Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 07-26-12.pdf Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. JULY 26, 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 COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF Bill Bates -Chair John Hohman, CD Director Fred Beaulac Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager John G. Carroll Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner Rustin Hall Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner Rod Higgins Deanna Griffith, secretary Steven Neill Joe Stoy—Vice Chair IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Stoy made a motion to approve the July 26, 2012 agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES � There were no minutes to approve. VL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VIL COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioners had nothing to report. VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Manager Scott Kuhta stated the Shoreline Goals and Policies were now before the City Council who had expressed appreciation for the work done by the Planning Commission. Mr. Kuhta also shared that Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-OS-12 was still an issue with the Ciry Council but was moving forward to with a developer's agreement. Planning Commission Minutes 07-26-12 Page 1 of ll IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: 1. Proposed amendments to the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure: Mr. Kuhta said that Ciry Attorney Cary Driskell was unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Kuhta said the Commission had been provided with copies of the last version, both clean and strike-through, of the proposed changes to the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. Mr. Kuhta said the �nal changes discussed whit the Commission at the last meeting had been made. Mr. Kuhta stated there had been discussion about adding in the sentence regarding the discovery of a conflict during the meeting, Every Commission member who has a conflict of interest shall publicly disclose the conflict at the next Commission meeting after the Commission member discovers the conflict. � discove�:v or determination of � conflict is made durin� a Commission meeting 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. A change was made as to when the Chair would recognize the absence of a member, after roll call instead of at the beginning of the meeting: Ifa member is absent, t',,,� �,f t�� �,,,,,;,�,�;,�„ „r t�„ p��„�,�;,�„ �,,,��,.�;��;,,,� , „f;,�„ a ter roll call bv the Secretar;v, the Chair shall inform the..." Mr. Kuhta also pointed out in the Rules under Section 9(C) there is a script which will now be read at the beginning of public hearings. . C. When the Commission conducts a hearing to which the Appearance ofFairness Doctrine applies, the Chair (or in th�e case of a potential violation by that individual, the Vice Chair) will ask if any Commission member knows of any reason which would require such member to excuse th�emselves pursuant to the Appearance of Fairness Docti^ine. The form of the announcement shall be as follows: All Comryrissio�members shoizld now give consideration as to whether they h�ave: 1. A clemonstrated bias or prejudice for or against any party to the proceedings; 2. A direct or indirect financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding; 3. A prejudgment of the issue prior to hearing the facts on the record, or 4. I�ad ex parte contact with any individual, excluding staff, with regard to an issue prior to the hearing. Please refer to Section 1 S(B)for more specific i�formation on how to proceed where there has been an ex parte co�nmzinication. If any Commission member should answer in the affirmative, then the Commission members should state the reason for his/her answer so that the Chair may inquire of staff as to whether a violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine exists. Commissioner Stoy asked if he would be required to read this script at the hearing being held later in the meeting. Mr. Kuhta responded no, it would not be necessary at this hearing. He said the hearing scheduled for later in the meeting, was a code text Planning Commission Minutes 07-26-12 Page 2 of ll amendment and the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Mr. Kuhta shared this would only apply to land use issues, similar to Comprehensive Plan amendments where it would be possible for a Commission member to benefit from the change. Commissioner Bates pointed out he thought the Rules for a Public Hearing had had another item listed in it. He said he remembered there being a notation to limit remarks to three minutes. He would like to have this put back in the listing. 5. Please limit your testimony to three minutes. 6. These rules are intended to promote an orderly system of holding a public hearing and to give persons an opportunity to be heard Commissioner Hall then made a motion to recommend approval of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure as amended on July 26, 2012. This motion was approved unanimously. Commissioner Carroll then asked if, according to the rules, Commissioner Beaulac would be eligible to hold an office in January based on his prior service. It was determined that he would be eligible given his prior service. 2. Continued Deliberations - CTA-02-12 Proposed Amendments to 19120 Permitted Use Matrix. Assistant Planner Christina Janssen stated she had the information the Commission requested during deliberations on July 12, 2012. The first subject concerned allowing crematoriums in the Corridor Mixed Use zone. Ms. Janssen said she had spoken to the Spokane Regional Health District who informed her crematoriums go through a very rigorous permitting process. Ms. Janssen then said she talked to a manufacturer of the burning units. She said they consist of two chambers; one main burner, which does a majority of the work, and a second chamber, which takes care of any odor or smoke which is left over. Ms Janssen said if a unit was over loaded, it would be possible for emissions to occur. Because of this possibility, staff still recommends not to allow crematories in the CMU zone. Ms. Janssen then discussed the request to allow some office uses in MF-2 zone. Ms. Janssen said she had provided the Planning Commission pages from the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan specifies that the Office zone is used to buffer High Density Residential. The Comprehensive Plan does not mention High Density Residential having any office uses at all. Ms. Janssen said allowing office uses in the MF-2 zone does not fall in line with the Comprehensive Plan. She told the Commission if they wanted to allow any office uses in the MF-2 zone it would require a change to the Comprehensive which could not happen until after Nov. l, 2012. The final subject Ms. Janssen addressed was Entertainment/Recreation Facilities, Indoor. This use was originally proposed to be allowed in the Heavy Industrial zone with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Staff now recommends this should be an allowed as a permitted use subject to special conditions. Ms. Janssen referred to regulations listed in the SVMC 19.70.020, Heavy Industrial zones. Ms. Janssen reminded the Commission the CUP process is lengthy and is generally used to mitigate impacts to residential areas and to allow for public input. She said this rype of faciliry would generally not locate around a residential area. Planning Commission Minutes 07-26-12 Page 3 of ll Commissioner Beaulac asked if this amendment were approved, would it prohibit some kind of hazardous use locating next to the recreational faciliry. Staff responded no. Commissioner Higgins asked if it would make the recreational facility non-conforming. Staff responded that it would not make the facility non-conforming. Planning Manager Kuhta said the recreational facility could be conditioned so if a hazardous use moved in next door the recreational faciliry would have to move. However, it would be very difficult to move them after they were in business and it would be expensive. Commissioner Stoy asked if Marietta was an arterial road. Staff responded it is an arterial. Commissioner Bates asked if the existing crematoriums were up and running before Ciry incorporation. Staff responded that they were in place prior to incorporation. Mr. Bates further asked if they are certified and permitted by �he Spokane Regional Health District. Ms. Janssen stated that yes, they are (permitted and certified). Mr. Bates also wanted to confirm there are three crematoriums in the City; one is conforming, SCRAPS, (which only takes care of animals) and two which are both legal non- conforming uses. Commissioner Neill stated he was aware of several places in the City that have office uses in residential areas. He wondered why it was a concern, if offices were already located in this zone and the offices were on an arterial. Commissioner Higgins asked if the owner of Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-OS-12, (who requested to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential) could place an office building on the property instead of a apartment complex. Staff responded that office uses are not allowed in High Density Residential areas. Commissioner Bates commen�ed he felt there was enough space for someone to find office space to occupy. He said he was of the opinion there is space available, so it does not inhibit people from coming here. Commissioner Neill said then the property owner could not do what they wanted to on the property. Commissioner Hall shared he had compared the MF-2 zone in other jurisdictions: •Spolcane County allows office uses in MF-2, •the City of Spokane conditions the office uses, and • the City of Liberty Lake does not allow any office uses in a MF-2 zone. Commissioner Carroll said he agreed there are enough choices for office space now, but this is a topic that could be considered later. Commissioner Bates said allowing other uses in High Densiry Residential and Medium Density Residential, could open a can of worms and he agrees with staff to leave the matrix is currently presented. Commissioner Hall asked to clarify if there are only three topics which were requiring a decision. It was confirmed this was correct. Crematoriums, Office uses in HDR zone and Entertainment/Recreational facilities, indoor in the I-2 zone are the only issues remaining. Chair Bates asked the members if there were any objections with the staff recommendation on crematories. Commissioner Carroll stated he did object. Mr. Planning Commission Minutes 07-26-12 Page 4 of ll Carroll felt cremation was becoming a more popular service and needed to be allowed in line with funeral homes. He believes allowing crematoriums in the CMU zone would have little impact to land use and would provide better customer service. Commissioner Bates asked if staff was aware of any complaints being filed regarding the two crematories located in the City currently. Staff stated they were not aware of any complaints. Commissioner Neill stated he agreed with Mr. Carroll. Commissioner Beaulac wondered about someone who would want to locate an animal cremation business in a residential zone. He asked who would want to locate next to that kind of a business. Commissioner Stoy shared he lives only a few blocics from one of the crematoriums and did not realize it was there for some time. Mr. Stoy agreed with Commissioner Carroll to allow crematoriums for the customer service needs. Commissioner Higgins stated that like businesses should be aligned. Commissioner Carroll made a motion amend the original motion to allow crematoriums in the Corridor Mixed Use zone. The vote on the amendment is four in favor, three against with Commissioners Bates, Beaulac, and Hall dissenting. Commissioner Neill made a motion to amend the original amended motion to allow office uses in MF-2 zoning district. Asst. Planner Janssen reminded the Commission if they pass this amendment the Matrix will no longer be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It is staff s opinion if the Commission feels strongly about making this change they should wait for a Comprehensive Plan amendment first. Mr. Kuhta also reminded the Commission the High Density Residential section of the Comprehensive Plan makes no reference to allowing, even on a limited basis, any office uses. Mr. Kuhta said the Comprehensive Plan has specifically separated out Office uses from High Density Residential. The vote on the amendment is zero in favor and seven against, motion fails. Commissioner Higgins moved to amend the original amended motion to allow Entertainment/Recreational Facilities, Indoor as an allowed use with the following extra conditions: Entertainment/recreation facilities, indoor shall comply with the following conditions: a. Site must take access directly fi^om an arterial street. b. All required parking must be located on the same parcel as the building/use. c. The proposed site must not be located adjacent to potentially hazardous land uses, such as petroleiim storage,foundries or other explosive storage. Commissioner Carroll asked for some clarification on item (b) in the conditions. Mr. Kuhta stated there was a possibiliry the use might not have enough parking on the parcel they are on, so they might want to request a joint parking agreement. Staff recommends that all parking be located on the same site as the use. Commissioner Stoy asked it if was possible for the use to get a variance, or a parking agreement if they needed it. Mr. Kuhta explained this condition is very specific and the applicant would need to find a site that will accommodate their parking. Commissioner Stoy asked if street parking can count for required parking. Staff responded that the code does not allow street parking to be used for parking requirements. Planning Commission Minutes 07-26-12 Page 5 of ll Commissioner Hall stated after some thought he can't support this request. Mr. Hall said the future can't be controlled and he is worried about what could move in and surround this kind of a use. It is an industrial area and that is what the zone is intended for. Commissioner Beaulac asked about the comment which was made earlier regarding if someone moved in next to the recreation facility, if they would have to move. Mr. Kuhta said another condition could be added to require the faciliry to move or do something to mitigate the potential hazard. However, it would be a huge risk, for the property owner and staff would not recommend adding this condition. Ms Janssen stated the Commission could go back to the CUP, which would allow a site specific review. Commissioner Higgins commented there would still be a problem if a hazardous use moved in next door. Ms Janssen said the Hearing Examiner would review the proposal, set conditions and they would remain with the property. Commissioner Bates said this is a growing trend and there are few buildings where this kind of a use could fit. Mr. Bates stated he cannot support this use in a heavy industrial area. Commissioner Higgins said it was mentioned in the public hearing there are not a lot of clear span buildings outside of industrial areas. Commissioner Hall said there are zoning and permitting processes which allow a new building. Commissioner Carroll asked if there was a way to add another condition, asking for a 200 foot buffer around the recreation facility that would not allow any hazardous material to be located within that buffer. Mr. Kuhta stated he would be hesitant to consider that. He explained conditions should be related to the property itself and not to an adjacent property. Commissioner Higgins asked if this would not return the option bacic to a CUP. Staff responded yes, it would. Commissioner Stoy aslced if a heavier landscaping buffer could be required by the new property owner adjacent to the site. Mr. Kuhta stated the City could not require the adjacent land owner to add landscaping. Commissioner Neill stated he was inclined to explore the possibility of requiring the entertainment facility to move if something dangerous moved in next door. Commissioner Beaulac asked if we did make the condition that they would have to move the facility if something hazardous moved in next door, they applicant would lcnow this before investing. Staff answered yes. Commissioner Hall asked if this amendment fell into line with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff answered the City already allows outdoor entertainment facilities. Mr. Kuhta suggested, rather than add another condition which would apply to all uses, it would be simpler to return to the CUP process so the Hearing Examiner can make site specific conditions. Commissioner Carroll stated he would have to vote against this amendment due to his concern about the children. The vote on this amendment is one in favor, six against. Commissioner Neill was the only vote in favor. This motion fails. The amended motion is to approve all changes to the Permitted Use Matrix as presented by staff with the following change, Crematories will be allowed in the Corridor Mixed Use zoning districts. The vote on the amended motion is unanimous in favor. B. New Business: Planning Commission Minutes 07-26-12 Page 6 of ll Study Session and Public Hearing for CTA-01-12 — Proposed Amendment to 19120 Permitted Use Matrix,Allow Animal Shelters in Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Assistant Planner Karen Kendall gave a presentation to the Commission regarding the proposed amendment to allow animal shelters in the CMU zoning district. Ms. Kendall explained that animal shelters are currently only allowed in Light and Heavy Industrial. Ms. Kendall stated this is a privately initiated amendment and the applicant is Spokane Counry. Spokane County is requesting the animal shelters be a permitted use in the Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) zone Ms Kendall provided three options for the Commission to consider: if they chose to recommend approval of this amendment: 1. Allow animal shelters as a permitted use; or 2. Allow animal shelters as a permitted use with conditions: a. No outside runs or areas b. Must follow all standards of Title 22, Design and Development Standards c. Must be owned by a public entity; or 3. Allow animal shelters only with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). This option would require a hearing in front of the Hearing Examiner, which would allow the residence in the area to comment and for mitigation of site specific impacts such as noise, odor, lights, etc. Ms Kendall stated it is staff's recommendation to allow animal shelters with a CUP. Commissioner Bates opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Commissioners had questions of staff before taking public testimony. Commissioner Carroll aslced the difference between an animal shelter and a kennel. Staff stated the difference for the City is the scale. Animal shelter provides more than temporary housing for the animals, it also supplies licensing, training, a crematorium, 100 dog runs, provide for cats, and quarantine for dangerous dogs. Kennels are for personal animals, shelters are for strays and abandoned animals. However, staff noted there is no definition for an animal shelters in the code. Commissioner Carroll asked if kennel is was a conditional use in the matrix. Staff responded it was a permitted use. Mr. Carroll asked about a business called Flintlock Kennels, which had been referenced on an exhibit listing several other kennels in the Ciry, provided along with the staff report. Staff stated this business is a legal non-conforming use with 50 indoor runs. It was also discussed this kennel is on the edge of the City which is very rural in nature. Commissioner Hall announced Spokane County was a client of his firm, however since this request was not site-specific he felt he could participate without issue. Commissioner Bates asked if the animal crematorium was regulated by Spokane Regional Clean Air. Ms. Kendall stated that SCRAPS had received a new crematorium in 2000, which was permitted by Spokane Regional Health District and they receive a new permit every year. Ms. Kendall also shared if SCRAPS were to move, they would be required to get a new permit. Planning Commission Minutes 07-26-12 Page 7 of ll Commissioner Stoy read the rules to the public hearing. John Pederson, 1116 West Broadway. Mr. Pederson stated he is the Planning Manager for Spokane County and he was the applicant for the proposal. Mr. Pederson stated the County would like to propose the animal shelters be a permitted use, with conditions. The conditions would be that the shelter must be owned by a public entiry. Mr. Pederson stated this would limit the project by nature of the use. He also said all kennel activiry should occur indoors and the shelter would have to comply with all of the requirements of SVMC Title 22 landscaping, signage, buffering. Mr. Pederson stated there are a wide variety of uses allowed in the CMU zone without any conditions which would have a far higher impact than an animal shelter. Mr. Pederson stated a high school would have a far greater impact than animal shelter serve the regional needs of the communi�ies. Mr. Pederson pointed out the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated Land Use Policy 92 allows public and quasi public uses in Corridor Mixed Use. He stated the staff recommends approval of this amendment. Mr. Pederson said the CMU zone already allows kennels as an outright permitted use and an animal shelter is just a larger version of a kenneL Mr. Pederson asked Mr. Kuhta how many complaints the City had received regarding SCRAPS. Mr. Kuhta responded none that he was aware of. Mr. Pederson continued that this text amendment fits the zoning district and if the Commission was concerned about compatibility they could add more conditions. Commissioner Carroll asked if the county routinely provided service other than to dogs and cats. Mr. Pederson stated he would defer the answer to the representative from SCRAPS. He had visited the SCRAPS facility, however all he was aware of was dogs and cats. Todd Mielke, 1116 W. Broadway: Mr. Mielke is a Spokane County Commissioner; Mr. Mielke stated he was a proponent of this proposal. Mr. Mielke said the Counry did a thorough analysis of where to move the SCRAPS facility Mr. Mielke commented this amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 92 which allows for public or quasi-public uses. Mr. Mielke stated if the County was proposing another similar use, it would be outright permitted for example; veterinarian clinic, pet shop, kennel, indoor kennel. Mr. Mielke stated there would be no limitation to the amount of runs, in the examples mentioned, would be permitted without conditions. He shared there are some veterinarian clincs expanding to do boarding, which would still allow them as a permitted use. SCRAPS does not have an in-house veterinarian, they have chosen to veterinarians in the community instead. Mr. Mielke stated the Counry agrees with staff, agrees with Comprehensive Plan, the only discussion would be if this should be CUP or a permitted use, or permitted with conditions. Mr. Mielke stated he felt the largest concerns would be traffic and lighting issues. He said he thought there were permitted uses which cause more light and traffic concerns, for example; traffic and light - convenience stores, high schools, noise - auto and light truck sales, car washes, clubs, outdoor entertainment, taverns, indoor theaters, smell - bakery, micro-brewery, plastic injection molding, resturants, each one would have more impact than the County feels an animal shelter would have. Mr. Mielke said he would address the question regarding the rypes of animals which would be housed at the faciliry. He commented mostly cats and dogs, there have been some exotic animals but there are ordinances in place now so they are phasing out. He commented when Planning Commission Minutes 07-26-12 Page 8 of ll SCRAPS is faced with an animal cruelty case some larger animals are taken to the fairgrounds. Commissioner Stoy asked if SCRAPS had a veterinarian on the premise. Mr. Mielke stated SCRAPS had relationships with several veterinarians, and if there was a problem SCRAPS' would mostly take the animals to the vet clinics. However if there was a problem, like a hording situation, some of the vets will come to the location where the animal is, shelter, fairgrounds, etc. Mr. Stoy asked if a vet should determine if an animal is determined it needs to be euthanized, would the vet return the animal to the shelter. Mr. Mielke deferred the answer to Ms. Montana. Nicole Montana, 2521 N Flora Rd.: Ms. Montana stated she was the Operations Manager for SCRAPS. Ms. Montana stated SCRAPS is licensed to euthanize animals on site. Commissioner Bates asked if operating hours would be expanded. Mr. Mielke answered currently SCRAPS is open six days a week, but have on-call services 24-7..These hours are for emergencies like a dangerous dogs. He said those woz�ld be the only people to access the building after hours. Ms. Montana clarified with the regional model there are plans to be open seven days a week, but closed holidays. Commissioner Beaulac asked how many other shelters there were in Spokane County. Commissioner Mielke replied SCRAPS' was the only government owned-operated shelter. There is the Humane Society on E. Freya area, they operate as a non profit facility, they also have a crematorii�m. Then there is S'pokanimal, plus a number of animal rescue groups which operate in the area. Mr. Mielke commented S'CRAPS works very well with the other shelters in the area, some concentrate more on adoption but don't do animal control. SCRAPS does exchange animals with other shelters and has one of the highest release rate, by returning thefn to the owners or having them adopted. Commissioner Neill asked Commissioner Mielke which option he was looking for specifically. Mr. Mielke responded he would rather have a permitted use, or a permitted use with conditions. Mr. Mielke stated he would rather not have to go through the Conditional Use Permitting process because it was unpredictable. Commissioner Carroll asked a question of staff regarding process. Mr. Carroll asked if Spokane Counry had asked for a kennel would it require this same process. Ms. Kendall responded if it was presented as a kennel then they would be required to comply with the standards in that zoning district. Commissioner Carroll stated it is just a name difference, however Planning Manager Kuhta joined the conversation to state staff would still review the proposal as an animal shelter based on staff's interpretation of the code. Chairman Bates closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. The Commission took a break at 7:49 and returned at 7:57 p.m. Commissioner Hall moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of code text amendment CTA-01-12 to allow animal shelters in the CMU zoning district, subject to conditions, to the City Council. Chairman Bates clarified the staff recommendation was to allow the use with a Conditional Use Permit, Mr. Hall's motion is recommend allowing the use with special conditions. Ms. Kendall stated staff would like to request the Planning Commission make one of the Planning Commission Minutes 07-26-12 Page 9 of ll conditions be the use must be located on an arterial. Ms. Kendall one of the options offered in the presentation was to allow the use with conditions, which were laid out as the conditions listed in 19.60.080(A)(4) along with two others. Adding the condition of locating on an arterial would be a fifth condition. Commissioner Neill stated he talked to Gail Mackie, director of Spokanimal and asked her how she felt about it. Mr. Neill stated Ms. Mackie stated she thought this would be a good idea, put the shelters closer together which would allow an easier exchange of animals if it was necessary. Commissioner Beaulac asked the City of Liberty Lake wanted to open a shelter, would it be allowed. Mr. Kuhta stated that is a situation that is being discussed right now. Chairman Bates clarified the motion: Animal Shelters will be a permitted use with the following conditions as referenced in 19.60.080 (and whichever section would follow) a. Shelter must be owned and operated by a public entity, and b. Shelter must comply with all standard of the SVMC Title 22; and c. There are no outside runs; and d. Compliance with noise standard for a commerical noise souce as identificed by WAC 173-60-040 has been demonstrated by the applicant, and e. Shelter must be located on an arterial, and £ Outside recreational areas will be allowed only with human supervision. The vote on the motion is seven in favor, zero against, Motion Passes. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER Commissioner Carroll stated he would lilce to request to develop and indoor /outdoor entertainment recreation facility overlay for the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Manager Kuhta stated it would be a fairly narrow zone, and it would be difficult to create. Commissioner Carroll would lilce to see something that would avoid the confusing from this evening. Mr. Kuhta explained that is what the Permitted Use Matrix is for, showing where specific uses are allowed. Mr. Kuhta reminded the Commission the City would want to be careful with its industrial zones, and try and protect them. Employment in Industrial zones is an important issue for the City. Mr. Kuhta stated he would need to think more about this issue and have more discussion with staff. Mr. Kuhta stated staff has a very long list of amendments which have priority this could possibility be lower down on the list if it were added. Staff has several amendments coming forward in the near future. Commissioner Carroll stated he was fine as long as it is on the list. Planning Commission Minutes 07-26-12 Page 10 of ll XL ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m. Bill Bates, Chairperson _. Dea n n a Digitalty signed by Deanna Griffith DN:cn=Deanna Griffith,o=Ciry of Spokane Valley,ou=Communiry Development, Gr i f f i t h Date I20g2 09 2�10�00:53�07 00'rg,r—US Deanna Griffith, PC Secretary Date signed Planning Commission Minutes 07-26-12 Page ll of ll