Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 06-14-12.pdf Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers—City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. June 14,2012 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 John G. Carroll-Absent Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager Rustin Hall - Absent Cary Driskell, City Attorney Rod Higgins Kelly Konkright, Deputy City Attorney Steven Neill Lori Barlow, Sr.Planner Marcia Sands—Recused Marty Palaniuk,Planning Technician Joe Stoy—Vice Chair Henry Allen, Development Engineer Deanna Griffith, secretary Commissioner Neill moved to excuse Commissioners Carroll and Hall from the June 14, 2012 meeting which was passed unanimously. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Higgins made a motion to approve the June 14, 2012 agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Neill made a motion to approve the April 12, 2012 minutes as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. VL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VIL COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Bates reported he attended the ribbon cutting at the new Greenacres Park. VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Manager Kuhta stated a flyer had been handed out which announced a Planning Short Course being offered in Walla Walla June 28, 2012. He mentioned the City is considering sponsoring a Short Course in conjunction with Eastern Washington University which could be held October. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: Continued deliberations of the Shoreline Draft Goals and Policies Planning Commission Minutes 06-14-12 Page 1 of 10 The Commission returned to their continued deliberations of the Shoreline Draft Goals and Policies (G&P). Commissioner Bates reminded the Commission there is still a motion on the floor is to accept the SAG G&P. Sr. Planner Barlow stated, once the commission completes its deliberations, staff will return with a strike-through version of the G&P which will show all of the policies the Commission has made. Ms. Barlow stated Commissioner Bates had requested a list of policies which had and had not been discussed so far. Ms. Barlow informed the Commission she would demonstrate in her presentation which policies had already been discussed to date. Ms Barlow stated at the last meeting Commissioner Carroll had asked staff to look at policies 4.11 and 5.12 regarding separating out the standards for public and private development. Policy 411 has been modified to read: e Recognize the importance and uniqueness of the Spokane River Centennial Trail to the City of Spokane Valley, the region, and the state, Future trail development on �rivate ro er including trail extensions, new access points, whether public or private, shall be designed to have the least adverse impact. Future trail development on �ublic �ro�erty shall meet the same objective, but shall also incor�orate enhancement and restoration measures where a�ropriate. Staff has separated out the private property, so the trail extensions are designed with the least impact. A new statement which addresses trail design on public property to address enhancement and restoration measures where appropriate has been added. Commissioner Neill asked if this would obligate the City to do something if it did not ha�e the money to do so. Ms. Barlow replied the regulations would define what `where appropriate' would mean. If the project met those guidelines then the project would be required to do so. Commissioner Stoy asked if any of the Centennial Trail is on private property. Ms. Barlow stated the Trail is all on state property. The Commission moved on to Policy 512. Policy 512 has been changed to read: • New public ���shoreline uses and developments should be planned and designed to attract the public to the waterfront, new private shoreline uses and development shall be planned and desi�ned to attract the �ublic to the waterfront with exce�tions as allowed by WAC 173-26-221 (4�(dl. Ms. Barlow said some of the language is state law and through the update process the City will be developing a public access plan. This will mean having a plan which will layout where the City like to ha�e public access to the river rather than looking at it on a project by project basis. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commission the City does not have a lot of land which can be developed on the river which would be able to provide river access. Based on the previously accepted shoreline inventory, this policy will have very little impact. Ms. Barlow said Policy 512 addresses buildings along the river. Policy 411 is in the economic development portion of the SMP Goals and Policies, based on the Centennial Trail only. Ms. Barlow shared some information she had received from Riverside Area Manager Chris Guidotti, who felt the higher standards for a public entity could impede the department's ability to make improvements to the Centennial TraiL Mr. Guidotti shared the Parks Department, as every other government agency,has a limited budget and he was concerned placing a higher standard on a public entity could make it more dif�cult for them to accomplish improvements. It was his opinion the requirements within the law at this time, which ensure No Net Loss of ecological function. It also allows for conditions, as warranted, to be placed on projects through the permitting process. These extra requirements are unnecessary and Mr. Guidotti was also concerned how this would be Planning Commission Minutes 06-14-12 Page 2 of 10 implemented through the development regulations. He said the primary impact would be to the Centennial Trail and any improvements or expansions to it. Mr Guidotti noted his agency was a resource protection agency and its primary purpose was to protect that resource specifically. He feels that the suggested changes were unnecessary. Ms. Barlow shared the changes have been brought at the request of the Commission however staff has not taken a position on this change. Mr. Kuhta interjected staff might have a recommendation, if asked. Ms. Barlow said staff feels the change to Policy 411 is unnecessary, there are other policies in place that would take care of this issue. The change does show stewardship toward the shoreline and it could be an `encourage' statement instead. Chair Bates asked if the Commission wanted the `shall' language retained in Policy 411. The change had been proposed by Commissioner Carroll, and the Commission wanted to allow him to look at the changed language, since he had made the request. Commissioner Stoy stated he would like to allow for a little bit of flexibility, and `should' would allow flexibility. Commissioner Higgins asked if there were places along the trail which would have access from private property. Mr. Kuhta stated as an example, there are new apartments being built along the river that would be able to develop an access to the traiL The property owners would have to work with the State in order to get it taken care of, however he understood the intent and original language as it was would cover everything. The Commission decision is change "shall to should" in Policy 4.11 and discuss it again when the strike-through copy returns. Policy 5.12 is fine as it is. Returning to the rundown of the Goals and Policies from the last meeting beginning at Goal 5. Goal 5 and supporting policies: Commissioners had no issues with any listed under 5, other than what had already been discussed Goal 6 and supportive policies: All Commissioners stated they were good with what was under this goal at this time. Goal 7 and supporting policies: Commissioner Neill stated in Policy 71 he would prefer the changes which are being proposed by Centennial Properties. Develop a Restoration Plan that will identify degraded areas and provide a framework for restoration efforts to improve the e�sting ecological function and provide a mechanism for joint�ublic and private mitigation of����������'�'° ��a ������°�°°�'�'°�future development while brovidinQ incentives for future develobment for mitiQation. Ms. Barlow shared that Mr. Kisielius is suggesting no change in this policy. Mr. Kisielius stated it would be inconsistent with the statute. Commissioner Bates said he felt the language should be left alone. Ms. Barlow explained the proposal suggests a mechanism for joint public and private mitigation, however generally speaking the City would not look to partner to mitigate the impacts of private development unless the development was providing a greater public purpose. Ms. Barlow stated the Restoration Plan is a requirement of the Shoreline Act and is defined in the guidelines. The City is required to identify the areas which need to be restored, or provide opportunities for restoration. The City is required to identify different methods to accomplish the restoration, and to look to accomplish restoration efforts to increase the ecological functions. The guidelines state all projects have impacts. Ms. Barlow said reviewing Centennial Properties' proposed changes it is not clear what they are trying to accomplish. She also said there is nothing in the revised language which obligates the City to write regulations which might be cumbersome. Commissioner Neill asked if the original version prohibits what Centennial Properties is trying to Planning Commission Minutes 06-14-12 Page 3 of 10 recommend. Ms. Barlow stated no, except their recommendation suggests incentives which the original policy does not. Mr. Kuhta stated Centennial Properties' policy is poorly written, the original is clearly written and he would recommend the more clearly written policy. Commissioner Neill shared he was fine with staff's suggestion as long as the original does not prevent the City from doing as Centennial Properties suggested. Goa18 and the supporting policies: Commissioner Higgins stated Goa18 which has been modified to read— Goal SMP 8: Assure no net loss of ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes within wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas,fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, geologically � hazardous areas and fi^equently flooded areas. �Assure no net loss of ecological function within these critical areas. Ms. Barlow stated the word should really be `assure' and it will be changed. Commissioner Neill asked about Policy 8.5, the final sentence.. `Do not allow structural shoreline stabilization that will result in a net loss of ecological function'... does the last sentence make for liability for the City. Ms. Barlow said she did not think so. Mr. Neill said the sentence before that states `we will allow shoreline stabilization to protect structures under these circumstances. Staff said the regulations will define when structures can be built. What the sentence is trying to say is there could be stabilization, which could ha�e an impact in a net loss, however when the SMP is done and one complete package there are many checks and balances to ensure there is little to no loss of ecological function. The SMA does recognize that everything, even preferred uses, do have some impact to the shoreline. Ms. Barlow said Mr. Carroll was concerned the sentence would not allow any structural stabiliaation of any kind, is not the case. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commission to focus on the `net' portion of the requirement of No Net Loss. This process goes back to the baseline, the other pieces of the SMP which allow for a build-up of surplus above the baseline of ecological function so uses and development which will be allowed and we know will have an impact, and even with our restoration plan we will experience a net loss of ecological function. Mr. Konkright added Mr. Kisielius said this would not result in liability to the City, this is a stated goal is not a stated law. The SMP is not going to allow a shoreline stabilization which would result in a net loss in ecological function. Mr. Konkright stated this goal does not add an obligation which is not already in the state law. Ms. Barlow stated Ecology's position on this policy is to protect primary structures only. Goa19 and supporting policies: This goal and policies most is verbatim from the WAC. Commission had no comment on these policies Goa110 and supporting policies: Policy 10.4 - Maintenance and improvements — Commissioner Carroll wondered who determined what past adverse impacts are,who made them and who will be responsible for taking care of them. Staff said this language was suggested by Mr. Kisielius. All shoreline requests must go through review and the permitting process After that there would be a coordinated effort by City staff, DOE, and other possible reviewing agencies, which could include DFW, DNR, would collectively determine what impacts there are, who is responsible for them and who will take care of the clean up and maintenance of them. Goal 11 and supporting policies— Commissioners had no issues with these. Planning Commission Minutes 06-14-12 Page 4 of 10 Goal 12 and supporting policies- Policy 1213 regarding the gravel pits, Give priority to industrial uses in the following order: • First priority is give to water—dependent industrial uses • Second priority is given to water-related industrial uses • The existing legally permitted gravel pits are considered water dependent uses. The Commission discussed why the gravel pits were considered water dependent uses. Staff explained how other policies state until such time the pits enters their reclamation phase the SMP will not be regulating them. Commissioner Higgins said he would like to have the last line in Policy 1213 deleted. There was more discussion regarding how the gravel pits have evolved and how the City would be handling them. The Commission agreed and directed staff to remove the last line of Policy12.13 referring to the gravel pits. At that point the Planning Commission determined they no longer had any more recommended changes or issues with the draft SMP Goals and Policies. Ms Barlow stated at the next meeting, June 28, 2012, she would return with a strike-through version of the Goals and Policies for a final review, then the Commission would be able at that time to make a recommendation to the City Council. The Commission thanked Ms. Barlow for her time and diligence. The Commission took a break at 7:12 p.m. and returned at 7:21 p.m. B. New Business: i. Training Session: Zoning Code Commissioner Higgins expressed concern over review of the zoning code with the other two Commissioners absent. Planning Manager Kuhta explained that the other two members, having been on the Commission for some time already had a fair understanding of the code and this would be a basic review for the newer members. Mr. Kuhta displayed the Spokane Va11ey Municipal Code on the screens to show the Commission how to find the zoning code on line. Planning Manger Kuhta began by explaining the Commission had received a copy of Title 19, a copy of 19.120 the Permitted Use Matrix and a copy of the current zoning map. He talked about fhe City's zoning map and explained the colors on the zoning map represented different zoning districts. He also said the colors for the different zones were standard across the country. Mr. Kuhta talked about the different residential zones. Mr. Kuhta confirmed for Commissioner Neill R-1 lot sizes were larger than an R-4 and then discussed the other zoning districts names and approximate locations on the map. Mr. Kuhta explained the Residential Zone Dimensional Standards table, 19.40-1 and the Commercial Development Standards table 19.60-1. Commissioners had questions and some comments of their own: • Commissioner Neill asked a question in regard to the R-1 zoning, one acre lots. Mr. Kuhta explained the one acre lots were adopted in the early years of the city in response to neighbors from the Ponderosa and Rotchford Acres disturbed by Spokane County having rezoned them to six units per acre before incorporation. Mr. Kuhta said those are the only two areas where this zoning would be allowed and the City will not be allowing any new areas of this zoning district. Planning Commission Minutes 06-14-12 Page 5 of 10 • Commissioner Bates confirmed quite few of the residential areas are zoned R-2 in the City. Mostly what is south of 16"' and east of University Rd. The greater part of the City is zoned R- 3. • Mr. Kuhta explained how development gets more dense as it gets closer to the business and transportation corridors . • Commissioner Neill talked about the development at 16th and Dishman-Mica, as a good example of zero lot line development. Mr. Neill mentioned how well the development has integrated itself well into the neighborhood, which had been an older neighborhood with some of the larger lots surrounding it. • Commissioner Stoy shared the setback is measured from the property line not from the curb line. • Commissioner Stoy asked about the garage height requirement (step back). Mr. Stoy thought there was a requirement for an oversized building to be setback an additional five feet from the property line. Mr. Kuhta responded that this requirement was not in the code, but it was probably something which should be looked at. • Commissioner Higgins was concerned no one was enforcing covenants. Mr. Kuhta explained Home Owners Association (HOA) covenan�s. These are private rules and are not enforced by City. The covenants are enforced by the HOA and are considered a civil matter between parties. • 19.120 Schedule of Permitted Uses, or the Permitted Use Matrix. Mr. Kuhta explained the Use Matrix, how it works and the symbols used in the matrix P = Permitted, S = Permitted w/Specific Conditions, A = Accessory to Permitted Use, C = Conditional Use Permit, T = Temporary Use, Blank=Not Permitted • Mr. Kuhta explained there are some regulations which are somewhat `buried' in the code. For example 19.40.090 Accessory Structures. B. The combined building footprint of all accessory permanent strzsctures in residential zoning disti^icts shall not exceed 10 percent of the lot area. This does not include attached garages, this only pertains to detached structures. Mr. Kuhta said this regulation was not unique to the City. Many jurisdictions have these kinds of requirements. Spokane County has similar restrictions. These allow air and space to remain on the properties. Commissioner Neill asked if a covered dog run would fall under this definition, and Mr. Kuhta answered no. Accessory structures are also required to meet are the development standards and setbacks. • Commissioner Bates asked if the standards are changed often, if they were changed would they be in-line with the rest of the county. Mr. Kuhta said the standards are not changed very often and they are in line with the surrounding jurisdictions however Spokane County calculates the setbacks differently. Commissioner Stoy added, in his experience, he felt most cities setbacks are smaller,up to three feet,but only on a garage. • Discussed the standards in commercial zones. In commercial zones there are no minimum or maximum lot coverage, however there are requirements for landscaping, drainage, parking for example. The lot could not be completely covered. • Discussed Conditional Use Permits (CUP). A use may be permitted in a particular zoning district but requires more mitigation before it can be allowed. A CUP requires hearing before the Hearing Examiner who will apply special conditions, typically. Planning Commission Minutes 06-14-12 Page 6 of 10 • Mr. Kuhta explained that a Variance allows for some relief from some zoning standards on the property. A variance is not granted just because the property owner would like to not have to comply with the development standards. There are very specific criteria that must be met, • B. The variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the land use zone in which th�e subject property is located,� • C. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located,� • D. The special circumstances of the subject p�°operty make the strict e�forcement of the provisions of this code an unnecessary hardship to the property owner; • The Commission discussed Administrative Exceptions (AE). Mr. Kuhta explained how an AE is different than a Variance. It is just a request for small amounts of deviation of code provisions: o any dimensional requirements less than one foot o setbacks = 10% or less of required setback �� o building heights=25% of maximum o lot area=25% of required of lot area o building coverage =25%of maximum coverage all cover look at the zone, • Commissioner Stoy shared with other members when a person looks at the Use Matrix, they look at what is allowed, the special conditions which are referenced in the far right column. He then said a person would then go fo those code sections to review the special conditions which must be taken into consideration before the use will be allowed. • Commissioner Bates asked about manufactured homes, he remembered a discussion at City Council abouf Manufactured Home Parks but could not recall the issue. He also stated he did not recall where manufactured home allowed. Mr. Kuhta explained the City cannot restrict manufactured housing, it is allowed in any residential zoning district in the City. Mr. Kuhta said the subject of discussion at the Council meeting was manufactured home parks. The parks generally lease a spaces and the park is owned by someone else. The citizens were worried that the owner of the park would be able to sell the land and lots and develop the land into another use. The new owner would be able to displace the space renters leaving them to find a place to move their manufactured home. Commissioner Bates asked if the development south of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, CPA-OS-12, was a manufactured home park. Mr. Kuhta responded no, it was a development and the owners own their own lots. The Commissioners had no other questions so they moved on to a new subject. ii. Discussion—Planning Commission Rules of Procedure: Deputy City Attorney Kelly Konkright began the discussion regarding the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure (ROP) stating the suggestions came from the special meeting on May 7, 2012 with Mr. Stan McNutt. Mr. Konkright said he will be covering several of the changes being proposed in the ROP: Section 13 - Statement of Ethics / Code of Conduct. He shared this section had been added to help the Commissioners identify and avoid possible conflicts of interest. Mr. Konkright said the language mirrors the City Council's Governance Manual, but was changed to pertain to the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes 06-14-12 Page 7 of 10 Section 13(B) It states no Commission member maybe involved in a contract with the City which has with personal benefit to the Commissioner. Mr. Konkright stated this is a state statute but the attorney's office placed it in the ROP so the Commissioners are aware of it. Section 13(C) Conflict of Interest. This outlines what could possibly be considered a conflict of interest. Mr. Konkright pointed out 13(C)(1)(iii), Professional Conflict this allows a member to recuse themselves if they have a professional conflict which the Commission member's employer is requiring the recusal based in a real or perceived conflict. These sections out line which types of conflicts the Commission may encounter. Mr. Konkright said the next section is how to deal with a conflict of interest should one arise. Commissioner Bates asked to discuss 13(C)(1)(i) ". engaging in a transaction or activity which impairs or would to a reasonable..." Mr. Bates wanted to know if the following situation occurred, a Commissioner testified before the council, took a position on a subject which could possibly come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Bates wanted to know if this was something similar to what this policy was referring to. Mr. Konkright stated it would be very possible for that to be regarded as a conflict if that particular situation should come up. Should that situation arise then the Commission member should talk to the city attorney or deputy city attorney in order to see how to handle it. Mr. Konkright continued with 13(D) Other Prohibited Acts, Attendance. In order to make the ROP consistent with the SVMC the attendance policy has been changed to three or more consecutive regularly schedule meetings. It had previously said six in a calendar year. Commissioner Bates asked to confirm this same as the City Council attendance policy. Mr. Konkright stated he did not know, but did know it was consistent with the SVMC. Commissioner Bates would like it to also say six times in a 12-month period. He stated in doing research many cities are more restrictive then Spokane Valley, some cities use a percentage instead. Commissioner Higgins asked if they would be excused or unexcused absences. Commissioner Bates stated he felt they should be excused or unexcused. Mr. Bates shared he felt that the attendance was important and everyone needed to be at the meetings. Mr. Konkright said he could add the language to the ROP however, he wanted to point it is not consistent with the current code, and if the Commission felt strongly about it, then he would suggest that the SVMC be changed to reflect the same. The Commission discussed how to excuse and absent member. The Chair will explain the reason for the absence and if there is no objec�ion, then the member will be excused. Mr. Konkright explained how he changed the wording to if there is an objection then the Chair will make the motion to excuse. Mr. Konkright said if the Commission member has recused themselves during a meeting due to an actual or perceived conflict of interest, there is no need to excuse them. Commissioner Bates would like language added to specify the member must remain for the rest of the topics on the agenda. Mr. Konkright agreed to try and prepare language which would specify such,but felt it was laid out clearly in the proposed language already. Commissioner Stoy asked about voting, item 7(C) states a member cannot vote on a matter unless they have attended the public hearing or have listened to the recordings all public hearings. Mr. Stoy wanted to know if the member only needed to listen to the recording for the public hearing or all recordings that pertain to the subject which have been missed. The Legal Staff stated that not all subjects the Commission members make decisions on require a public hearing. Commissioner Higgins stated he felt it should be both the public hearing and any study sessions related to the subject. City Attorney Cary Driskell commented this is not a requirement for the City Council. Commissioner Bates asked how Councilmembers get up to speed on current issues. Mr. Driskell said he was not telling the Commission to not make it a requirement, he was just stating it is not a requirement the City Council places on themselves. Mr. Driskell said there is an expectation the members will exercise a certain diligence about the work they do and subjects they need to explore. Planning Commission Minutes 06-14-12 Page 8 of 10 Commissioner Higgins said he was informed when he became a Commission member he would have to listen to several recordings before he could participate in his first vote. Mr. Driskell replied this was only formalizing a fact,instead of leaving it as just an expectation of performance. Chair Bates stated when the revised draft returned the members could discuss this subject again, however for right now, the language will stand as it is. Mr. Konkright continued with 13(D)(8) engaging in any meeting which violates the Open Public Meetings Act. Mr. Konkright said this had been placed in the rules after the discussion at the May 7, 2012 special meeting. No. 8 states that"Engaging in any meeting that violates the Open Public Meetings (OPMA). OPMA strictly forbids any meeting of a quorum of the Commission during which any city business is discussed. The OPMA provides that Commissioners may (a) meet informally in less than a quorum and discuss City business, and (b) meet in a quorum if City business is not discussed, but Commissioners are encouraged to be mindful that such meetings risk creating an appearance of violation of the OPMA when such meetings can be avoided." Mr. Konkright told the Commission members if a meeting occurs that is, or would seem to a reasonable person to 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(s) may consult the City Attorney for advice on whether the meeting violates the OPMA. Mr. Konkright said SVMC 18.10.020(D) Removal, it states "a commission member can be removed for th�ree unexcused consecutive regular meetings." He said this was the code provision in which the legal office was trying to match the ROP against. Commissioner Stoy asked if this meant study sessions. Mr. Kuhta replied that the Planning Commission did not have study sessions outside of their regular meetings so all meeting would be considered in this provision. Commissioner Bates asked about 18.10.050(G) Make periodic written and oral reports to the city council addressing work in progress and other significant matters relating to the City; Mr. Bates wanted to know if this is where the members would be allowed to make a minority report to the Council, if there had been a split vote on a subject, could be included in the Planning Commission findings. Mr. Konkright felt it would not apply to a minority report and the Council would have to change the code in order to allow for something of that nature. Commissioner Bates asked Planning Manager Kuhta how the code could get changed. Mr. Kuhta shared if there was an inconsistency which was identified though the Planning Commission process then the Planning Department would discuss it with the City Attorney's o�ce to determine if it should go to the City Council for an amendment to correct the inconsistency. Mr. Konkright then asked if the members had any questions, otherwise he would make the suggested changes requested by the Commission and return with an update draft. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER Commissioner Higgins requested to have a discussion of the Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2, Land Use placed on the Planning Commission advanced agenda. Mr. Higgins stated after review of the Comp Plan Chapter 2 during the annual updates and the concerns over CPA-OS-12 and the dimensional standards surrounding this amendment, he felt that this chapter should have a very in-depth look at what is in there. He also shared he felt this would be a large scale project and would like to begin the discussion of it soon in order to bring the discussion to the City Council for approval for review. Planning Manager Kuhta agreed to put on the Planning Commission advanced agenda for discussion. Planning Commission Minutes 06-14-12 Page 9 of 10 XI. ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m. Bill Bates, Chairperson Dea n na DigitallysignedbyDeannaGriffith DN:cn=Deanna Griffith,o=City of Spokane Valley,ou=Community Development, Griffith Dat I20g2ff0 04 19 49 35V0700'rg,c=US Deanna Griffith,PC Secretary � �, Date signed Planning Commission Minutes 06-14-12 Page 10 of 10