PC APPROVED Minutes 07-12-12.pdf Spokane Valley Planning Commission
APPROVED Minutes
Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
July 12, 2012
L CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance
IIL ROLL CALL
Commission Members City Staff
Bill Bates -Chair John Hohman, Community Development Director
Fred Beaulac Cary Driskell, City Attorney
John G. Carroll Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Rustin Hall Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner
Rod Higgins Deanna Griffith, Secretary
Steven Neill
Joe Stoy—Vice Chair
Commissioner Bates welcomed the return of Fred Beaulac to the Planning Commission. Mr.
Beaulac had served the City as a Planning Commission member previously between 2003 and
2008 and has been reappointed by the Mayor on July 3, 2012 to serve out the term of
Commissioner Marcia Sands who had resigned.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Stoy made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. This motion was
passed unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Neill made a motion to approve the May 10 and May 24, 2012 minutes as
presented. Commissioner Stoy stated he would not vote on the May 24, 2012 minutes as he
did not attend this meeting. The vote on the minutes to approve as presented was six in favor,
zero against for the May 10, 2012 minutes and five in favor, zero against for the May 24, 2012
minutes. Commissioner Beaulac did not vote on either set of minutes, this was his first
meeting upon returning to the Commission.
VL PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
VIL COMMISSION REPORTS
Commissioners had nothing to report
Planning Commission Minutes 07-12-12 Page 1 of ll
VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Community Development Director, John Hohman, welcomed Commissioner Beaulac to the
Commission and wished him well as a seasoned member.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Unfinished Business:
Ciry Attorney Cary Driskell reviewed the proposed changes to the Planning Commission
Rules of Procedure. Mr. Driskell discussed only the substantive suggested changes
however there is also the cleanup of terms and formatting of some items for consistency.
Commissioner Bates stated he was a little concerned about the addition of�he statement, in
Section 9(A). Mr. Bates, and other Commission members, felt "not be permitted to speak"
was negative and preferred to have it rewritten so it was more positive.
Any person who fails to sign in shall wait to speak zintil all those who have si�ned in have
had an o�ortunitv to speak. „f �� , �;*f�,a t„ � �,v , ,�f;� �,n f�„�� ,,,�„ � ,,,a ;� ��„ „
c-�*;s���At any public hearing, persons who have signed in and wish to be h�eard shall be
given an opportunity to be heard.
Commissioner Carroll asked about the proposed change to item #7 Voting.
B. For the conduct of business dealing with matters which require adoption or changes to the
City's Comprehensive Plan and the election of officers, at least four affirmative votes must be
cast. Each member of the Commission is entitled to one vote. No pro.�y shall be allowed.
Mr. Carroll's concern was if there was no� a complete Commission in attendance it could
give more weight to a negative vote. Mr. Drislcell explained it could be possible, but if it
was a concern then the Commission should move the particular item to another meeting
where the full Commission could be in attendance.
Commissioner Carroll shared that Section 8(C)(2),bothered him just a little bit.
� By the written request to the Chair, or, in th�e Chair's absence, to th�e Vice-Chair, of three or more
members of the Commission.
Commissioner Carroll said he wondered how having a discussion of three or more commissioners
at one time in order to request a special meeting would not be a violation of the Open
Public Meetings Act. Commissioner Stoy stated he agreed with the concern. Attorney
Driskell said he felt the problem would be in the words "or more" in the statement. The
Commission agreed with Mr. Driskell to strike the words "or more"from the statement.
Mr. Driskell discussed the proposed removal of Section ll(B) "The assigned City Council
Liaison may attend meetings... " Mr. Driskell stated he believed this subsection was based
on a section in the City's Governance Manual, which talks about Ciry Council liaisons for
committees. Mr. Driskell said if one reads the language it states a Ciry Council member
attends a committee and then comes back and reports to the Ciry Council about what is
going on with the committee. Based on best practice, staff is recommending the language
come out of the Rules of Procedure. Mr. Driskell stated his concern was it could be
problematic for Planning Commission members to attend City Council meetings and
comment on something that happened at a Planning Commission meeting and give their
Planning Commission Minutes 07-12-12 Page 2 of ll
personal interpretation of what happened at the meeting, which could be different from the
recommendation. Mr. Driskell shared that even if someone was paraphrasing the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, it could change the record in front of the
Council, giving the impression Council was considering new material giving the defeated
parry grounds for an appeal..
Mr. Driskell said he understood there had been discussions regarding adding procedures for
submitting a minority report to the Rules of Procedure. Commissioner Bates stated it had
been brought up at several meetings, and he thought he understood the City Council had
agreed to this provision. Commissioner Bates stated he seemed to remember, when it had
been a close vote, the City Council asking for the thoughts of the opposing side. Mr.
Driskell responded he felt Council had stated they were fine with receiving a minority
report, particularly where the vote was four to three and it was a significant issue. Mr.
Driskell shared the Council had wanted to hear the competing views from the Commission
in the past, however as the City Attorney, allowing Commission members to voice their
interpretation of the meeting gives options for an appeal to the party who did not win the
decision.
Commissioner Stoy stated he also felt there should be something in the rules, especially in
a close vote, what the vote was and why. Mr. Driskell stated the minutes reflect all of this
information. Commissioner Carroll stated it would not hurt to add something about the
process for a minority report to the rules. Mr. Drislcell suggested limiting it to when there
was a four to three vote. Commissioner Beaulac stated he felt that even if the vote should
be five to two, if a Commissioner had a very strong opinion, the member should be allowed
to write a report. Commissioner Neill agreed. Mr. Driskell asked if the dissenting
Commissioners would be expected to draft the report. The Commissions members agreed
they would not expect staff to produce this. Commissioner Bates stated there should be
guidelines for the minority report so it would not include things that were not discussed
during the actual meetings. Mr. Driskell then commented this was one of his concerns with
the minority report. Mr. Driskell said for the most part, the Commission members stated
their opinions for the record either in support or opposition of a matter, which then
becomes part of the permanent record, so what would be the purpose of another record.
Commissioner Hall commented if he had something to say, he would voice his opinion at
the meeting. When the Commission makes a final decision, then that becomes his final
decision as we1L Mr. Hall said the information would be on the record. If it the opinions
and decisions were not recorded, a person would be able come back later with new
information, trying to then make it part of the record after the fact. Mr. Hall does not
support minority reports. Commissioner Stoy agreed with Commissioner Hall and now
feels a minority report is not necessary.
Commissioner Higgins said there were two different records being discussed, the minutes
which are forwarded to Council and the recording of the meeting, which someone must
take the time to listen to. Commissioner Higgins believes the two are very different. Mr.
Higgins said he was afraid that the minority comments would not be adequately reflected in
the minutes. Mr. Driskell discussed an example of how additional information could be
included in a minority report without the intention of harm. Commissioner Beaulac stated
in order to file a minority report the dissenting Commissioner would need to take the time
to formulate the opinion, articulate it, put it on paper, and submit it. Commissioner Bates
Planning Commission Minutes 07-12-12 Page 3 of ll
stated he had changed his mind based on Commissioner Hall's statement and letting the
vote of the Commission stand as the recommendation.
Mr. Driskell stated he needed a bit more direction as to whether or not to draft some
language for this subject. Commissioner Bates asked Mr. Driskell to draft some language
to consider at the next meeting. Mr. Driskell stated he would be able to draft the language
but would not be at the next meeting. Commissioner Carroll changed his mind based on
some of the statements which had been shared earlier. Commissioner Bates again stated he
felt that after having discussed so many options at this time the down side to a minority
report seems to have taken over. Mr. Driskell stated that he would not be drafting any
language regarding a minority report unless he heard consensus to draft some language.
There was discussion to see if the Commission had consensus, or not, to draft language for
allowing a minority report. After discussion, the Chairman polled the members concerning
this matter and the Commission agreed that they would not ask Mr. Driskell to draft
language.
Commissioner Bates asked Mr. Driskell if it was appropriate for City Councilmembers to
attend Planning Commission meetings given the earlier discussion about Commission
members addressing City Council. Mr. Driskell stated he would have to defer the question
as it was not a subject he had considered at moment.
Mr. Driskell pointed out on Section 13(C)(1)(iii)
If a Commission member is required to refi^ain fi^om deliberation or participation by his/her
employer because of a real or per�ceived conflict of interest, then the Commission member should
be allowed to recuse or withdraw fi^om that cleliberation.
Mr. Driskell stated it was suggested by the City Clerk the sentence should read will be allowed to
recuse..... This change will replace the word `should' with the word `wi1P "_then the Commission
member�c�will be allowed to recuse or withdraw fi^om that..." Mr. Driskell stated the reason
for this proposed change is that the person who is requesting to be recused is engaging in a personal
exercise as to whether or not they will be unbiased, and if they make the determination, then that
request should be honored.
Mr. Driskell told the Commission he would like to add a new sentence to Section 13(C)(2) Conflict
of Interest Procedure:
Every Commissio�r member who has a conflict of interest shall publicly disclose the conflict at the
next Commission meeting after the Commission member discovers the conflict. If a discovej;v a�'
determination of a conflict is made durin�a Commission meetin� the Commission member shall
publiclv disclose the conflict at that time. The nature and extent of such conflict of interest shall
be fully disclosed, and a summary of the same shall be incorporated into the official minutes of
the Commission proceedings.
The addition of this sentence would help to de�ne the process if a conflict is discovered after the
discussion has begun.
Commission members moved to amend Section 13(D)(3) - Missing Commission meetings.
The section has been modified to read:
IMissing three or more consecutive regularly scheduled meetings or study sessions
without such absences being excused by the Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes 07-12-12 Page 4 of ll
Commissioner Carroll felt there should be a definition of consecutive regularly scheduled
meetings. He was concerned someone could take advantage of the exact wording if it was
not defined. Mr. Driskell stated the words "or missing six meetings in a 12 month period
(whether consecutive or not)" had been removed from this same rule as it was inconsistent
with the Municipal Code. He also said the City Council holds itself to the three meetings
rule and does not have the six meeting notation. Commissioners Neill and Higgins shared
a concern about removing this wording, stating they felt attendance was important and
thought both statements should be in the rules. Commissioner Neill stated during the
Shoreline Master Program meetings Commissioners continued to state the City should be held to a
higher standard. He felt missing six meetings out of 14 would not be an acceptable standard, and
the Commission should hold itself to a higher standard. He wondered why the City could not be the
first to have a higher standard. Mr. Driskell reminded the Commission the City and State codes
have the requirement of three unexcused meetings and the Commission rules can't be inconsistent
with the City Code. As it is currently written,it would be.
Commissioner Bates suggested the following statement should be changed.
If a member is absent, then at the beginning of the Planning Commission meeting the Chair shall
inform the Commission of the member's absence, state th�e reason for such absence, and inquire if
th�ere is any objection to excusing the member.
Mr. Bates stated he didn't think it should be at the beginning of the meeting but after the roll call.
� After discussion with Mr. Driskell it was amended to read: read..... If a member is absent, �
t'� ���;,�,�;,�� „��'� p'�.,�,�;,�� r'�,��,��;°°;�,� , �';,�� after roll call bv the Secretarv, the Chair shall
inform the..." �
The Commission requested the following section to be re-written as it is a bit clumsy:
If a meeting occurs that is, or woiild to a reasonable person appear to constitute a violation of the
OPMA, the Commissioners involved in the activity should publicly disclose the nature of such
activity at the next Commission meeting. If possible, the Commissioner may consult the City
Attorney for advice on whether the meeting violates the OPMA.
Mr. Driskell asked the Commission how they wanted to proceed. It was decided to have a final
copy come back with all suggested changes, then the Planning Commission would make a motion
to recommend approval to the City Council.
C. New Business: Public hearing — CTA-02-12 Proposed Amendments to 19120
Permitted Used Matrix.
Chairman Bates opened the public hearing at 6: 57 p.m. and Commissioner Stoy read the
rules to a public hearing.
Assistant Planner Christina Janssen presented the proposed amendments to Chapter 19.120,
Permitted Use Matrix.
The following is a brief discussion regarding the proposed changes.
City Center: Remove the category of"City Center" as there is no longer any land within the City
zoned City Center.
Appliance sales/service: Proposed as an allowed use in the Community Commercial zone. The
size and scale of typical appliance stores is compatible with the Community Commercial zone.
Auction House: Proposed as an allowed use in the Light Industrial zone due the availability of
structures large enough to accommodate this type of business.
Planning Commission Minutes 07-12-12 Page 5 of ll
Manufacturin�: Relocate all manufacturing categories from their current alphabetic location in the
code to a general"Manufacturing" section within the code for easier navigation. No changes are
being proposed to the locations where these uses can locate within the City.
Automobile/truck/RV/motorc.�paintin�, repair,body and fender works: Proposed as an allowed
use with conditions in the Community Commercial zone. An appropriate use in this zone provided
that it be located within an enclosed structure.
Barber/beaut, s�p. Proposed as an allowed use in the Garden Office zone as these businesses are
typically smaller in size and do not generate traffic or noise in amounts that would be disruptive to
the adjacent residential uses.
Bicycle sales/service: Proposed as an allowed use in the Garden Office zone as these businesses
are typically smaller in size and do not generate traffic or noise in amounts thaf would be disruptive
to the adjacent residential uses.
Boat sales/service: Proposed as an allowed use in the Corridor Mixed Use and Light Industrial
zones where other automobile sales are currently allowed.
Brewerv,micro: Proposed as an allowed use in the Neighborhood Commercial zone. A growing
trend, these small tap breweries typically serve the neighborhoods where they are located.
Buildin� Su�lv&Home Im�rovement The Corridor Mixed Use aones have signi�cant vacancies
and would be appropriate for this type of use. Other uses already permitfed in the CMU zone with
a similar NAICS classification include hardware stores and greenhouse/garden centers.
Candv& Confectionarv: Proposed as an allowed use in the Garden Office and Office zones as
these businesses are typically smaller in siae and do not generate traffic or noise in amounts that
would be disruptive to the adjacent residential uses.
Cemetery and crematories: Proposing that these uses be separated and that crematories be
contemplated separately due to potential issues with crematories in residential zones. Proposing
crematories as an allowed use in the Community Commercial, Regional Commercial, Light
Industrial and Hea�y Industrial zones.
Church, temple,mosque, svna�o�ue and parsona�e: Proposed as an allowed use in the Garden
Office zone. Small congregations are regularly locating in spaces which were formally small retail
or office spaces. These uses are allowed in all other zones within the City with the exception of the
industrial aones.
Clothes, retail sales: Proposed as an allowed use in the Neighborhood Commercial zone. Smaller,
boutique type establishments appropriate to serve the surrounding neighborhood.
Dru S� tore: A dated term,proposing to rename this item "Pharmacy", a more widely used term and
relocate it alphabetically within the code.
Dwellin�, townhouse: Proposing to remove this from the Neighborhood Commercial zone where
residential uses are not allowed. This change corrects an error in the code.
Entertainment/recreation facilities,indoor: Proposed as a permitted use in the Light Industrial zone
and with a Conditional Use Permit in the Heavy Industrial aone. These uses,which include indoor
soccer centers,batting cages, etc. are growing in popularity and typically locate in large,warehouse
type facilities commonly found in industrial areas.
Essential Public Facilities: Proposed as Regional Siting in the Corridor Mixed Use zone. This
amendment would make it possible for the County to consider parcels zoned CMU when
contemplating uses including,but not limited to,hospitals, regional transportation facilities,
inpatient facilities, etc.
Planning Commission Minutes 07-12-12 Page 6 of ll
Exercise facilit��ym/athletic club: Proposed as an allowed use in the Office zone. Small scale
fitness facilities that locate in strip commercial or office space such as Curves, Anytime Fitness, or
the like. These smaller facilities do not generate traffic or noise beyond what would typically be
expected in the Office zone.
Hobb,� Proposed as an allowed use in the Garden Office and Office zones as these
businesses are typically smaller in size and do not generate traffic or noise in amounts that would be
disruptive to the adjacent residential uses.
Home furnishin�s,retail sales: Proposed as an allowed use in the Neighborhood Commercial zone.
These smaller,boutique style stores serve the neighborhoods where they are located.
Market, outdoor: Proposing to change this use from requiring a Temporary Use Permit to an
outright permitted use in the Mixed Use Center, Corridor Mixed Use, Community Commercial,
Regional Commercial,Parks and Open Space, and Light Industrial zones. Outdoor markets are
growing in popularity and often are functional for longer than the 6 months the Temporary Use
Permit currently allows.
Mobile food vendors: Allowed with conditions in the Neighborhood Commercial zone. These
small businesses,which serve the neighborhood where they are locafed, would need fhe permission
of the property owner and the Health Department.
Music store: Proposed as an accessory use in the Garden Office zone as this would be compatible
with specialized training, such as a music school.
Office & Com�uter sales: Proposed as an allowed use in the Neighborhood Commercial zone.
Smaller,neighborhood scale businesses as opposed to "big box" office retail(Office Depot).
Photo�ra�hic Studio: Proposed as an allowed use in the Garden Office and Office zones as these
businesses are typically smaller in size and do not generate traffic or noise in amounts that would be
disruptive to the adjacent residential uses.
Print Shop: Proposed as an allowed use in the Neighborhood Commercial zone. Small scale
businesses serving the neighborhoods where they are located.
Radio/TV broadcastin� studio: Proposed as an allowed use in the Light Industrial zone due to the
large equipment required for this type of business.
Recreational vehicle sales and service: Proposed as an allowed use in the Corridor Mixed Use zone
where other types of automobile sales are currently allowed.
Specialized trainin�/learnin� schools or studios: Proposed as an allowed use in the Garden Office
zone, these types of businesses which can include dance,martial arts,music, or other similar uses
do not generally produce traffic or noise which would be harmful to nearby neighborhoods.
Taxidermv: Proposed as an allowed use in the Corridor Mixed Use zone. Taxidermy is a low
intensity use generating low traffic volumes.
Ms. Janssen reminded the Commission City Council had requested staff to review
permitted uses in the Garden Office and Corridor Mixed Use zones. Staff had identified a
number of permitted uses throughout the matrix that could use some clean up and decided
to use this opportunity to conduct a complete review of the permitted use matrix.
Ms. Janssen stated during the study session the Commissioners identified a couple of
subjects for staff to research, including crematories. Ms. Janssen stated there are two
crematories in the CMU zone (both are located on Pines Rd.), both are legal non-
conforming uses. Commissioner Carroll stated this use should be allowed in more places
Planning Commission Minutes 07-12-12 Page 7 of ll
because it is becoming a more popular alternative and it should be allowed in the CMU
zoning district. Mr. Carroll asked it had been considered to allow a crematory as a
conditional use as an accessory to a funeral home since funeral homes are permitted in the
CMU zone. Community Development Director John Hohman stated it could be something
the Commission could deliberate about after the public hearing.
The Commission inquired about allowing crematories in the CMU zone with a conditional
use permit. Staff explained a conditional use permit requires a public hearing before the
Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner would then apply conditions to the permit on a
case by case basis. It was also explained this process is used as a tool to provide an
opportunity for more public input. Sr. Planner Lori Barlow stated is different than placing
conditions on an allowed use. She cautioned the Commission to be careful when
considering whether to make something a conditional use permit process or to allow the
use with special conditions. The Commission would need to think about what effects or
impacts the conditions would have, and if the conditions could be applied to every situation
equally.
Mr. Hohman suggested it could be considered and discussed, however the CMU zoning
district had a lot of uses which could also have a use attached as a conditional use and it is
something the Commission should consider when they deliberate.
The Commission took a break at 7:12 p.m. and returned at 7:24 p.m. At the return from the
break, the Commission began talcing public testimony.
Mike King, 107 S Howard, Spokane —Mr. King submitted a letter to the Commission for
review. Mr. King requested the Commission allow office uses in the MF-2 zone if the land
abuts an arterial, or at least an intersection in which one of the streets is an arterial, and
everywhere else in MF-2 with a conditional use permit. Mr. King believes this request
would bring the permitted use matrix in line with other surrounding jurisdictions. Mr.
King stated the City of Spokane and Spokane Counry both allow limited office uses in
multifamily residential zoning districts. This would allow for the location of more dentist,
doctor, lawyer, accountant offices and other such professional office uses. Mr. King
believes this change would help with tax revenue and level the "playing field" with
surrounding jurisdictions in a competitive market.
Mr. King would like the Commission to be aware there is a `rumor' of aircraft
manufacturing coming to this area. He would like to see the City maintain aircraft
manufacturing in the Heavy Industrial sites and to allow aircraft manufacturing in Light
Industrial as a permitted use or as a conditional use in I2.
Commissioner Bates asked Mr. King about CPA-OS-12 (Comprehensive Plan amendment
proposed at Broadway and Conklin) which he had mentioned in his testimony, and wanting
to know the average size of a commercial lot in a MF-2 zone. Mr. King responded it varied
in size all over the City.
James Ballard, Santa Rosa, CA, 2818 N Sullivan Rd: Mr. Ballard stated he was an
investor and owned the property on Sullivan Rd. in which an indoor soccer use is being
proposed. Mr. Ballard shared he understood the importance of location of property and of
uses and, for this reason, he was a proponent of a recreational indoor use in a Heavy
Industrial zone only as a conditional use. Mr. Ballard pointed out there are three other
Planning Commission Minutes 07-12-12 Page 8 of ll
similar uses in the vicinity of his property: Children First Daycare, Jump and Bounce, and
the Northwest Gymnastics Academy. Mr. Ballard stated that allowing recreational use of
additional properties will promote long term objective of converting, purely industrial areas
to mixed use areas. He shared that indoor recreational uses provide a highly demanded
service to the general public which has a direct and lasting impact to the public and general
health by promoting exercise and fimess. Mr. Ballard feels safe transportation, parking,
ingress and egress issues should be able to be controlled in the heavy industrial areas with a
conditional use permit.
There was discussion and questions between Mr. Ballard, the Commissioners (with some
assistance from the Moore's who are hoping to rent Mr. Ballard's property) regarding the
indoor soccer use:
• How large a facility would the indoor soccer use need? A clear span of approx.
140,000 sf.
• What is in the building now? Currently has one office tenant now, using approx.
45-30K feet.
• How many people at one time would be cct the building at one time? Will defer the
answer to the business owners, however it would not just a geared to children but
also adult players, with 2 playing fields.
• Would there be seating for more than the participants? Spectators as well.
• How often would the building be in use? Not being sure of the operator's business
plans, guessing three to four days a weelc, nights and weekends.
• Is it a year round operation? Defer to the business operators.
• Is this the only location you have looked at for property? Mr. Ballard stated he was
only concerned about this parcel since he owns this specific parcel.
Heather Moore, 18609 E Turtle Creek Lane: Ms. Moore stated she was hoping to be the
business owner of the indoor soccer facility. Ms. Moore stated she felt there was a huge
demand for this type of facility and it should be a viable faciliry, with some out-of-town
guests being possible. Adults would use the faciliry at night, kids more during the day.
She had looked at other locations, but most had problems. The facility needs to be free
span. She said there are lots of empty grocery stores however they are not free span. She
looked at other places, like near the Shock training faciliry however she said she did not
feel it was a very safe area. Ms. Moore liked this location as it is right off freeway and has
access for lots of people.
The Commission members asked Ms. Moore questions regarding her proposed indoor
recreational facility:
• What ages would be considered? As young as possible, she would like to see soccer
tots, little kids all the way up to 99 or more.
• Would the games be open format like YMCA indoor soccer programs? Yes, similar.
with dasher boards, no walls.
Planning Commission Minutes 07-12-12 Page 9 of ll
• Would there be concessions, tournaments? Yes on food, not sure about
tournaments.
• Will there be bleachers? Yes, accommodate approx. 50 people with pub tables.
• Did she look at the HUB for a location? No, did not approach them, their program
is different.
• The address on the building is difficult to see. Mr. Ballard explained where the
signage was for the building.
Seeing no one else who wished to testify, Chair Bates thanked those that participated and
closed the public hearing at 7:53 pm
Commissioner Stoy asked where this use was listed in the Permitted Use Matrix. Ms.
Janssen explained it is under"Entertainment/recreation facilities, indoor".
It was moved by Commissioner Hall the Planning Commission to recommend approval of
CTA-02-12,proposed amendments of the Permitted Use Matrix, to the City Council.
Commissioner Hall stated he was a bit skeptical at first; however, one thing he wanted the
Commission to keep in mind was the kind of conditions you would place on something like
this and what could move in next door in the future. Mr. Hall then asked Mr. Hohman if he
had any thoughts on the proposal by Mr. King to allow limited office uses in the MF-2
zone. Mr. Hohman stated he had not had an opportunity to think about the proposal and
would like the opportunity to revisit the subject outside of the meeting, see how the City
compares to the City of Spolcane and Spokane County. Mr. Hohman said he would like the
time to do some research.
Commissioner Stoy, Hall and Ba�es al1 stated they felt the building would be a good use for
the indoor soccer facility. Commissioner Beaulac added he works in the Industrial Park
and after 5:00 p.m. and on the weelcends most businesses are closed so there would be little
traffic from the Park.
Director Hohman stated staff supports entertainment/recreational facility, indoor as a
conditional use permit in order to evaluate the conditions, location, and surroundings, and
then either recommend approval or denial to the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Hohman said he
would anticipate staff recommending approval of this rype of faciliry in a location similar
to this, since there is no actual proposal in front of staff at this time. However, he also
shared there are places which staff would not recommend approval such —as next to rail
traffic, next to a foundry or something along those lines. The Conditional Use Permit
process allows staff to look at the site, prepare a staff report and allows for public input.
Commissioner Carroll expressed concern about the future and how would you condition it
so that things could not affect the future in a hazardous way.
Commissioner Stoy asked if it was possible to make office uses in the MF-2 zone require a
conditional use permit as well. Staff stated they would investigate this issue and return
with more information at the next meeting.
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER
Commissioner Stoy welcomed Commissioner Beaulac.
Planning Commission Minutes 07-12-12 Page 10 of ll
XL ADJOURNMENT
The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m.
Bill Bates, Chairperson _.
D ea n n a Digitally signed by Deanna Griffith
DN:rn=Deanna Griffith,o=Ciry of Spokane
Valley,ou=Communiry Development,
Griffith DateI20g2092�93130 0700'rg,r—US
Deanna Griffith, PC Secretary
Date signed
Planning Commission Minutes 07-12-12 Page ll of ll