Agenda 12/13/2012 S�'TYol�ane
p
Valle �
Y
Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
December 13, 2012 6:00 p.m.
L CALL TO ORDER
IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IIL ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 8, 2012
VL PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda
VIL COMMISSION REPORTS
VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
a. FIN�INGS—CTA-04-12
2. NEW BUSINESS:
a. DlscussloN—Dwelling units in shops
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
XL ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF
BILL BATES -CHAIR 70HN HOHMAN,CD DIRECTOR
FRED BEAULAC SCOTT KUHTA,PLANNING MGR,AICP
JOHN G.CARROLL
RUSTIN HALL
RoD HIGGINs
STEVEN NEILL DEANNA GRIFFITH,SECRETARY
70E STOY-VICE CHAIR WWW.SPOKANEVALLEY.ORG
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: December 13, 2012
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent � old business ❑ new business
❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin.report � pending legislation
FILE NUMBER: CTA-04-12
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Findings and Recommendation — Amendment to the Spokane Valley
Municipal Code
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A city initiated text amendment to amend Spokane Valley
Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40, 19.60, and 19.70 to clarify home occupations in nonresidential zones;
clarify Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) in nonresidential zones; clarify Recreational Vehicle (RV) use
in nonresidential zones; establish residential development standards in nonresidential zones; allow "used"
manufactured homes in manufactured home subdivisions.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A106; SVMC 17.80150 and 19.30.040
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: The Planning Commission conducted a study session October 25,
2012 and a public hearing on November 8, 2012 to consider the amendment. Following public testimony
and deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to approve the proposed code text amendment.
BACKGROUND: The proposed amendment seeks to clarify the following areas in the SVMC:
Home occupations in the mixed use, commercial and industrial zones;
Accessory Dwelling Units in the mixed use, commercial and industrial zones;
Recreational Vehicles in the mixed use, commercial and industrial zones;
Residential development standards in the Mixed Use Center and Corridor Mixed Use zones;
Manufactured homes in manufactured home subdivisions.
Draft amendment language to SVMC 19.40, SVMC 19.60 and SVMC 19.70 has been included in
Attachment B of the Request for Planning Commission Action(RPCA).
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Planning Commission Findings and
Recommendation to City Council.
STAFF CONTACT:
Martin J. Palaniuk, Planning Technician
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Planning Commission's Findings and Recommendations
B. Planning Commission's Recommended Code Text Language
CTA-04-12 RPCA(Findings and Recommendation) Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT A
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
December 13,2012
The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision to recommend approval.
Background:
1. Spokane Valley development regulations were adopted in September 2007 and became effective on
October 28, 2007.
2. The city-initiated code text amendment proposes to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
19.40120, 19.40140, 19.60.010, 19.70.010, and 19.70.020 in order to clarify home occupations in
nonresidential zones; clarify Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) in nonresidential zones; clarify
Recreational Vehicle (RV) use in nonresidential zones; establish residential development standards in
nonresidential zones; establish standards for manufactured homes in manufactured home
subdivisions. .
3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 8, 2012 and voted 5-0 to recommend
approval of the amendment to City Council.
Planning Commission Findings:
1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150F Approval Criteria
a. The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of
the Comprehensive Plan;
Finding(s):
i. Land Use Goal LUG-9: Encourage the development of Mixed-use areas that foster
community identity and are designed to support pedestrian,bicycle and regional transit.
ii. Land Use Policy LUP-9.2: The mix of land uses allowed in either the Corridor Mixed-use or
Mixed-use Center designation should include:
• A full range of retail goods and services including grocery stores, theaters/entertainment,
restaurants,personal services and specialty shops;
• Public/quasi-public uses
• Commercial uses that require large land uses but have low employment density and are
auto-dependent, such as lumber yards, plant nurseries, warehouses and auto dealerships,
should be prohibited from either Mixed-use category.
iii. Housing Goal HG-1: Encourage diversity in design to meet the housing needs of the residents
of the community and region.
iv. Housing Policy HP-11: Consider the economic impact of development regulations on the
cost of housing.
v. Housing Policy HP-12: Streamline the development review process and strive to eliminate
unnecessary time delays and expenses.
vi. Housing Policy HP-13: Establish development regulations and incentives for greater
diversity of housing types, costs and designs, that may include bonus incentives, clustering,
and transfer of development rights.
vii. Housing Policy HP-1.4: Encourage mixed-use residentiaUcommercial development in
designated areas throughout the City with the use of developer incentives and design
standards.
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
viii. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers fle�bility,
consistency,predictability and clear direction.
ix. Economic Policy EDP-7.: Evaluate, monitor and improve development standards to promote
compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they
are equitable, cost-effective, and expeditious.
x. Economic Policy EDP-72: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity,
consistency and predictability.
xi. Neighborhood Goal NG-2: Preserve and protect the character of Spokane Valley's residential
neighborhoods.
xii. Neighborhood Policy NP-21: Maintain and protect the character of e�sting and future
residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use
regulations and j oint planning.
xiii. Neighborhood Policy NP-22: Review and revise as necessary, e�sting land use regulations to
provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory
dwelling units, and in-�11 development.
b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection
of the environment.
Finding(s):
i. Allowing used manufactured homes to be placed in manufactured home subdivisions will
increase affordable housing options. Consistency with the type and size of predominant
homes found in the subdivision would be preferred.
ii. Home occupations are permitted in any legally established dwelling in all residential zones.
Allowing a home occupation to occur in a legally permitted residence regardless of the zone
provides residents with flexibility in housing decisions and provides a use normally
associated with a dwelling.
iii. MUC and CMU zones permit residential development. Establishing residential development
standards for these zones will provide regulatory consistency and certainty for future
development.
iv. Accessory Dwelling Units are permitted as an accessory use to a single-family residence.
Allowing ADUs in CMU and MUC zones will provide property owners with increased
housing options and may result in more affordable housing.
v. Temporary RV use is permitted in all residential zones. RVs are typically used in residential
areas when visiting family or friends. Allowing temporary RV use at any residence
regardless of zone will provide flexibility and consistency to residents.
vi. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment are furthered by
ensuring that the City's development regulations are consistent with goals and policies in the
adopted Comprehensive Plan.
2. Conclusion(s):
a. The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted
Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80150F.
b. The Growth Management Act (GMA) stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and
development regulations shall be subj ect to continuing review and evaluation by the City.
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 2 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
Recommendations:
The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends City Council adopt the proposed city-
initiated code text amendments to SVMC 19.40.120, 19.40.140, 19.60.010, 19.70.010, and 19.70.020 as
attached.
Approved this 13te day of December,2012
Bill Bates, Chairman
ATTEST
Deanna Griffith,Administrative Assistant
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 3 of 3
Community Development
S�pokane
Vall��� 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 Fax: 509.921.1008 permitcenter@spokanevalley.org
To: Planning Commission
From: Lori Barlow,AICP,Senior Planner
Date: November 27,2012
Re: Residential Accessory Uses and Structures
Planning staff has noticed an increased trend in building permit applications for oversized shops with a
small dwelling located internal to the structure. Due to the larger area dedicated to the shop, rather
than the residence, the primary use is emphasized as the shop. As these structures are being
constructed it is apparent that they are not all compatible with typical residential character. This is
evident when the design of the building emphasizes the shop function with overhead doors, lack of
man doors and living space windows, as well as the overall bulk of the building. In order to address
the incompatibilities staff has made the interpretation that the primary use allowed, which is the
dwelling, must consume the largest area within the structure in order to be consistent with the intent of
the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) and protect the character of the neighborhood.
The discussion below identifies the factors that were considered in this interpretation. At this time
staff would like to discuss this matter with the Planning Commission and determine if the Commission
agrees with the interpretation. If so a code text amendment may be proposed to clarify this position in
the SVMC. The following discussion will highlight the issues to assist you with determining if a
code text change should be processed.
The SVMC does not contain a definition that specifically relates to this type of structure. At this time
staff has been extrapolating from the SVMC definitions of Accessoryi, Dwelling Unit�, Principal
Structure3, and Principal Use4. Over the years two interpretations have been applied to this land use.
The first interpretation required that the living portion of the structure utilize not less than 51% of the
structure area in order to be considered the "principal"use, rather than "subordinate to, that of the main
building." The second interpretation allowed the shop portion of the structure without relational limits
i Accessorv: A building, area,part of a building, structure or use which is subordinate to, and the use
of which is incidental to, that of the main building, structure or use on the same lot.
�Dwellin�Unit: One or more rooms, designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living
quarters, with an individual entrance, cooking, sleeping and sanitary facilities for the exclusive use of
one family maintaining a household.
3 Principal structure: The principal building or other structure on a lot or building site designed or
used to accommodate the primary use to which the premises are devoted.
4 Principal use: The predominant use to which the lot or property is or may be devoted and to which
all other uses are accessory.
Page 1
to the dwelling, but instead required that the portion dedicated to a dwelling must meet the definition
of"Dwelling Unit", with cooking, sleeping and sanitary facilities, and provide a minimum of 300
square feet to meet the IBC requirement. Utilizing the second interpretation these predominantly shop
structures have been built that are inconsistent with the character of a typical single family residential
neighborhood in that the structure takes on the appearance of a garage, utilizing the maximum lot
coverage and height limits allowed in the residential zone. See Figure 1.
The first interpretation considers the current definitions of � � �
"Accessory" and "Principal Use" and assumes that they provide ,
the regulatory means to require that the dwelling portion be at ---�
least equal to or greater than 51% of the area of the structure in ,� �� ����
order to "preserve the character of existing development" •;�� � ' ��r.
x �,�.� �
consistent with the intent of the residential zones5. Accessory - �` �' �r�.� `�
�.► a �! �'•� -,�
structures are not allowed unless a primary use exists on the site. __.
The Accessory definition emphasizes that accessory is - - =__,- -. � _ � -
"subordinate" to and"incidental" to the main building, structure �
or use. The Principal Use definition stipulates that this use must
be "predominant" and all other uses are "accessory". The �.bu��e i st►op u��ae�•const�•u�t�on
definition of subordinate is "to place in a subordinate position; _, _
treat as less important or inferior(to);6 the definition of
incidental is "secondary or minor, but usually associated"; ' and -�----
last the definition of predominant is "having superior strength, ��� .
influence, or authority". Applying the intent to the issue, which � �� �� � � '����
is how much of the structure must be dedicated to a residential a ���� � ��°
use, supports the conclusion that the residence must be the ' _� ��� _ .�'`��
primary use, and that the shop must be a secondary use that is ���'�� � ���`� � � �lu����'� i��� ��� �
minor in comparison relative to size. A code text amendment - - - -
could clarify what ratio applies.
Adjacent jurisdictions were contacted to determine how these ��'
structures were regulated. The City of Spokane applies the definition of Primary Structure,g and while
a variety of conditions are considered comparing the size, implying the larger of the size, is the first
criteria. The City of Liberty Lake does not regulate the size of the shop in comparison to the dwelling,
but has design standards in place which insure that the structure is compatible with the residential
character of the neighborhood. Standards regulate the garage design, size, and ratio to residence.
Further regulations prohibit garage dominated houses in new development. To date, I have not spoken
directly with Spokane County, but have exchanged voice messages regarding their regulations. It
appears that they treat shops with a residence as accessory structures with maximum limits of 800 sq.
ft. for the dwelling. However, this could be further explored.
s SVMC 19.40.030, - 19.40.060. The language "preserve the character of existing development"is
stated in each of the single family residential district zone as the intent.
6 Source: Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
' Source: Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
g City of Spokane Definition: Primary Structure.
1. A structure or combination of structures of chief importance or function on a site. In
general, the primary use of the site is carried out in a primary structure.
2. The difference between a primary and accessory structure is determined by comparing
the size,placement, similarity of design, use of common building materials, and the
orientation of the structures on a site.
Page 2
If a code text amendment is considered to clarify the ratio of residence to shop as discussed above,
than other indirect issues should be considered related to accessory structures that include height limits
and setbacks. A code text amendment would be required if changes were determined necessary.
The current code does not regulate the height of accessory structures differently than the height of
primary structures in single family residential zones. For example a home and accessory building can
be built to a height of 35'. Generally this height will accommodate a 2 story structure with an
extremely high pitched roo£ Additionally, accessory structures may be placed within 5' of the rear
and side yard setback, while primary structures must be a minimum of 20' from the rear yard in order
to provide for privacy, light, and circulation in adjacent back yards. Liberty Lake limits the height of
accessory structures such that they may not exceed the height of the primary structure. Spokane
County limits the height to 24' and the City of Spokane's maximum height limit is 20'. However, if
the accessory structure contains an Accessory Dwelling Unit above an accessory structure may be built
to a height of 23'.
Height limits and size parameters are intended to maintain the scale of the residence to the accessory
uses. In urbanized areas the neighborhood character emphases the residence, as opposed to rural areas
where utilitarian structures larger than the home are common, such as barns, or shops for equipment
storage.
Setbacks are also of concern. Recently the
issue has been brought to the attention of
Council through two Comprehensive Plan /�
Amendment requests that involved rezoning / ��
properties to allow Multi-family �
development adjacent to single-family �,,�;� �� � �
development. The issue made apparent was _-� ������� , '� - _� � -
� � � ,. _-�,.. .� b .. � R
the incompatibility of a three story structure �� ;� � ltilini�""�
within 10' of the rear yard of a single family � �`� �� �• I_ _ `,�`' � � -,�
�, ��
dwelling. Currently the COSV code allows — - � '� � ��
. — . __ -
detached accessory structures to be placed - � - �� � -� �
within 5' of the rear and side yard. An �� �
accessory structure built to a 35' height limit � �
within 5' of the rear property line creates the
1riC0ffipatlblllly 1SSUeS 1ffeCtlrig pI1V1Cy, llg�lt Figui•e 2 - Large Accessorp Shop within 5' of Side and Rear Property
and circulation. One solution is to establish L111e
height limits specific to accessory structures
that prevent a structure from overlooking into another's back yard, or requiring taller structures to meet
the same rear yard setbacks as that of the primary structure.
Staff will discuss the interpretation applied to residential shops with an accessory dwelling to
determine if the Commission would like to proceed with a code text amendment and determine if
setbacks and height limits for accessory structures should be included in the proposal.
Page 3
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
DRAFT Minutes
Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
November 8, 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 Present Absent CITY STAFF
Bill Bates -Chair � � Scott Kuhta,Planning manager
John G. Carroll � �— Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Rustin Hall �— � Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Rod Higgins � � Marty Palaniuk, Planner
Steven Neill �� �--
Fred Beaulac � �
Joe Stoy—Vice Chair � � Deanna Grif�th, secretary
Hearing no objection, Commissioners Hall and Stoy were excused.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Higgins moved to approve the revised agenda as presented. This motion was
approved unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The October 25th minutes will be amended to reflect Commissioner Stoy was present. The
motion was approved unanimously to accept the October 11, 2012 as presented and the
October 25, 2012 minutes as amended.
VL PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
VIL COMMISSION REPORTS
The Commissioners had nothing to report
Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 5
VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Planning Manager Kuhta shared the City hosted planning students visiting from Australia.
Commissioner Carroll asked if there had been any feedback from Spokane County regarding
the siting process on the new Spokane county jail. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb reported
he was aware the process had begun again but did not have any details. Mr. Lamb stated he
would get an update and send it to the Commissioners.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Unfinished Business:
1. Findings for CTA-03-12 — Setbacks for multifamily development when adjacent to
single family development.
Planning Manager Kuhta stated the Planning Commission had been sent the findings
for CTA-03-12 via email previously. Commissioner Bates stated he had spoken to Mr.
Basinger regarding a typo in the transmitted copies. Mr. Kuhta responded the error had
been corrected and the Chair had a corrected copy in front of him.
Commissioner Neill moved the Planning Commission accept the findings and fonvard
them to the City Council.
Commissioner Beaulac asked if the changes in CTA-04-12 were compatible with the
setbacks in the CTA-04-12, a batch of code amendment being presented in the public
hearing later in the agenda. Mr. Kuhta said the CTA-03-12 addresses the setbacks
when multifamily is adjacent to single family residential development and CTA-04-12
is addressing single family setbacks in Mixed Use zones.
The vote on the fnotion is unanimous in favor, motion passes.
2. Deliberations on the Shoreline Master Program Restoration Plan—
Senior Planner Lori Barlow refreshed the Commission on the process to-date regarding
the Shoreline Master Program's Restoration Plan. Commissioners Bates and Carroll
asked questions regarding how restoration opportunities were added and subtracted
from the plan and the dates in the timeline. Ms. Barlow explained:
• The restoration opportunities were gleaned from the Inventory Report.
• Items will be subtracted from the Plan when the opportunities to fulfill a restoration
project become available.
• The timeline dates will be adjusted to fit at the final adoption of the Plan
• Items cannot be added to the Plan without doing an additional Inventory report,
which would not be done any time in the near future.
Ms. Barlow also explained restoration projects would be handled differently than a
project which would happen because of an emergency based on a natural disaster.
Commissioner Beaulac moved the Shoreline Master Program Restoration Plan be
accepted as presented and forwarded to City Council for approval. This motion was
passed unanimously.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5
B. New Business:
Public Hearing CTA-04-12 —Code Amendments to Title
Chair Bates opened the public hearing at 6: 27 p.m.
Planning Technician Martin Palaniuk made a presentation regarding the proposed
amendments to Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)
• Manufactured Homes in Manufactured Home Subdivisions
Issue: The code requires all manufactured homes placed on individual lots to be "new".
SVMC defines "new" as not previously titled or set on a property. As written, the
SVMC would not permit placing a "used" manufactured home within a manufactured
home subdivision.
Intent of Amendment: Allow a "used" manufactured home to be placed within a
manufactured home subdivision. The amendment would require double-wide
manufactured homes be placed in subdivisions with predominantly double-wide homes
and would allow single-wide manufactured homes in subdivisions with predominantly
single-wide homes.
• Home Occupations
Issue: It is unclear whether a home occupation is permitted in a residence established
in a non-residential zone. Home occupations are a permitted accessory use allowed in
all residential zones. The code provisions addressing home occupation is contained in
the residential section of Title 19 but is not addressed in the commercial, mixed use,
office or industrial sections. CMU and MUC zones allow dwellings and legally
established dwellings exist in other nonresidential zones.
Intent of Amendment: Clarify the status of home occupations in the nonresidential
zones. The proposed amendment clarifies the issue by allowing a home occupation to
occur in any residence that has been legally permitted regardless of zone.
• Residential Development in MUC and CMU zones
Issue: Mixed use zones permit single-family and multi-family residential development
however, the mixed use section of the SVMC does not contain development standards
for residential development. These standards include density, lot width, lot depth,
building height, lot coverage, setback and open space requirements. In the absence of
any standard the MF-2 zone standard for density has been applied in the past together
with a Community Development Director Interpretation with respect to setbacks.
Intent of Amendment: Provide a residential development standard for residential
development in the MUC and CMU zone. The proposed amendment will refer to the
MF-2 standard contained in SVMC 19.40 as the standard for residential development in
the MUC and CMU zones.
• Accessory Dwelling Units
Issue: It is unclear whether an accessory dwelling unit is permitted accessory to a
single-family residence established in a non-residential zone. Accessory dwelling units
(ADU) are permitted in all the residential zoning districts. ADUs are addressed in the
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5
residential section of Title 19 but they are not addressed in the commercial, mixed use,
office, or industrial sections. CMU and MUC zones allow single-family dwellings.
Intent of Amendment: Clarify the status of accessory dwelling units in the
nonresidential zones. The proposed amendment clarifies the issue by allowing an ADU
to occur at any single-family residence that has been legally permitted in the MUC and
CMU zone.
• Recreational Vehicles
Issue: The use of Recreational Vehicles in association with residential uses is
addressed in the residential section of the SVMC. Residential uses are permitted in
mixed use zones and also occur as legal uses in other nonresidential zones. The SVMC
does not address RV use outside of the residential section.
Intent of Amendment: Allow the use of RVs at legally permitted residences in
nonresidential zones. The proposed amendment establishes that an RV can be parked
at a residence in a noncommercial zone consistent with the restrictions on RV use
found in the residential zones.
Commissioner Neill asked if there has been any complaints when a used manufactured
home had been moved into a manufactured home subdivision. Staff confirmed there had
not been any.
Commissioner Carroll had a concern regarding excluding caretaker dwellings from Home
Occupation specifications. Staff discussed with the Commission how a caretaker is an
employee of a business and not considered eligible to conduct another business on-site.
Commissioner Beaulac asked how the RV usage would be enforced. Staff explained the
code enforcement process to the Commission, requiring a complaint to be registered before
the City would investigate.
David Seyfert 514 S Arc — Mr. Sefret stated he was a proponent for allowing used
manufactured homes in �he MH subdivisions. Mr. Seyfert stated he has tried to sell several
of his lots, and has lost approximately 20 sales because people cannot place a used home on
the lots. Mr. Seyfert said he wanted to improve one of the neighborhoods. He tore down
old manufactured home on one of his lots, and then was told by the buildings and planning
departments, sorry he would have to put in a new double wide on the property. Mr. Seyfert
said he was formerly in the business of selling mobile homes. Mr. Seyfert said he feels
someone who wants to move a home on to a lot, doesn't generally want an old home. He
also said he felt moving in a used home will almost always upgrade the lots.
Manufactured housing is much better now. Mr. Seyfert said he hoped that this amendment
is passed.
Commissioner Bates asked Mr. Seyfret if he was a supporter of allowing a single wide
Manufactured Home in a Manufactured Home subdivision. Mr. Seyfert said people do not
generally move a double-wide, it is too hard to do. People will move a single-wide is fairly
easy. Rarely will you see anyone move a double-wide. The older homes do not hold up to
moving well to moving. Mr. Seyfret did say he would support allowing a single-wide
manufactured homes in a manufactured home subdivision.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5
Seeing no one else who wished to testify, Chair Bates closed the public hearing at 6:53
p.m.
Commissioner Beaulac moved to recommend approval of CTA-04-12 to the City Council
CTA-04-12. Commissioner Carroll stated he still had an issue with the caretaker dwellings
under the home occupations. Hearing no other discussion, the Chair called for the vote,
which was unanimous in favor, Motion passed.
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER
There was nothing for the good of the order.
XL ADJOURNMENT
The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 6:59 p.m.
,�
Bill Bates, Chairperson
Deanna Griffith, PC Secretary
� —.
Date signed
�
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5