in winter. Base selection of cultivar on height, growth .
habit, fruit size, and fall color. A. x grandiflora is also recommended.
Chionanthus virginicus--fringe tree, 15 to 25 feet in height with an equal spread. The shape of
this tree is variable,but generally spreading and open. Multiple stems are common. Flowers are
very showy and similar to the Japanese tree lilac. Fruit forms only on female trees and looks like
loose clusters of grapes. Autumn color is yellowish and variable. The bark becomes ridged and
heavy as the tree matures.
Cornus kousa--Kousa or Chinese dogwood, 20 to 25 feet in height with an equal spread. Mature
specimens have horizontal branching, Textured, exfoliating bark is attractive in winter. The
floral bracts appear later than those of the native dogwood and the fruit is larger and showier �
than in Cornus florida. This tree or multistemmed shrub is borer and disease resistant. Dark !
green leaves turn reddish-purple to scarlet in fall and are effective for several weeks. Zone 5 to 8. ,
�
Cornus mas--cornelian cherry, 20 to 25 feet in height with a spread of 15 to 20 feet. Small
yellow flowers open in very early spring before the leaves appear. This is a multistemmed shrub
or small tree with a rounded form. The exfoliating bark varies from gray-brown to rich-brown
and is attractive all year. Fall foliage color is minimal. Fruit is cherry-like and drops in late
summer.
Crataegus phaenopyrum--Washington hawthorn, 20 to 30 feet in height with a spread of 20 to 25
feet. This rounded tree is dense and thorny. The white flowers in spring and glossy red fruits in
autumn,persisting into winter are very showy. Foliage is lustrous green in stunmer, turning
orange to scarlet or purple in autumn. For excellent fruit, fewer thorns and a slightly larger tree, �
consider C. viridis ' Winter King.' �
Magnolia stellata--star magnolia, 15 to 20 feet in height with a spread of 10 to 15 feet. Attractive 'I
white to gray bark is best appreciated against a dark background. White, fragrant flowers open in ''�
early spring and are often damaged by late freezes and wind. 'Royal Star'blooms slightly later II
than the species and other cultivars. Dark green leaves turn yellow to bronze in autumn. Grows �
better in acidic soil.
Malus hybrids--crabapples, 12 to 25 feet in height with an equal or lesser spread. Very showy
spring flowers are followed by colorful fall fruit. Some cultivars have persistent fruit. There are
many cultivars and selection should be based on flower, foliage, fruit,habit, and disease- �
resistance characteristics. �
�
,I,
�I
�
�I
Parrotia persica--Persian parrotia, 20 to 40 feet in height with a spread of 15 to 30 feet. This is a '
foliage tree, with leaves unfolding as a reddish-purple,turning to a lustrous green and then
finishing in fall as brilliant yellow to orange to scarlet. With age, the bark becomes exfoliating,
revealing an array of gray, green,white, and brown. The petalless flowers appear before the
foliage and the crimson stamens are curiously attractive. 'i
Styrax japonica--Japanese styrax or snowbell, 20 to 30 feet in height and an equal or greater �
spread. The white,bell=shaped flowers are beautiful and showy May to June.The foliage turns �
yellow to reddish in fall and is held on the tree late in the season. This low-branched tree is finely �
textured and has a horizontal structure that is distinctive in winter. The bark is grayish brown and
smooth with irregular, interlacing fissures of cinnamon brown. Hardy to Zone 5,this tree should
be grown in a protected, east-facing exposure. Plant in a well-drained,moist, acidic soil.
Viburnum plicatum var. tomentosum--doublefile viburnum, 8 to 10 feet in height with an equal ',
or slightly greater spread. Horizontal branching structure produces a strong effect, especially in i
front of a brick wall. The leaves are nicely textured and turn reddish purple in fall.Very showy ,
white flowers appear in May. The fruit,which is usually eaten by birds, is bright red changing to !
�
black. It is effective in July and August. Good cultivars include ' Shasta' and' Mariesii.' Zone 5
to 8. Spring planting recommended.
i
Small Shrubs
(under 8 feet at maturity)
Berberis thunbergii--Japanese barberry, 3 to 6 feet in height with a spread of 4 to 7 feet. This
densely branched,rounded shrub is one of the first to leaf out in the spring. Foliage is bright
green turning orange, scarlet, and reddish purple in autumn. The foliage tends to hide the small �
yellow flowers,but the bright red berries are showy beginning in October and continuing into i
winter. Cultivars to consider are ' Aurea' and'Kobold.'Recommended purple foliage cultivars
include atropurpurea' Crimson Pygmy' and 'Rose Glow.' Berberis koreana, Korean barberry is !
similar and also recommended. �
I
Cotoneaster apiculatus--cranberry cotoneaster, 3 feet in height by 3 to 6 feet spread. Stiff, �
herringbone pattern of branching is interesting all year. Glossy green leaves turn a bronzy-red to
purple in fall. The small,pink flowers are attractive at a close range. The cranberry-red fruit
provide an excellent showing in late fall through winter.
Fothergilla gardenii--dwarf fothergilla, 2 to 5 feet in height with a similar spread. The white,
fragrant, bottlebrush-like flowers appear in early spring before the foliage. Leaves are dark green
to blue-green,turning yellow, orange to scarlet in autumn,holding color late into the season. The
slender, zig-zagging stems forming a dense colony are interesting in winter. Plant in partial shade
in a well-drained, acidic soil with high organic content.
Hydrangea quercifolia--oakleaf hydrangea; 4 to 6 feet in height with an equal spread. This rather
coarse shrub provides an excellent contrast in the landscape. The foliage is a deep green in
slunmer turning to red, orangish brown, and purple in autumn. The flowers open white in late
�
i
I
i
i
�
i
III
June and age to purple-pink and finally brown. The bark of mature plants is cinnamon-brown and ;
exfoliates. �
Ilex verticillata--winterberry or Michigan holly, 6 to 10 feet in height with an equal spread.
Slender stems with dense branching make this a fine natural screen. Leaves are a deep green in
summer but no significant fall color. The fruit is bright red and ripens in late August,persisting
into January. ' Sparkleberry' is a choice hybrid cultivar due to excellent fruit color. As with other
hollies,both sexes are needed to getberries on the female plants. Plant in moist, acidic soil with
a high organic content. I
Rhus aromatica--fragrant sumac, 2 to 6 feet in height with a spread of 6 to 10 feet. A low,
irregular, spreading shrub with a medium texture. Ordinary green leaves turn orange, red to
reddish-purple in autumn. The yellowish flowers yield fuzzy,red-orange fruit in autumn,
persisting into winter. ' Gro-low' is a recommended low-growing cultivar. Adaptable regarding
soil texture, it grows best in acidic soil. Grows in full sun to partial shade, i
I
Viburnum opulus 'compactum'--dwarf European cranberrybush viburnum; 2 to 4 feet in height j
with a slightly greater spread. This upright, spreading,multistemmed shrub forms a rounded
mound. The glossy, dark green leaves turn yellow-red to reddish-purple in autumn. Showy white
flowers appear in May followed by berry-like fruits in September. The dwarf cultivars do not �
fruit well. This plant is very adaptable to a variety of soils and grows in full sun to light shade. �
Trees not recommended for the Spokane Va11ey: �I
Populus spp. (Poplars/Quaking Aspen) Tops are brittle and break up easily in storms and
their roots seek out waterlines causing damaged pipes
Salix spp. (willows, including weeping) Roots are particularly hard on sewers.
Betula pendula - Extremely succeptable to the bronze birch borer which generally kiils the !
tree while in its prime years. �
i
�I
i
�,'I
;
�I
�
I
i
;
i
i
Karen Kendall
From: Gloria Mantz
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 11:50 AM
To: Karen Kendall
Cc: Inga Note
Subject: Title 22.70
�
Hi Karen, i
Can you add the following language after Figure 22.70-1 I
�
Clearview triangles for new development and new commercial driveway approaches shall be calculated using the I
methods presented in SVMC 22.130.040 Street Standards.
Thanks
C�larti� ,
Gloria Mantz, P.E. �;
Development Engineer
City of Spokane Valley �
509-720-5321 '
I
,i
,
i
i
�
�,
1 '
i
Colorado Master Gardenersm Program �1� �
Colorado Gardener Certificate Training
Colorado State University Extension �;�,�,t�;it�.
�xtensior�
CMG GardenNotes #634
Tree Staking and Underground Stabilization
Outline: Consequences of staking, page 1
Purposes of staking, page 1
Above ground staking methods, page 2
Under ground stabilization methods, page 3
Staking became a routine procedure when trees were planted in deep holes and the
trees sank and tilted as the soil settled. In the Science ofPlanting Ti^ees,where
trees are set on undisturbed soil and a ring of soil is �rmed around the base before
backfilling, staking is not needed in many landscape settings.
Consequences of Staking
The consequences of staking with traditional methods that wrap and hold the trunk
include the following:
• The tree grows taller, faster.
• Staking (the lack of tree movement) slows root spread.
• The tree has less growth in trunk caliper near the ground but more near the
top support ties. Staking often produces a reverse trunk taper that
increases the potential for storm damage.
• Staked trees experience more wind damage than unstaked trees of equal
height(the top of the tree is not free to bend in the wind).
• Bark is often damaged by the ties. In a survey of 10,000 street trees, 90%
were damaged by the ties.
• If the stake is close to the trunk,it can develop uneven xylem growth
where the stake shades the trunk,making the trunk tilt to the side. Keep
stakes at least 6 inches away from the trunk.
Purposes of Staking
No Stakin�—In most home landscape settings,no staking is necessary if the tree
is set on undisturbed soil(where it cannot sink and tilt),with soil�rmed around
the base of the root ball before back�lling. Exceptions include the three types of
staking below.
634-1
Protection Stakin�is used where the tree needs protection from human activities,
such as the football game on the front lawn or from passersby along a street
planting.
Protection staking may include standard staking techniques with 3-4 posts and
straps or a structure surrounding the tree but not actually touching the tree trunk.
[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Configurations
for protection staking � �
Anchor Stakin�—In areas of high
winds, anchor staking may be
needed. When anchor staking small
trees,use 2 or 3 straps along the �
trunk about 18 inches above the
ground. [Figure 2] trunk �
Figure 2. Configurations for stakes or � �
anchor staking. Anchor ground anchors
staking may be needed in
areas of high winds.
Support stakin�—If the tree has a floppy trunk that is not self-supporting, support
staking will be needed. Straps would be located six inches above the point where
the tree will stand upright,but at least three feet below the terminal leader.
Above Ground Staking Procedures
When staking,use flat, grommeted straps rather than ropes,wires or hose segments
against the trunk. The straps spread the pressure over a wider area,reducing the
potential for bark damage. Straps should lie flat against the trunk and should not
be bunched up or twisted. Two or three straps are routinely used in tree staking.
Straps may tie back to wood or metal posts or to anchors
in the ground. Plastic caps are available as a safety �
measure for the tops of inetal posts. Place posts at least 15 � �
to 18 inches out from the trunk. Never tie a post to the
trunk, as the shading will cause the trunk to curve. [Figure
� I
3 i �
Figure 3. Routine staking includes 2-3 posts, at
least 15-18°out from the trunk. Use flat straps to �_-
spread pressure over a wider area, reducing bark
damage.
634-2
With guy-lines and ground anchors,place the guy-lines at a 45° angle. Flag the
guy-lines to help people see them and prevent injury. In the illustration, the anchor
on the left may be more secure than the anchor on the right. [Figure 4]
Figure 4. When stakin�q with guy-lines,
place guy-lines at a 45 angle. The �
ground anchor on the left is more secure
than the anchor on the right.
_.�'.;-
In any staking system,it is best if the tree trunk has a little fle�bility. Some wind
movement encourages root growth and trunk taper development. For example,
Tree Stake Solutions(www.treestakessolution.com) offers metal staking systems
that give underground stabilization with protection/anchor staking. The tree has
limited movement inside the frame, reducing the limitation of traditional staking
methods. [Figure 5]
�a�� �•,�;�,,y r ��r�-+ �-�_
�,� s. �, ��
� � ��
s�; t T.,. ' � ,
'� � . �� � � ��
x�
ru , � ,�� �
_ . � e - � � f �',,r+�+,�b
� ,�,c I� � . r� ����
� �t
'-'� �i, �.._ � �r �: i
-G . ,� ,� x�,,
:: ��
�r ; , �
��' �� .
�,�_ �,�.:� � �� . : Q;� �'�
y-.�.1 �" '> .��.�j
„y„ , _ �
+�` �-�,t�;�:
_ __ `_ - �c
Figure 5. Tree Stake Solutions offers underground stability with protection/anchor staking
while allowing some movement of the tree. [Photographs courtesy of Tree Stake Solutions.]
For 1-2 inch diameter trees, staking typically stays on for 1-2 seasons. On 3-4
inch diameter trees, staking may be needed for 2-3 years.
Underground Stabilization Methods
Several methods for underground stabilization are effective. They are applied
prior to backfilling the planting hole. [Figure 6]
• 2-3 wood dowels driven into the ground at the edge of the root ball. The
dowels will decompose over time.
634-3
• A 2-by-2 wood triangle over the top of the root ball is screwed into 2-by-2
wood stakes driven into the ground at the edge of the root ball. The wood will
decompose over time.
• Two metal root"staples"—Several brands are on the market. The long leg of
the staple goes into the ground at the edge of the root ball. The short leg of the
staple goes into the root ball. The metal staple may pose a problem if the tree
stump needs to be ground out in the future.
lf' �,, f V".
�I � �
' I�
I li
� � ' i
�-�3� ��k';'.. �Y -`-�
�. � �`�=�
Figure 6. Methods for underground stabilization
Left: 2-3 wood dowels are driven into the ground at the edge of the root ball.
Center: 2 by 2 lumber makes a triangle plate over the top of the root ball. It is
screwed into wood stakes driven into the ground at the corners.
Right: Metal root"staples"are driven into the ground at the edge of the root ball and
hook into the root ball.
Ad ditio n al In fo rm atio n
CMG GardenNotes on Tree Selection and Planting
#631 Tree Placement Right Plant, Right Place
#632 Tree Selection: Right Plant, Right Place
#633 The Science of Planting Trees
#634 Tree Staking and Underground Stabilization
#635 Care of Newly Planted Trees
#636 Tree Planting Steps
Authors: David Whiting with Carol O'Meara; Colorado State University Extension.
Artwork by David Whiting and Tree Stakes Solutions.
o Colorado Master Gardener GardenNotes are available online at www.cmq.colostate.edu.
o Colorado Master Gardener training is made possible, in part, by a grant from the Colorado Garden Show, Inc.
o Colorado State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Colorado counties cooperating.
o Extension programs are available to all without discrimination.
o No endorsement of products mentioned is intended nor is criticism implied of
products not mentioned.
o Copyright 2006-11. Colorado State University Extension. All Rights Reserved. CMG
GardenNotes may be reproduced,without change or additions, for nonprofit
educational use.
Caloradv
Minor revisions June 2011 Master
Gardener�"
634-4
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Review
Meeting Date: December 8, 20ll City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business
�public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
FILE NUMBER: CTA OS-11
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing — Amendment to the application and drawing requirements
for boundary line adjustments.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 20.80.030 (F) Application and drawing requirements.
Allow the Community Development Director discretion when requiring a Record of Survey based
on the comple�ty of the adjustment as follows:
1. A record of survey of the property may be required by the Community Development
Director. The need for a survev will be determined based on an evaluation of the number
of�arcels, le�al descri�tions, a�urtenances, dis�uted or a�arent lines of ownershi�, and
setbacks. ��'��ee��� a �,. �.,,,,ra..,� �;�o .,a;,,��.re��t� s��at-a��s-�'��
e��s��e�e����e��e��e-��If required, �the survey must be
completed by a professional land surveyor licensed in the state of Washington.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A106; SVMC 17.80150 and 19.30.040
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None
BACKGROUND: The proposed amendment would allow the Community Development Director
discretion in requiring a record of survey for boundary line adjustments. Currently the SVMC requires a
record of survey for all boundary line adjustments.
Less complicated boundary line adjustments can be accomplished without a record of survey. Projects
with two or less parcels, simple legal descriptions, no complicating easements or appurtenances, owner
disputes, or setback issues can be correctly completed without the expense and time of a survey.
The text amendment would allow the Director to require a record of survey when the project warrants.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: The Planning Commission should recommend to
Council that CTA-OS-11 be approved as proposed. The attached findings of fact should also be reviewed
and approved with any changes deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission.
STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palaniuk, Planning Technician
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
Sc'T�O1�A.ne STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE
�` PLANNING COMMISSION
�Valley�
cTa-os-11
STAFF REPORT DATE:November 29, 2011
HEAx�1vG DATE A1vn LocAT�o1v: December 8"', 2011,beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall
Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaaa Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane
Valley, Washington 99206.
PxoPOSAL DESCx�PT�o1v: City-initiated, text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC) to modify the boundary line adjustment application and drawing requirements found in SVMC
Title 20.80.
This proposal is considered a non-project action under RCW 4321C.
PxoPOSAL LocAT�o1v: The proposal affects the entire City of Spokane Valley, Washington
APPL�cA1v'r: City of Spokane Valley
APPxovAL Cx�TEx�A: Title 17.80 Type IV applications—Text amendments to the uniform development
code, Title 1930.040 Development regulation text amendments, and Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of
the SVMC.
SUMMARY oF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission
approve the proposed text amendment to the SVMC.
STAFF PLANNER MARTIN PALANIUK, Planning Technician, Community Development Department
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1 Proposed Text Amendment
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The SVMC requires a Record of Survey for all boundary line adjustments. The proposed text
amendment would allow the Community Development Director discretion when requiring a Record
of Survey based on the complexity of the adjustment. State law does not require a Record of Survey
to adjust boundary lines. Some of the surrounding jurisdictions adjust boundary lines without
requiring a survey; some jurisdictions require a survey; and some maintain discretion in requiring a
survey. The following table summarizes boundary line adjustment requirements for surrounding
jurisdictions:
Jurisdiction Submittal Requirements
Spokane County According to Spokane County Municipal Code section 12.100.110,boundary line
adjustments are exempt from the provisions of the subdivision regulation. A
Certificate of Exemption must be obtained from the Planning Division,which
includes a minimum review for conformance to county regulations and ordinances.
The Certificate of Exemption does not require a record of survey.
City of Spokane According Spokane Municipal Code section 17G.080.030,boundary line
adjustments require an application from the planning division. A survey is
required if deemed necessary by the director. No criteria are provided for
guidance on whether a survey is or is not required. The requirement is at the
discretion of the director. Per telephone conversation with the planning department
they usually require a survey when an adjustment places a boundary line within
seven(7) feet of a structure.
Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission CTA-OS-11
Jurisdiction Submittal Requirements
Liberty Lake Boundary line adjustments require an application from the planning division.
Article 10-4D-12 of the Liberty Lake code requires a lot line map with detailed
information regarding structures, driveways,private streets, significant vegetation,
existing fences and walls, and anything else deemed relevant. A record of Survey
is not required. Liberty Lake planning division requires lot line maps to be
stamped by a surveyor. This requirement is not stated in the zoning regulation.
Airway Heights Requirements are identical to Spokane County. A Record of Survey is not
required.
Cheney Requirements are identical to Spokane County. A Record of Survey is not
required.
Millwood Millwood's boundary line adjustment requirements are identical to the SVMC. A
Record of Survey is required. However,when speaking to the planning
department they indicated a Record of Survey was not required.
The proposed amendment will provide the flexibility to evaluate the complexity of a project and
determine whether a survey is required. The following factors will be used to determine the
complexity of the adjustment and the need for a survey.
1. The number of properties involved. The number of parcels will determine the number of legal
descriptions and the number of lines being moved. This can make it more difficult to evaluate. It
also increases the opportunity for an error to occur.
2. Le�al descriptions. Any drawing or survey should accurately depict the written legal description.
Legal descriptions are typically taken from the land-holders deed. Any time a boundary line
adjustment is undertaken a new legal description is created for all the affected properties. In most
cases in Spokane Valley the legal description is written using the lot and block number of a land
subdivision or aliquot parts of a land subdivision. In some cases the property is described using a
metes and bounds description which describes the property through a series of heading and
distance calculations. While both types of description can be used to describe a property the
aliquot parts description is much easier to read,understand and amend.
3. Appurtenances attached to the propertY If the property is subject to an easement or multiple
easements then issues may arise as to the proper placement and size of the easement. Easements
are typically recorded with the county in a written form and added to the title as an appurtenance.
Ensuring appurtenances are depicted during a boundary line adjustment is important to inform
and protect property owners.
4. Boundarv dis�utes between�ro�ertv owners. Boundary line disputes sometimes occur within the
City's jurisdiction. In some cases, lots were created through a segregation process prior to formal
subdivision regulations. When this occurs, setbacks, legal descriptions, and the actual versus
perceived boundary lines may add to the misunderstanding and dispute. On other occasions a
long standing fence that was originally misplaced may be mistaken for an actual property line.
5. Existin� buildin�s. The proposed boundary lines are examined to determine if all the required
setbacks are being maintained as part of any boundary adjustment review. It is difficult or
impossible to determine whether the setbacks are maintained if the buildings are not accurately
depicted in the site plan. It is not as critical in cases where the proposed boundary line will
clearly maintain a setback. A reviewer can gain reasonable assurance the setback is being
maintained if the nearest building is depicted as 10 feet from the boundary and the required
setback is �ve (5). It becomes more difficult if the building is depicted as six (6) feet from the
proposed boundary and the setback is �ve (5) feet.
Page 2 of 4
StaffReport and Recommendation to the Planning Commission CTA-OS-11
The comple�ty of the boundary adjustment should determine whether a Record of Survey is required.
Staff recommends that the Community Development Director have the discretion to require a Record
of Survey. The Director's decision should be based on one or more of the following conditions:
a. More than two parcels are involved in the boundary line adjustment,
b. The legal descriptions are not reasonably understood by the average person,
c. Easements or other appurtenances create uncertainty on the property,
d. The boundary adjustment is required as a result of a property line dispute, or
e. The setbacks for existing buildings will be within two (2) feet of the required standard.
B. APPLICATION PROCESSING
SVMC Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures. The following summarizes key application
procedures for the proposal.
Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: November 18, 20ll
Issuance of an Optional Determination of Non-Significance (DNS): October 21,2011
End of Appeal Period for DNS: November 4, 20ll
C. PUBLIC COMMENT
No comments have been received
D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA
1. Findings:
Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the SVMC, the lead agency has determined that
this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 4321C.030(2)(c). The
Planning Division issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) on November 11, 2011, for
the proposal. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and
other information on�le with the lead agency.
2. Conclusion(s):
The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and Title 21 of the SVMC
have been fulfilled by the submittal of the required SEPA Checklist, and the issuance of the
City's threshold determination consisting of a DNS. No appeals have been received at the time of
this report. The appeal period will close November 25, 2011.
E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE CODE TEXT AMENDMENT
1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
a. Findings:
SVMC Section 17.80150(F) provides approval criteria that must be considered when the
City amends the SVMC. The criteria are listed below followed by staff comments.
i. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Res�onse: The Comprehensive Plan does not provide specific policy direction
towards boundary line adjustments. Currently a record of survey prepared and stamped
by a professional land surveyor licensed in the State of Washington is required for all
boundary line adjustments. Removing the requirement for a Record of Survey for
uncomplicated boundary line adjustments can reduce approval times and decrease cost
burden. The following policies relate to the regulation of boundary line adjustments.
• G-1: Create a government that places a premium on providing effective customer
service.
Page 3 of 4
Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission CTA-OS-11
• LUP-1.3: Review and revise as necessary, existing land use regulations to provide
for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments,
accessory dwelling units and in fill development.
• LUP-13.1: Ma�imize efficiency of the development review process by continuously
evaluating the permitting process and mod�ing as appropriate.
• EDP-7.1: Evaluate, monitor and improve development standards to promote
compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure
that they are equitable, cost-effective, and expeditious.
The amendment is consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan, and federal
and state laws.
ii. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety,
welfare, and protection of the environment;
Staff Response: The proposed amendment adds fle�bility for uncomplicated
boundary line adjustments. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the
environment will be ensured by regulations currently in place in the SVMC.
b. Conclusion(s):
The proposed text amendments to the SVMC are consistent with the approval criteria
contained in the SVMC.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the proposed City initiated text amendment
and applicable approval criteria, recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approve
CTA-OS-ll to the City Council.
G. RECOMMENDED MOTION:
I move to recommend approval of CTA-OS-ll to the City Council.
Page 4 of 4
� � 1 ,
Plannin Commission
g
Public Hearin
g
l�ecember �, �Ul 1
Text Amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
����� Department of Community Development �
e G_
�Varle���„ Planning Division � � �:` y� .
..' ;�'�' - �. .
Description of the �ode Text Amenc� ment
� i� -
� Amend the application and drawing requirements
for boundary line adjustments ( BLA�.
The text amendment will allow the
Community Development Director
discretion in requiring a record of
s u r vey f o r a B LA.
����� Department of Community Development �
e G_
�Varle���„ Planning Division � � �:` y� .
..' ;�'�' - �. .
Why is the �mendment Necessary�
� � - - -
� Currently, a record of survey is required
-
for every BLA. Less complicated
projects can be accomplished without a
su rvey.
- � AI low the d i rector to eva luate the
complexity of a project and determine
whether a survey is required.
����� - Department of Community Development �
e G_
�Varle���„ Planning Division � � �:` y� .
..' ;�'�' - �. .
What is a Boundary Line Adjustment?
�
� _ � � A land use action adjusting lot lines.
: _ Not create additional lots.
Not diminish the size of any lot to less
than prescribed in the zoning regulation
Not result in building setback or site
coverage violation
Conform to design standards
����� ' Department of Community Development �
e G_
�Varle���„ Planning Division � � �:` y� .
..' ;�'�' - �. .
Backg round In�ormation
� i� _
. - . .
� A BLA is exempt from Do not require survey
the subdivision process Spokane County
under RCW 58. 17 Cheney
Airway Heights
Record of Survey not Liberty Lake
required by state law May require survey
for a BLA Spokane
Require Survey
Millwood
1 • � i i 1 • i , �,� . .
� i r_. _ .„�,�'"``�. �, _
' � 1 1 - � ��..
.. i -_..ay .-
• • • . • • • • • . ,.
Number of Parcels Involved
Legal Descriptions
Easements and Appurtenances
Property Owner Disputes /
Apparent Lines of Ownership
Exiting Buildings / Setbacks
����� Department of Community Development �
e G_
�Varle���„ Planning Division � � �:` y� .
..' ;�'�' - �. .
�
Complexity
.
. - . . - . - .
: Increases number of legal description changes
Increases number of lines being moved
����� Department of Community Development
�
.:t .. y� .
�Varle���„ Planning Division � �;'''`#
� f� �
Example: Num �er of parcels
� �
_. _Lot 1 ; Lot 2 Lot 3
��.�,• � I
� ��
— --- �+ �
y t��@'�;r { 9a,lfH LJ�IE I+I��III F#:F�F'°i�� 3� �-- —� 63{t�p'
� �9�'S6"��� PER ��1TCi.AU C�FF� +�3�39} �
Original
Boundary '�
� �
� Lot 4 �
� P.a:��BL, "�- � �
� ,�
� '
� m
. H{t�7 =� ���.�^�. C��'r� 0...� ��i�..l �'��� �`ti
i ,•? �- E�?w���F 1�' fiiul
�� "kL�4�lf! �W�RE Pa�PER �. P�4t�. �'�[Gl. �
+ 9�91JhG,�R'� 4AFa. L� '3*�I�', PE3� 'I�
�
T�'+"' T� M ��°�ii°?�" � ±a
___�__�_�_._�— m u�a.a.._�____.___'_ O I
T� 3� R�3Cti�U� � �
N �}4�25�� E' � li
p.±[+�L -, I
Original - � e�
i�� �
Boundary � p�ac�� ��° �.�.�E ��„�.�� `-
�L i
= Lot 5 '��� t�_ C -
� �
� �
� w �;.�'�i• a�• +�,�° #.I_.F�,.,"
�, �N] �iE 6f 7ti±lE {S] 3 �C4E� OP T'e�E M :�3 � 1il,�:i .!,} " �
E�'
5 i
■ � f�. 9.�' i
a� c��4•.��° u•i�ivl{ I
����� - Department of Community Development �
e G_
�Varle���„ Planning Division � � �:` y� .
..' ;�'�' - �. .
�
Complexity
- . . . - . .
: Lot and Block
Aliquot Parts
Metes and Bounds
����� Department of Community Development
�
.:t .. y� .
�Varle���„ Planning Division � �;'''`#
� f� �
Example: Lot and Block
� � - _ _
Lot 6, in Block 1 of Kathrine's Subdivision, as per plat thereof recorded in
Volume 4 of Plats, Page 78; situate in the County of Spokane, State of
Washington.
-��:��:. — ,__...
�. �
le`�� mcoiunorv � � .... . �
, ___ _... :_
'_ .. � .. .� °5 � --f ,�—, —�. .
. . . . ._.�._ . ..,.
� , —.�
�..,. .. ... . .., ,
,, . : --- . _. ...�.:,,.--'_�--���.._ . _._
� ar e�N 4�ae ��,<,f'� v—_ � �i II ..,
� �
„_�- z,-:m��a. � I _.,
, � .
, ����
. ,
� � , �,
E�MEN I I .'-'. .'
. ..e__ __.. ,i
.«,�..�o�._.._..�..�......�.ner.....�c,...e.��in. "wm--r n.,....� Ig '�i li
m. m..o,..m.e �
.ee�n...a....».we....s�.w..m..�..""..°.:..
_id�y I i
fNGNE£WSGERTFlG . ��
. �..,.a.em...w.�...�.� . ����wm. ,. .�,� ,
�F ��i:.. ..
- �,..��".,.`»...�...m�` .....a �� �,..,.,;.. ' � � 4��.
Em.. 3.. `— ��� II�'��� _ S I i
-: w' ��il�� , S�
��I
,
� ' ��.�,.a�.�r. ___._ J.�Y�. .
'�, ...,�...., j I� �'s s isiorv
�I'
����� ' Department of Community Development e►��
Varle �'�r. y� ..
� ,.3,',�, Planning Division � ,`"i�;- _
Example: Aliquot Parts
_ � _ � �
LEGA�'L � �E * "
�IE E��T ��5 F��T Q�f 1FiE ��RTFI 27�.� ���T �OF THE ��I�TFi
��3,8� ���T 4F TF�A�� 1�fi OF PLAT �!�_ 4 OF 1+I�ST FA�MS East 205 feet of the North 270.00
I�RI�,�T�D T��C1�, �S PEE� PLAT THEFCE[�F R`E�fJ�2�E� G�i VC1L41k�� feet of the South 423.80 feet
"0° �F RLA�S, PA�E 5�;
�iTUATE IN �l-f� �C4�1N'�Y L�F ���I�a4N�P �T�TE �F �A�HfNGTQP,I- �V 29��.�,��'.2d`�6'2 a' ,
__._ �i...,. .__. �
�� �'�,�� ' .
., ,
,
.
� �
�
North 270.00 feet of the South 423.80 feet � i � � F '��� � � �
� ,
jc
Il�,
F. "�
� �!�
South 423.80 feet � � �v�
I� � $�,.
Not to scale �1`� - " � �. !�I
����� Department of Community Development �
e G_
�Varle���„ Planning Division � � �:` y� .
..' ;�'�' - �. .
Example: Metes and Bounds
� �m - - _
�'ARCEL "�i"
7�T �t�F�fii�h1 �?F �`I�ACT �� C��' l�L�,T '°�" G�E�IA�I�� I��p�ATIQN
I�I'�TRICi� �C�C�R��M��i �'0 P�� R��O���f3 16+1 ''�31., "�" ��' I�L,�k,TS,
PR�E �1, �P�i�N� C(�!l�iY, WASl�IN���+1 �CDR� P,ARTICUL.ARLY
QE��EiIB�E3 A� �4�L�?'4N�; .
CQh�MEI�CIN� AT �-I� N�F��-I�A,S1` ��3F�P�ER 4F �AID Ti�ACT 3�;
���c� ,��n�� °��� �a�-� �.�r�E �� ��aa ��T ��
Si3�J�H C�Q`D{�'37'" E��, 1�3:72 �EET TO T�IE �2UE �C�INi �F
��GIt�NI�M�G: 7HEN�� C+�N'�I��11h�G AL.O�i� SAID EAST LINE
�C�IiTH Ott"�'37" EAS'T, 1��.4� FEET T� T�IE N�RTH LINE �DF 1'1-1E
�C�lJT� 3 A�f��S �F �FI� I�QI,TH �/� ClF SAID TR�4��° 33; �'HE�ICE
ALC��J� �9� �t��T'�i LII�E. NC�l�TH �9`5�"11" W�S'i`, 1 fi�.32 �'EET;
TN��I�E �IOF�['H �0�'37" +WEST, 136.35 FE�T, TF�EN�E
S(�L�T�I $9"53'�1" �A��� 13Ei.3� F��T 1`� 1�IE PCl1h1� p� CURVAT�JR�
0�' A ��.�}CD �{?�3T RADI�JS ���1JE �C�h1CAVE TO �HE ��OU�H�V'E�T�
TH�NGE �{�IJTH��L�d F�..fi�h�� SAiC3 �l�f�'V� ThIRc���H A C��1T€�tL �0.�iGLE
��' 89'52'33" AN AFtC �E�7AN�� b� �7',(lM6 ���f Y� T�1E T�l.lE }��I1�1'
f�F ��CINI��N�;
���i�l�� I� ��� '�'i� �� ������" �l�4L'�..�r ��� �� ��{�����,
����� �}� ���������
�U����'� �'� �� ���`�W�� ����'{ �4����� Q� �����.
����� - Department of Community Development �
e G_
�Varle���„ Planning Division � � �:` y� .
..' ;�'�' - �. .
Complexity
� � �
. - - . . . . . - . -
r Utility easements
Ing ress�Eg ress easements
������ ' Department of Community Development �
e G_
�Varle���„ Planning Division � � �:` y� .
..' ;�'�' - �. .
Example: �asements
� �� - -
� '� F ��
I°
� � �
��$� ������- �,
�.�. I ��.��+ , �
I � � �
_ ��.�•--.�-:��,�� � �
� � ��
� � � ''� Ingress/Egress Easement
,.�� � �` �.� � ¢ � �
� �� � � �
���' � � I
�#8sr5t�`7 6'E i 4� o' I
7�.O�i' 7S}.4�0' �' � �11�A1'E-� ' I
1.�� ��,�F s.�' �,o � �� I
� r � � I �
� � � c Fi�l� �°,� � . � �'�
�.5' � c�i 1G� 1�'111.E1'1f �
� � i .�
�'���� �,�� �.��•,�.�_ �.��_ �� Utility Easement
i� i�,�� �.o�a' �
c� ' + r�e
��t�89"5t�'iB€ArRIF�G3��.6�} �7 � },a,# ��-7
��_
� �'1'�� A'I1'L4 T F�R �L �EBII� � '�/�.�P� � I
������ ' Department of Community Development �
e G_
�Varle���„ Planning Division � � �:` y� .
..' ;�'�' - �. .
�
Complexity
� . . - . - . . -
. . . . - - . . - .
: Li nes of a p pa rent owne rsh i p (fences�
Ing ress�Eg ress easements
Encroachment
����� Department of Community Development � �
Varle '�r. y
� ,.3,',�, Planning Division � ,`"i�;- _
Example
� �
� _--_
, ���,�r��y a��
_�
� _--
��_ _ _
�� ., w _� ,-� �.�_�� a_ _ i�
ti_ �= � ,
x. "` � � �'�` z
�-�. .�' g � � ?���'�':
' � � �. ,,;'
�� Apparent lines of
� J f nl
, , ���i�}$ � _a. �Y
o�_� � �� � �� ��� ownership
" � ' �
..�� � � �. , � ����
� � '� � - �
� Fr� c�. � � �'�° �--r.�.�.�.
1� C �.[
V A L L E�Y'�" *�-• -} T - ��
P 7��. _
i� ��
.�:� v� ` . � S P �
Encroachment + -� �� �-� ��
� ��ti `�
�11�, . #'•� fNr
�i `���'�� ���� , .•I.�, . ... �
�� "'i,� ,.�j. ..
�', � J
. . - . ' 0 yc•'
� �� - _ " ' .�.. _
° y�#. . p� '� • �. y ..��
'� .�.: `
t
_ c ��
y SS�O7d.Q87$ � �y�
!d' ,rF,' ; 4
., r
, � •'' u�JRii...�_.
����� Department of Community Development
�
Varle �.::t# u�
� ,.��, Planning Division � ..,, i�;.
Example
�
���
� � �
�
_ a
$� �
,�� � a, , ..�
,�k .�. � .- �4" '
� , - -
�,a� ,r � ,,y
1 r�
� y � 1�4. , '
� �,� �:� J�.�
I� �.,: ` •�..�'` . _ �
� %� + -��f`{ ?� `�"
4: � 1= - -.� � Original Boundary
� °� � '�,;' �,� `,�--� �
:� � jy
ALLEY ` � �° � `_'" �� S,f''
8U�3���
� �
. aw:� . . - �. ]
. .� ?� ' . ' � . . � ;;r�l.� +��' �� 83{
� y
i A �
�
N �,� li �'_ ���' � w
�ti � Encroachment
�,
�. `
�+ n
� ��- �, ii��! �
� �' ��: �i t. 'J .
y
r
' 1� � �
S�a�th Rr�• _ � � �
'-'�Nr'�r�r`iS�, .'
���v_�tiy'� +.. -` . _ J
F .i.�'. 1
����� - Department of Community Development �
e G_
�Varle���„ Planning Division � � �:` y� .
..' ;�'�' - �. .
�
Complexity
.
. . . . . . . .
r Determined by zone
Safety issue as they relate to fire
Could be difficult to determine
����� Department of Community Development
�
Varle �.::t# u�
� ,.��, Planning Division � ..,, i�;.
Example: �etbacks
� �
ivoy i��� n� �_�FChiCC CORhi£fi IS
�D�H AVEIU�LIE 3.4' EqST DF LL1T
CDRtJER ON
�f NOR?H LQ'1' LIN�
TPOB f' N89'I T32"W
SR.OQ' 7_S.D�J' 75.Oa'
�FEtJCE CORNER E5
{]�D�'�� �CORMER �y OF LQT
�- f
NOR711 L�T I.iNE
�
�
r � - � 55—�� SS
5.6`
' � Required 5 foot Side Yard
� � � �
� a ,� zs Setback
x �" �.3° I
� - I pARCEL A _rr-� W
� 10,499 S.F. o N
� v-
x �
¢ ..T}1E 4V�ST 2 n
� PAR�EL B� �5,. ._ � g
�a.MSS s.�.
3 w
i•1
N /
a � T
FEhlC�E C01?NER IS °a �
8.3� hfORTH dF � � .
� LOT C9RM1iER, 6.2' � �
WEST 4F 2(?T LItJE
FENCE CORNER €5 �_�
� 9.3' NCIRTH OF
LOT CORNER, 0.9'
EAS�OF LOT LfNE ��
� Y –��-0--
1" 901T
��.ao' �s.ofl' as.00�
j1 1/2° IRON P1PE � 58S'17'32"E
�1 WITN NO IQ. °
�--- . ...,. ___.�
����� - Department of Community Development �
e G_
�Varle���„ Planning Division � � �:` y� .
..' ;�'�' - �. .
Cu.���wt 'C.. �
�
A record of survey of the property shall be completed
for boundary line adjustments to show distances from
the existing improvements to the new property line.
����� Department of Community Development
�
.:t .. y� .
�Varle���„ Planning Division � �;'''`#
� f� �
��� �ser� �, ��� . �d m e n t
� � �
A record of survey of the property may be required by the
Community Development Director. The need for a surveX
will be determined based on an evaluation of the number of
parcels, le�al descriptions, appurtenances, disputed or
apparent lines of ownership, and setbacks.
. If required,
�the survey must be completed by a professional land
surveyor licensed in the state of Washington.
����� Department of Community Development �
e G_
�Varle���„ Planning Division � � �:` y� .
..' ;�'�' - �. .
_
ti n �
ues o s .