Agenda 08/23/2012 S�'TYol�ane
p
Valle �
Y
Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
August 23, 2012 6:00 p.m.
L CALL TO ORDER
IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IIL ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
July 12, 2012
July 26, 2012
August 9, 2012
VL PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda.
VIL COMMISSION REPORTS
VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. NEW BUSINESS:
1. STUDY SESSION: Shoreline Management Program Update— Shoreline
Environment Designations
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
XL ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF
BILL BATES -CHAIR JOHN HOHMAN,CD DIRECTOR
FRED BEAULAC SCOTT KUHTA,PLANNING MANAGER
JOHN G.CARROLL
RUSTiN HALL
RoD HIGGINs
STEVEN NEILL DEANNA GRIFFITH,SECRETARY
JOE STOY-VICE CHAIR WWW.SPOKANEVALLEY.ORG
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Review
Meeting Date: August 15, 2012
Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
� information ❑ admin.report ❑ pending legislation
FILE NUMBER: Shoreline Master Program Update
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study Session— Draft Shoreline Environment Designations
BACKGROUND: The City's Shoreline Master Program update team has completed the Draft Shoreline
Environment Designations for the Shoreline Master Program Update. The Shoreline Environment
Designations (SED) are the third phase of the Shoreline Update Process. Designations are required by
the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and they provide the framework for uniformly applying the goals
and policies and use regulations within each designation.
The Washington Administrative Code (WAC 173-26) identifies the requirements for the environment
designation classifications and the required program components. A recommended classification
system and criteria are described in detail, and the WAC specifies that the criteria is the basis for
classifying an area with an environment designation. This is an important part of how the broad SMA
policy objective of "no net loss" is achieved. Local governments may establish a different designation
system, or retain their current environment designations provided they are consistent with the
purposes and policies of the SMA. This strategy can be utilized when local conditions warrant unique
designations.
The following three Environment Designations are proposed: Urban-Conservancy — High Quality (UC-
HQ), Urban Conservancy (UC), and Shoreline Residential (SR). The UC and SR designations reflect the
state recommended classification system, while the UC-HQ designation modifies the state
recommended designation to reflect local conditions. Staff will discuss the proposed environment
designations, the WAC requirements to establish the environment designations, and the Shoreline
Environment Designation Map.
At this time the Planning Commission is tasked with reviewing the document, conducting a public
hearing, considering public input, and finally providing a recommendation to the City Council. The draft
SED's and Map are attached for your review.
Attorney Tadas Kisielius has completed a review of the Environment Designations to identify areas
where the draft goals and policies may exceed, meet, or fall below the state guidelines. He has
provided input that has been incorporated in to the draft and noted that the designations closely follow
the state guidelines, which includes utilizing the parallel designations alternative to achieve maximum
flexibility for property owners. At this time no written comments are anticipated. Mr. Kisielius is not
expected to attend the Planning Commission deliberations unless issues warrant his attendance. A
public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for September 20, 2012 with deliberations to follow.
Public notice will be conducted, as required, prior to the hearing.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) under RCW 90.58
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Numerous discussions regarding SMP Update.
1 of 2
APPROVAL CRITERIA: RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26 define the process for approval of an SMP and
require that the document be consistent with the goals and policies of the SMA.
STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner
ATTAC H M E NTS:
1. Draft Shoreline Environment Designations Report and Map
2 of 2
City of Spokane Valley
Shoreline Master Program
Environment Designations
City of Spokane Valley
Shoreline Master Program
Proposed Shoreline Environmental Designations
Prepared by
URS Corporation
July 9, 2012
1.0 Introduction—Environmental Designations
Shoreline Environmental Designations (SED) are analogous to zoning designations for areas
within the shoreline jurisdiction. SEDs provide a uniform basis for applying policies and use
regulations within each designation, if allowed by underlaying zoning requirements. SEDs are
intended to encourage appropriate uses and activities while providing for protection and
restoration of shoreline ecological functions. It is anticipated that reasonable standards,
restrictions, and prohibitions on shoreline developments will be instituted as shoreline
regulations. This is necessary so that shoreline development will reasonably protect e�sting uses
and shoreline character so that the statewide goal for "No Net Loss"of shoreline ecological
functions is achieved.
SEDs are established based on e�sting use patterns, the biological and physical character of the
shoreline, and the goals and aspirations of the community as expressed through comprehensive
plans. For the City of Spokane Valley, the Inventory and Characterization Report, prepared by
URS Corp, 2010 provided information on shoreline ecological functions; development patterns as
represented by existing building lots, zoning and land use designations; and on current and
projected uses that were used to determine appropriate SEDs.
The shoreline designations are illustrated on the Shorelines Designations Map which is an
integral part of the Shoreline Master Program. Characteristics and general management policies
for each of the designations are given below. They provide the basis for development of
regulations for each SED.
2.0 City of Spokane Valley Environmental Designations
The information provided for each SED generally follows the state classification guidelines
(WAC 173-26-211 (4) and (5)). The state guidelines provide a recommended classification
system. Local governments may establish a different designation system or may retain their
current environment designations (WAC 173-26-2ll(5), 2ll(4)(c)(i)).
The e�sting Pastoral, Conservancy, and Urban SEDs are proposed to be changed to new SEDs
that reflect the findings of the 2010 shoreline inventory and of current shoreline uses as well as to
allow for management of the shorelines under the new state guidelines. The three proposed SED
categories are Urban-Conservancy-High Quality (LTC-HQ), Urban Conservancy (UC), and
Shoreline Residential (SR). The Shoreline residential designation may be further divided to
differentiate between allowable shoreline uses at different locations. Much of the Spokane River
shoreline is designated as UC, with conservation areas identified in the 2010 inventory as UG
HQ. These designations closely reflect the e�sting Pastoral and Conservancy designations. A
shoreline residential(SR) environmental designation has been added along the Spokane River and
at Shelley Lake to include those areas currently zoned Single Family Residential and that have
� 1
City of Spokane Valley
Shoreline Master Program
Environment Designations
existing single family residences. The Shoreline Residential designation provides a means to
allow for appropriate residential uses.
Each of the SEDs is described more fully below. Each SED includes a purpose statement, the
designation criteria and basic management policies.
Urban Conservancy—High Quality Environment(UC-HQ)
Purpose
The purpose of the "Urban Conservancy - High Quality" environment is to protect e�sting
ecological functions where they occur in high quality environments, while allowing very limited
compatible uses. High quality environments are those that include intact or minimally degraded
shoreline functions sensitive to human use. These areas require that only very low intensity uses
be allowed in order to maintain e�sting ecological functions.
Desi�nation Criteria
Assign an "Urban Conservancy — High Quality" environment designation to shoreline areas that
were identified in the Inventory as conservation. UGHQ environments are intended to provide
protection for high quality environments exhibiting significant habitat diversity. These areas are
come close to meeting the State's "Natural" designation but due to e�sting development impacts
do not meet all the criteria to classify them as "Natural". These areas are appropriate for limited
low impact public uses and for restoration activities. This designation generally impacts public
lands- Only three locations are located on private property.
An "Urban Conservancy- High Quality" environment designation is assigned to shoreline areas if
any of the following characteristics apply:
(A) The shoreline is ecologically intact and is performing important, shoreline functions or
ecosystem-wide process that would be damaged by human activity;
(B) The shoreline is considered to represent ecosystems and geologic types that are of particular
scientific and educational interest or
(C) The shoreline is unable to support new development or uses without significant adverse
impacts to ecological functions or risk to human safety, with the exception of the Centennial
Trail and other existing low impact public uses.
Ecologically intact shorelines can include large reaches covering multiple properties to small
areas located within a single property, and as used here, means those shoreline areas that retain
the majority of their natural shoreline functions, as evidenced by the shoreline configuration and
the presence of native vegetation. Generally,but not necessarily, ecologically intact shorelines are
free of structural shoreline modifications, structures, and intensive human uses.
Management Policies
(A) Any use that would substantially degrade the ecological functions or natural character
of the shoreline area should not be allowed.
(B) The following new uses should not be allowed:
• Commercial uses.
� 2
City of Spokane Valley
Shoreline Master Program
Environment Designations
• Industrial uses.
• Nonwater-oriented recreation. (Note: This does not preclude development
associated with the Centennial Trail.and other limited low impact public uses)
• Roads, utility corridors, and parking areas that can be located outside of UC-HQ
designated shorelines.
(C) Single family residential development shall be allowed within this environment if the density
and intensity of such use is limited to protect ecological functions and be consistent with the
purpose of the environment.
(D) Scienti�c, historical, cultural, educational research uses, and low-intensity water-oriented
recreational access uses may be allowed provided that no signi�cant ecological impact on the
area will result.
(E) New development or significant vegetation removal that would reduce the capability of
vegetation to perform normal ecological functions should not be allowed. Do not allow the
subdivision of property in a configuration that, to achieve its intended purpose, will require
significant vegetation removal or shoreline modification that adversely impacts ecological
functions.
Urban Conservancy Environment (UC)
Purpose
The purpose of the "Urban Conservancy" environment is to protect and restore ecological
functions of open space, floodplain and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and
developed settings, while allowing for compatible uses, including appropriate public access and
recreational uses.
Designation Criteria
Assign an "Urban Conservancy" environment designation to shoreline areas appropriate and
planned for development that is compatible with maintaining or restoring the ecological functions
of the area and that are not generally suitable for water-dependent uses if any of the following
characteristics apply:
(A) They are suitable for water-related or water-enjoyment uses;
(B) They are open space, flood plain or other sensitive areas that should not be intensively
developed;
(C) They have potential for ecological restoration;
(D) They retain important ecological functions, even though partially developed; or
(E) They have the potential for development that is compatible with ecological restoration.
(F) Areas within shoreline jurisdiction that are not mapped and /or designated are automatically
assigned as "urban conservancy" until the shoreline can be redesignated through a master
program amendment.
� 3
City of Spokane Valley
Shoreline Master Program
Environment Designations
In the COSV, the Urban Conservancy Environment is located along much of the river with the
exception of areas that are either designated as UGHQ or as Shoreline Residential. As shown in
the inventory much of the near shoreline (riparian) areas are owned by the state and managed by
State Parks. Many upland areas in this designation are privately owned large tracts.
Management Policies
(A) Uses that preserve the natural character of the area or promote preservation of open space,
floodplain or sensitive lands either directly or over the long term should be the primary
allowed uses. Uses that result in restoration of ecological functions should be allowed if the
use is otherwise compatible with the purpose of the environment and the setting.
(B) Standards should be established for shoreline stabilization measures, vegetation conservation,
water quality, and shoreline modifications within the "urban conservancy" designation. These
standards shall ensure that new development does not result in a net loss of shoreline
ecological functions or further degrade other shoreline values.
(C) Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented whenever feasible and
significant ecological impacts can be mitigated.
(D) Water-oriented uses should be given priority over non-water oriented uses.
Shoreline Residential Environment(SR)
Purpose
The purpose of the "shoreline residential" environment is to accommodate residential uses.
Designation Criteria
Assign a "shoreline residential" environment designation to shoreline areas if they are
predominantly single-family or multifamily residential development or are planned and platted
for residential development. An exception is that high quality areas identified in the 2010
Inventory will be designated as UGHQ.
Within the City of Spokane Valley, areas that have existing residential uses including Orchard
Avenue, the Greenacres neighborhood, the Coyote Rocks development and Shelley Lake.
Mana�ement Policies (State SMP Guidelines)
(A) Standards for density or minimum frontage width, buffers and setbacks, lot coverage
limitations, shoreline stabilization, vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water
quality shall be set to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, taking into account
the environmental limitations and sensitivity of the shoreline area, the level of infrastructure
and services available, e�sting zoning and other comprehensive planning considerations.
(B) Multifamily and multi-lot residential and recreational developments should provide public
access and joint use for community recreational facilities unless appropriate public access is
available as determined by a Public Access Plan.
(C) Access, utilities, and public services should be available and adequate to serve existing needs
and/or planned future development.
� 4
City of Spokane Valley
Shoreline Master Program
Environment Designations
(D) Management policies for public lands within this designation should include balancing
conservation,recreation and access needs for the adjacent residential areas.
� 5
City of Spokane Valley
Shoreline Master Program
Environment Designations
3.0 Background—Existing City of Spokane Valley Environmental Designations
Most of the Spokane River shorelines have an existing SED of Pastoral. There are four areas
within the City that due to existing uses have been designated as Conservancy. Two of these
areas are associated with railroads, the other two are Sullivan Park and Mirabeau Park.
Shorelines in the Orchard Avenue area are designated as Urban. The shorelines around Shelley
Lake are designated entirely as Conservancy. The gravel pits were not designated in the current
Shoreline Master Program, though the Sullivan Road gra�e pit has a shoreline permit.
The Pastoral and Conservancy designations are both protective of the natural environment and
limit many uses. A description of each of the current environmental designations is provided
below as well as a summary of some of the relevant Goals and Policies contained in Chapter 8 of
the City Comprehensive Plan.
The Pastoral Area Desi�nation
The Pastoral area is intended to protect and maintain those shorelines which have historically
been subject to limited human interference and have preserved their natural quality as wildlife
habitat and places of scenic beauty. These areas are appropriate for passive agricultural and
recreational uses. Areas most appropriate are: 1) open spaces used for livestock grazing and
harvesting of non-cultivated crops; 2) shorelines which have physical limitations which would
preclude permanent structures, such as floodplains, meandering stream ways, cliffs, and steep
slope areas subject to landslides; and 3) wildlife habitats and areas of beauty whose ecological
systems will only tolerate limited human interference. Because the areas are not suited for
permanent structures, they are valued wildlife areas which provide for grazing and "wild hay" for
dispersed-use outdoor recreation. Management of the area should be designed to prevent the loss
or reduction of the wetland area and to restrict development from hazardous areas.
The Conservancy Area Desi�nation
The Conservancy Area is designated in Spokane Valley for the purpose of maintaining the
existing character of shoreline resources while providing for non-intensive uses. Those uses that
are preferred in the Conservancy Area are those which may utilize the natural resources on a
sustained-yield basis. These uses include passive agricultural activity, timber harvesting on a
sustained yield basis, and diffuse outdoor recreation. The Conservancy Area is designated to
protect agricultural land from encroachment by urban uses while providing for recreation
wherever recreation will not interfere with agricultural practices. Nonpermanent kinds of
structures and uses which will not reduce the quantity or quality of the physical and biological
resources of the area are to be given priority in the Conservancy Area.
The Conservancy Area is intended to prohibit intensive use of areas having physical hazards,
severe biophysical limitations which would not be appropriate for rural or urban uses, areas prone
to flooding, and areas which cannot provide adequate water supply or sewage disposal for
intensive activities.
The Urban Area Desi n� ation
The Urban Area designation is intended to accommodate compatible water-dependent and water-
oriented uses in shoreline areas. The Urban Area is to be managed so that shoreline developments
will enhance and maintain the shoreline for a multiplicity of uses. The Urban Area is designated
in Spokane Valley to encourage the redevelopment of existing urban areas and to control the
expansion of urban uses in characteristically rural areas of the County. Those urban uses which
� 6
City of Spokane Valley
Shoreline Master Program
Environment Designations
are water-dependent and can provide visual and/or safe access to the waterfront are to be given
priority for shoreline locations.
� 7
.�z� � °'�� >� � a� �4 � `� w a :: u �,x. ��� . � .
�� � �. i' � . � . �_��
� '�, �,`.� '� � � � �s.�.x .,d.�t.� ° � ,�a
�
�
',g } ' s .,� `�: f i P �@Q � -. �q
�• z ; � r � .�a"
�RpR � . ��?, � �� �, . . . � � . i
� I
w _. �� � - 'P �;, � f . , �� 'A
�'� ` .__ ; _ - . . 4
� .x� +� y� �i f� S � �e'l� �
��- " ��� �;��� . �._ � r � � ��y� � r �,
� � � , r � 's
�1' ,F?"` , 2� �� . - � o
,��'*-� �p� d ay � �`'�N,+ V � .. i� � � � � ��� -
!
..�ya a,i�' ,� \�'.\ � � i i , _"``i— � i T,
� � � , �
<, s ,� _ " o , � �t i� � ,
f L, i
� " K re I d I � �*
z , . � , <i I
�
� � i � ' � � �r � ` $ �
�
s �K.,�� +t x w. \� . ,_:�"=,�_.��. >. �; 4 �
� � EICLIDA � EUCLIDAV
. � . .� � � � .':
_ �� ' . �v � y ��ti� {�/ i �� �'��..i y �� ' �.. � I:.,e �
; ,�<� + ';' �°�*�s ��' � � �� Lr3�r' .. €' ,� �I ,�Ea' >rp J � £oaimnU �s� ( '(�- 1�i�� �
�,5�� i`� �4 :w s�` f?r� �'^,�� ' _..� ._ .._ -`.� � . s { � i
-;� ;r r � d',° � ��' � s-�^g�"�. � � � ( I �� � ����,L� �' � �i
�9�or���avM�'� i a�"�u��a x� � �• � �- � e,-_�� � � :9 ` :
�•
� f � �i f'�`` � �.�—� �q ;I" � � �
� � � ` �
�� r ,' •. �x � s � �� . A�—�� ,,: � j � i , .,
� ��° , �� � \ y � � j
r ° _
�
' , , �� �. ��'✓ � �Z �3 i ' }F'^—���\.'. ' v IK ��` ,�'` °cA�"�'"
t ..
+
r:�x r�ai, � I I - �.Y :��r c 1 C' :�� ��➢ � �� . � + �,.
� �
.' � � 4 1 � 1 '� INDIANAAV� � �
,� , _� �i�..,.'� � in<ersaaa so i a rseAl so! r I;i � .'� ._ t -�.�1 ��F\�§'4 d,. � ! � !.. ;,r E , e u,, �, .; *�:
f
�
�3 �_�� �i � `�efi �g�ywq�`; 7 .i I�.c ''. y��s �� ,' �� , � �� Y' : �' r ,
, �� j �� � �� /;�/ , ` �
� ` � �
- :� ;� '- � b �n�ss�Hdu � � �'�{`..s r ,�,� . r �_/ . c �z m���U�au v :� e
4 � r i ;t c l.r t, + �r�� � � t r „'��� , "`�sbi s � ��� e'
LL
, "�, r� �: s f I ��� I ���� ��f '� ��' .r-°�''`"'��`ar.� „�, � � _
, i
. , �( � i 4 N . � � t � f� f
. � �� I
�r e�� �t� II � x '� i�. .P�. .�� 4 . .
}? - � ;�#�#'��t�i�,�a��� �r r ,`� � �; �. �� d`i i , � ' � `
� *� 5: �d �° s` �" n 1 � � z t
'`a � ���t�f j . ��'' °a.�.,� �a*r 1� c�e +.a �ROar�v�uaY �r. � � �-�^r ��
1�L r � '"°�:,...: .� r .s�`` I �` E �� '"� �
� Y'ffi..F .' � P � 2 ^ r'r��.r< �F s r,f j:, �
�x7
..f: $ _ ..., ..
v�v �' ,�;i� �' '6 �t'�. }.'. .��. � - � .
� � r �����.a���;�^ � w�� �r z 'tm��`�vwavav a.����k{�Ak+4E'm�au , t � �
Orchard Avenue r � t ') � � � a � � W s
�?'. t� 1' i� �r � � .." a ,�". ��� � 3F °
P x � $
#� �' -ha7 i ,F,.. �7`'.�� r ��'!4,�v, r - � •. a � . - _ c
= i - - � - ' �•_
� 7 �..
� . -
o- °�.Y ... .ri.,:i» Y ,. . _'�r -"^ ` �. , '- . � ' �e,�� I' Shelley Lake ' . . .
.�.� ,.. � ,-` -1.. ...'� i.. ' �- '�t .,' �` r�.�� I- � I. . ...__ h t,.'
� - - .� � Y �I ' �� __
. . . '_ ,,, . �,
� � . „
._,, .' , � ;�.
_ .
.
.,,.:. .c ^° ° .� _ � - .
. .. .- .��... , _�� , ,, _ _,._,�. , ._ r�.+_� . .;"'. �__ ;` _ . � ..'.. r_ `.:i
� , � . �._.- .:.
�;, - -.,- ' _. , .�
... ,��. :�._
N DraftEuairoumeut
Environment Designation Category °eS�°s"°°"s„
-Shoreline Residential
----�CentennialTrail ---���
I
�Urban Conservancy Parcels
�Cit of S okane Valle ' ° sno e�ne Masreraroy u c r
�Urban Conservancy-High Quality j„_„_ Y P Y 9ram p a es
Augustl5,2012
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
DRAFT 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 since 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 07-14-12 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 the 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 until all those who have signed in have
had an opportunity to speak. At any public hearing,persons who have signed in and wish to
be heard 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 proxy shall be allowed.
Mr. Carroll's concern was if there was not a complete Commission in attendance it could
give more weight to a negative vote. Mr. Driskell 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 the Chair's absence, to the 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 Ciry's Governance Manual, which talks about Ciry Council liaisons for
committees. Mr. Driskell said if one reads the language it states a City Council member
attends a committee and then comes back and reports to the City 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
personal interpretation of what happened at the meeting, which could be different from the
Planning Commission Minutes 07-14-12 Page 2 of ll
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
party 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 Ciry 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. Driskell 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 well. 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 minoriry 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 07-14-12 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 perceived conflict of interest, then the Commission member should
be allowed to recuse or withdraw fi^om that deliberation.
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 `will' "...then the Commission
member 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 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. If a discovery or
determination of a conflict is made during a Commission meeting the Commission member shall
publicly 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 define 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:
Missing three or more consecutive regularly scheduled meetings or study sessions
without such absences being excused by the Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes 07-14-12 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 the reason for such absence, and inquire if
there 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, after
roll call by the Secretary, 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 would 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 th�e 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 07-14-12 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,bodv and fender works: Proposed as an allowed
use with conditions in the Community Commercial aone. 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 that 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.
Brewery, 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 zones have significant vacancies
and would be appropriate for this type of use. Other uses already permitted 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 size and do not generate traffic or noise in amounts that
would be disruptive to the adj acent 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 Heavy Industrial zones.
Church,tem�le, mosque, syna��ue and�arsona�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 zones.
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 zone. 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 07-14-12 Page 6 of ll
Exercise facilit��ym/athletic club: Proposed as an allowed use in the Office zone. Small scale
�tness 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. S�p. 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 located,would need the 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.
Of�ce & Computer 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�raphic Studio: 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.
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 07-14-12 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 taking 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 County 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 07-14-12 Page 8 of ll
similar uses in the viciniry 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 at 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 week, 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 faciliry. Ms. Moore stated she felt there was a huge
demand for this type of facility and it should be a viable facility, 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 facility 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 faciliry:
• 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 07-14-12 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 Ciry
compares to the City of Spokane and Spokane County. Mr. Hohman said he would like the
time to do some research.
Commissioner Stoy, Hall and Bates all 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 weekends 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 type of facility 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.
XL ADJOURNMENT
Planning Commission Minutes 07-14-12 Page 10 of ll
The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m.
Bill Bates, Chairperson
Deanna Griffith, PC Secretary �
Date signed
Planning Commission Minutes 07-14-12 Page ll of ll
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
DRAFT 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.
III. 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
Ciry 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 City Council but was moving forward to with a developer's agreement.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Unfinished Business:
1. Proposed amendments to the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure:
Planning Commission Minutes 07-26-12 Page 1 of ll
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 final 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 th�e next Commission meeting after the Commission member discovers the conflict. If a
discovery or determination of a conflict is made during a Commission meeting th�e
Commission member shall publicly disclose the co�flict 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:
If a member is absent, after roll call by the Secretary, th�e Chair sh�all 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 wh�ich the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine
applies, the Chair (or in the 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 themselves pursuant to the Appearance of Fairness Doctri�e. The
form of the announcement shall be as follows:
All Commission members shoizld now give consideration as to whether they have:
1. A demonstrated 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. Had 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 information on
how to proceed where there has been an ex parte commzinication.
If a�y 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 Docti^ine 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
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.
Planning Commission Minutes 07-26-12 Page 2 of ll
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.
S. 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 type of facility
would generally not locate around a residential area.
Commissioner Beaulac asked if this amendment were approved, would it prohibit some
kind of hazardous use locating next to the recreational facility. 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
Planning Commission Minutes 07-26-12 Page 3 of ll
Kuhta said the recreational facility could be conditioned so if a hazardous use moved in
next door the recreational facility 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
City incorporation. Staff responded that they were in place prior to incorporation. Mr.
Bates further asked if they are certified and permitted by the 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 Ciry 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 Densiry Residential
areas.
Commissioner Bates commented he felt �here 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:
•Spokane 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 Density 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.
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
Planning Commission Minutes 07-26-12 Page 4 of ll
the two crematories located in the Ciry 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 blocks 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 staffs 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. Th�e proposed site must not be located adjacent to potentially hazardous land uses, such
as petroleum 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.
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
Planning Commission Minutes 07-26-12 Page 5 of ll
move. Mr. Kuhta said another condition could be added to require the facility 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 faciliry 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 back to a CUP. Staff responded yes, it would.
Commissioner Stoy asked 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 know this before investing. Staff answered yes.
Commissioner Hall asked if this amendment fell into line with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff answered the Ciry 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:
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.
Planning Commission Minutes 07-26-12 Page 6 of ll
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 asked 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 City,
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.
Commissioner Stoy read the rules to the public hearing.
John Pederson, 1116 West Broadway: Mr. Pederson stated he is the Planning Manager
for Spokane Counry and he was the applicant for the proposal. Mr. Pederson stated the
Counry would like to propose the animal shelters be a permitted use, with conditions. The
Planning Commission Minutes 07-26-12 Page 7 of ll
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 lcennel activity 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 communities. Mr. Pederson
pointed out the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated Land Use
Policy 9.2 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 o£ Mr. Pederson
continued that this text amendment fits the zoning district and if the Commission was
concerned about compatibiliry 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 County did a
thorough analysis of where to move the SCRAPS facility Mr. Mielke commented this
amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 9.2 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 facility. 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
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
Planning Commission Minutes 07-26-12 Page 8 of ll
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 would 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 crematorium. Then there is Spokanimal, plus a number of animal rescue
groups which operate in the area. Mr. Mielke commented SCRAPS 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 them 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 County 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
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.
Planning Commission Minutes 07-26-12 Page 9 of ll
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 like 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 like 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 staf£ Mr. Kuhta stated staff has a very long list of amendments which have prioriry 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.
XL ADJOURNMENT
The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m.
Bill Bates, Chairperson
Planning Commission Minutes 07-26-12 Page 10 of ll
Deanna Griffith, PC Secretary
Date signed
Planning Commission Minutes 07-26-12 Page ll of ll
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
DRAFT Minutes
Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
August 9, 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
70HN G. CARROLL,ABSENT SCOTT KUHTA,PLANNING MANAGER
RUSTIN HALL CHRISTINA JANSSEN,ASSISTANT PLANNER
ROD HIGGINS KAREN KENDALL,ASSISTANT PLANNER
STEVEN NEILL
FRED BEAULAC
70E STOY—VICE CHAIR CARI HINSHAW,OFFICE ASSISTANT
Commissioner Carroll was excused from the August 8, 2012 meeting with no objections.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Higgins made a motion to approve the August 8, 2012 agenda as presented.
This motion was passed unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Hall stated he could not vote on the June 14, 2012 minutes due to being absent.
Commissioner Stoy made a motion to approve the June 14, 2012 and June 28, 2012 minutes as
presented. This motion for June 14, 2012 was six in favor and 1 absentee. Minutes for June 28,
2012 were passed unanimously.
VL PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
VIL COMMISSION REPORTS
Commissioners had nothing to report.
VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Planning Manager Kuhta discussed items on the advanced agenda, which include a study
session for the Shoreline Environment Designations on August 23rd� He stated there will be an
open house somewhere in-between August 23rd and 28th followed by a public hearing in
September. Mr. Kuhta spoke about upcoming issues, which include multifamily regulations
Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 2
and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process. In October, 2012 the Commission will review
Residential Development Standards in Mixed Use Zones, Accessory Dwelling Units and RV's
in CommerciaUMixed Use Areas.
Planning Manager Kuhta also wanted to add at a previous meeting he made a mistake in telling
the Planning Commission that there was no need to read the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine
announcement from the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure at the beginning of a public
hearing when they are considering text amendments to zoning regulations. Mr. Kuhta stated
that Planning Commissioners certainly could benefit personally from a zoning code text
amendment and they should keep that in mind when considering future amendments.
Therefore this piece should be considered being read at the beginning of those public hearings
as well.
COMMISSION BUSINESS � `
A. Unfinished Business:
1. Commissioner Hall made a motion to approve the Findings for CTA-02-12, Proposed
Amendments to 19.120 Permitted Use Matrix. The fnotion was passed unanimously.
2. Commissioner Neill made a motion to approve the Findings for CTA-01-12, Proposed
Amendments to 19120 Allowing animal shelters in the Corridor Mixed Use Zone. The
motion was passed unanimously.
B. New Business:
There was no new business. ��
�
IX. GOOD OF THE ORDER
There was nothing for the good of the order.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
� � �
Bill Bates, Chairperson
Deanna Griffith, PC Secretary
Date signed
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2