Agenda 02/14/2013 sookane
Valle
Y
Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
February 14, 2013 6:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 24, 2013
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda
VII. COMMISSION REPORTS
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. NEW BUSINESS:
a. Public Hearing- CTA-01-13: A city initiated text amendment to amend
Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.120, Permitted Use Matrix,
and Table 19.60-1, Commercial Development Standards, to allow
Townhouses in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone as a permitted use.
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
XI. ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF
BILL BATES -CHAIR JOHN HOHMAN,CD DIRECTOR
KEVIN ANDERSON SCOTT KUHTA,PLANNING MGR,AICP
CHRISTINA CARLSEN
ROBERT MCCASLIN
STEVEN NEILL
JOE STOY-VICE CHAIR CARL HINSHAW,SECRETARY
W W W.SPOKANEVALLEY.ORG
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: February 14, 2013
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business
® public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin.report ❑ pending legislation
FILE NUMBER: CTA-01-13
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study session—Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A city initiated text amendment to amend Spokane Valley
Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.120, Permitted Use Matrix, and Table 19.60-1, Commercial Development
Standards,to allow Townhouses in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone as a permitted use.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Chapter 19.120, Permitted Use Matrix, was amended by City Council
on September 25, 2012 (Ordinance No. 12-022). A study session with the Planning Commission was
conducted on January 24,2013.
BACKGROUND: On September 25,2012, City Council adopted a significant amendment to Chapter
19.120,Permitted Use Matrix,making a number of changes,mostly to the office and mixed use zones.
Most of the changes expanded the uses allowed in these zones. One change recommended to the
Planning Commission and Council was to remove Townhouses as a permitted use in the Neighborhood
Commercial (NC)zone. This proposal would make Townhouses a permitted use in the NC zone.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to recommend approval of CTA-01-13, to allow
Townhouses as a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial zone.
STAFF CONTACT:
Scott Kuhta,AICP,Planning Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Staff Report and Findings CTA-01-13
CTA-04-12 RPCA for Study Session
ATTACHMENT A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PLANNING DIVISION
Spokane
alle STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CTA-01-13
STAFF REPORT DATE: February 7,2013
HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: February 14, 2013,beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall
Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane
Valley,Washington 99206.
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A city initiated text amendment to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC) 19.120, Permitted Use Matrix, to allow Townhouses in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Zone as a permitted use.
PROPONENT: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, 11707 E Sprague Ave,
Suite 106, Spokane Valley,WA 99206
APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
Title 17 General Provisions.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission
approve the proposed amendment as put forth.
STAFF PLANNER: Scott Kuhta,AICP,Planning Manager, Community Development Department
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Proposed text amendment to SVMC 19.120, Permitted and Accessory Uses and Table
19.60-1 —Commercial Development Standards
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The
following summarizes application procedures for the proposal.
Process Date
Pre-Application Meeting: N/A
Application Submitted: N/A
Determination of Completeness: N/A
Published Notice of Public Hearing: 2/1/2013 and 2/8/2013
Sent Notice of Public Hearing to staff/agencies: 1/22/13
Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-01-13
2. PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The proposal is to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
Chapters 19.120,Permitted Use Matrix, and Table 19.60-1, Commercial Development Standards,
to allow Townhouses as a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial zone. On September
25,2012,City Council adopted significant changes to the Permitted Use Matrix,mostly by
expanding permitted uses in office and mixed use zones. One change was to remove Townhouses
as a permitted use in the NC zone. This was the only residential use permitted in any of the
commercial zones and it appeared to staff to be a mistake when the original Permitted Use Matrix
was adopted.
Staff has re-evaluated this change and now recommends adding Townhouses back as a permitted
use in the NC zone. The Comprehensive Plan supports mixed use residential and commercial in
neighborhood centers and adding Townhouses as a permitted use would allow some flexibility for
NC zoned properties to have a residential component.
The Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)defines Townhouses as follows:
Dwelling, townhouse:A single-family dwelling unit constructed in groups of three or more
attached units in which each unit extends from foundation to roof open on at least two sides.
SVMC 19.40.020 establishes the following standards for Townhouse development:
1. a.Attached single-family dwellings, including duplexes and townhouses located on individual
lots, shall meet minimum rear,front and side yard requirements (where applicable), minimum
area requirements, and maximum lot coverage and building height requirements shown in Table
19.40-1. Townhouses are subject to the following requirements:
i. No more than six dwelling units shall be attached in one continuous row or group;
ii. No townhouse unit shall be constructed above another townhouse unit;
iii. There shall be a side yard on each side of a contiguous row or group of dwellings of not
less than six feet;
iv. Townhouses included in a condominium development may limit the lot to the building
footprint;provided that the yard area shared in common with all units is equivalent in area
to the yard required by the underlying zone.
Proposed Setbacks and Building Height
The Neighborhood Commercial zone specifies the following standards for all development:
Minimum Front Yard Setback -20 feet
Minimum Flanking Street Setback—20 feet
Minimum Side and Rear Yard Adjacent to a Residential Use or Zone—20 feet
Maximum Building Height(in feet)-35 feet
Page 2 of 4
Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-01-13
Staff proposes using the R-4 development standards for setbacks and building heights for
Townhouse developments in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone:
Front and Flanking Street Setbacks- 15 feet
Garage Setback—20 feet
Rear Yard Setback-20 feet
Side Yard Setback—5 feet
Maximum Building Height-35 feet
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT
AMENDMENT
1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions)of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
a. Findings:
SVMC 17.80.150(F)Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria
i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment,if it finds that
(1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan;
Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable policies
of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive
plan goals for encouraging a mix of commercial and residential uses in neighborhood
centers,maintaining a flexible and consistent regulatory environment, and preserving
and protecting neighborhoods.
Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are shown below:
Land Use Goal -1 Preserve and protect the character of Spokane Valley's residential
neighborhoods.
Land Use Policy LUP-1.3 Review and revise, as necessary, existing land use
regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential
developments, accessory dwelling units and in-fill development.
Land Use Goal LUG-2 Encourage a wide range of housing types and densities
commensurate with the community's needs and preferences.
Land Use Goal LUG-4 Provide neighborhood and community scale retail centers for
the City's neighborhoods.
Land Use Policy LUP-4.4 Encourage Mixed-use residential and commercial and
office development in Neighborhood Commercial designations where compatibility
with nearby uses can be demonstrated.
Housing Goal HG-1: Encourage diversity in design to meet the housing needs of the
residents of the community and region.
Housing Policy HP-1.1: Consider the economic impact of development regulations
on the cost of housing.
Page 3 of 4
Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-01-13
Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility,
consistency,predictability and clear direction.
Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure
clarity,consistency and predictability.
Neighborhood Policy NP-2.2: Review and revise as necessary,existing land use
regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential
developments, accessory dwelling units, and in-fill development.
(2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety,
welfare, and protection of the environment;
Analysis: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare
and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment will provide increased
housing options and provide flexibility for infill residential development.
b. Conclusion(s):
The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC.
2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments
a. Findings:
No public comments have been received to date.
b. Conclusion(s):
Public noticing was conducted as set forth in SVMC 17.80 for a Type IV application and has
been deemed sufficient for this proposal. No concerns noted.
3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments
a. Findings:
No agency comments have been received to date.
b. Conclusion(s):
c. Public noticing was conducted as set forth in SVMC 17.80 for a Type IV application and has
been deemed sufficient for this proposal. No concerns are noted.
C. OVERALL CONCLUSION
The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals.
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable
approval criteria,recommends the proposal to allow Townhouses in the Neighborhood Commercial
zones.
Page 4 of 4
Exhibit 1—Proposed Text Amendment to Neighborhood Commercial Zone
CTA-01-13
Proposed Changes allowing Townhouse Development in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone
Schedule of Permitted Uses a�i Reference Conditions
Appendix 19-A _
o
N 0 i V V V Q A
L O C a) 7 a) a) O t R
_cs N U -o a) 7 as aa)i _c E EE OE in" 0 co a)
N M v a) c � a� . 2) E E E ED E i R J 2
LL LL Q a) O N to ,F O 0 O O a) O to O_ ' N
M Ct Ct Ct 2 2 z 2U Um 0 0 zU UU (Yu au)
P P P 814 Dwelling,townhouse P P P 19.60.070(B)(3)
Table 19.60-1 —Commercial Development Standards
Office Commercial Mixed Use Industrial
GO 0 NC** C RC CC* CMU* MUC* I-1 1-2
Minimum Front Yard Setback 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Minimum Flanking Street Setback 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Minimum Side and Rear Yard Adjacent to a
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 35 35
Residential Use or Zone
Maximum Building Height(in feet) 45 100 35 35 100 Unlimited 50 60 40 65
* Except as otherwise required
** Townhouse development in the NC zone shall comply with setback and building height standards in the R-4
zone found in Table 19.40-1
Exhibit 1—Proposed Text Amendment to Neighborhood Commercial Zone
19.60.070 B.
3. Projects with residential components shall provide 210 square feet of open space per dwelling unit conforming to the requirements of
SVMC 19.40.020(E)and eligible for reduction for improvements on the same basis; provided, that:
a. The requirement does not apply to the development of less than 10 new dwelling units; and
b. Additional open space is not required for residential development located within 1,300 feet of a public park
Table 19.40-1 —Residential Zone Dimensional Standards (In Feet)
R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MF-1 MF-2 PRD
Single-Family Lot Area/Dwelling Unit 40,000 10,000 7,500 6,000 3,600 2,000 Underlying zone
Duplex Lot Area/Dwelling Unit 6,000 5,000
Lot Width 80 80 65(4) 50 45 20 30
Lot Depth 100 90 90 80 80 80 50
Minimum Front and Flanking Street Yard
Setback(21(3)
35 15 15 15 15 15 15
Garage Setback(2 3) 35 20 20 20 20 20 20
Rear Yard Setback(1)(3) 20 20 20 20 10 10 15
Side Yard Setback")(3) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Open Space 10%gross area
Maximum Lot Coverage 30.0% 50.0% 50.0% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0% 60.0%
Exhibit 1—Proposed Text Amendment to Neighborhood Commercial Zone
Table 19.40-1 —Residential Zone Dimensional Standards (In Feet)
R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MF-1 MF-2 PRD
Building Height(In Feet) 35 35 35 35 40 50 Underlying zone
No accessory structure shall be located in the front or flanking street yard, and shall be set back not less than five feet from any side or
(1)
rear yard.
Attached garages, where the garage door does not face the street, may have the same setback as the principal structure.
(2)
Setbacks, when adjacent to a private road or driveway easement, are established from the inner edges of the road or driveway and are
(3) the same as noted above except the flanking road which would be five feet.
(4) Duplex lots in R-3 zones may be a minimum of 60 feet in width.
DRAFT
PC ADVANCE AGENDA
For Planning Discussion Purposes Only
as of January 10, 2013
***Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative***
To: Commission& Staff
From: Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager
Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Commission Meetings
February 28,2013 [due date Wed.,Feb.201
1. Findings: Code Text Amendment—Permitted Use Matrix(Townhouses in Neighborhood
Commercial Zones)
2. Study Session: SEPA Categorical Exemptions
March 14,2013 ldue date Wed.,March 61
1. Public Hearing: SEPA Categorical Exemptions
2. Study Session: Shoreline Management Program—Development Regulations
March 28,2013 [due date Wed.,March 201
1. Findings of Fact: SEPA Categorical Exemptions
2. Study Session: Sign Code Amendments
3. Public Hearing: Shoreline Management Program—Development Regulations
April 11,2013 [due date Wed.,April 3]
1. Public Hearing and Deliberations: Sign Code Amendments
2. Deliberations: Shoreline Management Program—Development Regulations
April 25,2013 [due date Wed.,April 171
1. Findings of Fact: Sign Code Amendments
2. Cont'd Deliberations: Shoreline Management Program—Development Regulations
3. Study Session: Comp Plan Amendments
May 9,2013 [due date Wed.,May 11
1. Findings of Fact: Shoreline Management Program—Development Regulations
2. Public Hearing: Comp Plan Amendments
May 23,2013 [due date Wed.,May 15]
1. Deliberations: Comp Plan Amendments
Draft Advance Agenda 2/7/2013 2:46:42 PM Page 1 of 1
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
DRAFT Minutes
Council Chambers— City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
January 24, 2013
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance
III. ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS Present Absent CITY STAFF
Bill Bates-Chair 4,4 Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager
Joe Stoy—Vice Chair Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Robert McCaslin r Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney
Rod Higgins . '
Steven Neill .
Christina Carlsen r r
Kevin Anderson p r Cari Hinshaw, secretary
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 January 10, 2013 and January 7, 2013
minutes as presented. This motion was passed unanimously.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION REPORTS
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Planning Manager Scott Kuhta: Reminded the Planning Commission about the sign code
update from last year, and stated that our Code enforcement officers have been helping
Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 5
businesses understand the new sign code. Mr. Kuhta mentioned that 2 or 3 folks showed up to
the City Council meeting Tuesday, January 22, 2013 to express some concerns about sign
regulations. He stated that John Hohman will be bringing a report back to the City Council
March 5th, if any of the Planning Commission was interested in going. Mr. Hohman will be
speaking on the enforcement activity, and how we have been helping the community with the
regulations, also the possibility of revisiting the sign code regulations.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Unfinished Business:
No unfinished business.
B. New Business: Public Hearing: Shoreline Master Program Update — Draft Public
Access
Senior Planner Lori Barlow opened the Public Meeting explaining the purpose of the
meeting and further stating the hope for this process is that the Planning Commission will
forward a recommendation to council for approval. Ms. Barlow introduced Mr. Tadas
Kisielius who is the special legal counsel for this project and Mr. John Patrouch who is
with URS Corporation. Both were there to answer questions.
Ms. Barlow provided the comments from the agencies that responded to the Plan:
Department of Ecology, Washington State Parks, Spokane County Parks Department,
Spokane Valley Parks and Rec, and Spokane Tribe of Indians. Ms. Barlow stated that with
the exception of the Spokane Tribe of Indians the comments were fairly minor in nature.
Ms. Barlow reviewed the response e-mail from Randy Abrahamson of the Spokane Indian
Tribe. Mr. Abrahamson stated "I can't believe you didn't consider cultural resources
etc...." Ms. Barlow stated that Mr. Abrahamson's letter was sent on a misunderstanding.
And she further stated that Mr. Abrahamson did not understand that what he was asking for
is just one piece to the Shoreline Master Plan. Ms. Barlow stated that they have addressed
cultural resources in our goals, policies and they are currently addressing those in our
development regulations. Ms. Barlow explained that Mr. Abrahamson comment letter does
stay as part of the record, but he doesn't have any issues to this particular element, it was a
bit of a misunderstanding in terms of what he was looking at.
Ms. Barlow reported that to date there have been no public comment and they did make
some changes to the technical review draft. As it became the public review Ms. Barlow
stated they issued a public review draft, notices, and made it available for review and
received no comments. Ms. Barlow had an open house on January 16, 2013. The turnout
was rather low. Ten people attended and there were no real concerns from the persons that
did attend.
The Public Hearing was addressed. Ms. Barlow made a short recap of the Public Access
Plan. Here are the things she went over:
• Plan Review Summary
• What is Public Access
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5
• WAC Requirements (173-26-221-4)
• What does Public Access look like
• Public Access Plan
• Section One- Introduction
• Section Two- Integration with other Community Plans
• Section Three-Public Access and Public Use
• Section Four- Shoreline Conditions
• Section Five- Proposed Shoreline Access and User Improvements
• Section Six- Implementation Strategy
• Draft Public Access Plan Development and Review Process
Ms Barlow closed her presentation and asked if there were any questions.
Chair Bates and Planning Commissioner Neill still had concerns about the e-mail
comments from Randy Abramsom. Mr. Tadas Kisielius reiterated that the Public Access
document is not intended to address what Mr. Abramsom comments were about. Mr.
Kisielius stated that Mr. Abramsom concerns are for development regulations which will
be addressed later at the appropriate date and time.
After a brief discussion and no public comment Chair Bates closed the public meeting at
6:45 PM.
Mr. Kisielius was open for questions, he discussed protecting public access and went thru
and highlighted the benefits of the Public Access Plan. Which are as stated below:
• Allows us to capture the nature and beauty. Also gives the recognition for great
public access
• Helps to protect the natural surroundings of the river corridor, long stretches of
the centennial trail
• Another benefit is to coordinate so you preserve that amenity. This also gives
flexibility or relief for development and property owners.
Mr. Kisielius also touched up on implementation on section 6. This was handed out in the
PowerPoint presentation by Planner Ms. Barlow. Mr. Kisielius closed with asking if there
were any questions.
Chair Bates stated that a motion on the floor needed to be made prior to the discussion. So
the motion was put on the table.
Commissioner Stoy moved to accept the Shoreline Master Program Public Access Plan as
presented by staff. A second was made.
Chair Bates asked if there were any discussion.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5
Commissioner Anderson proposed three amendments to the main motion for the proposed
Shoreline Master Program Update Public Access Plan.
• To remove from page 8 the sentence: including an estimated 2 million uses in
2008 on the SRCT
• To add the word existing to the top of table on page 10, table 3-2
• To add the word float boats for boat ramps on page 18, table 5-2
• To add motorized boats for Myrtle Point since this is intended for a true boat
ramp
John Patrouch informed Commissioner Anderson that Myrtle Point is a non motorized
access.
Commissioner Stoy moved to amend the main motion previously on the table for the
Shoreline Master Program Public Access Plan to incorporate the three modifications that
were discussed:
1. To remove from page 8 the sentence: (including an estimated 2 million uses in
2008 on the SRCT).
2. To add the word existing to the top of table on page 10, table 3-2.
3. To add the word non-motorized boats for boat ramps on page 18, table 5-2 for
Sullivan Park and Myrtle Point.
This was passed unanimously.
Chair Bates asked if there was any discussion on the amended motion and asked for all in
favor for the amended motion. This was passed unanimously.
Chair Bates asked if there was any discussion on the main motion. There was none and this
was passed unanimously.
Study Session: Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code CTA-01-13
Planning Manager Scott Kuhta opened by saying; the amendment is proposing to add
townhouses back into the Permitted Use Matrix for the Neighborhood Commercial Zone.
Mr. Kuhta stated that the Permitted Use Matrix was amended last year. One of the changes
was to remove townhouses from the Neighborhood Commercial Zones. Mr. Kuhta talked
to a gentleman who expressed interest in developing townhouses on property zoned
Neighborhood Commercial. Prior to purchasing the property, the individual saw that
townhouses were a permitted use in the zone. Mr. Kuhta stated that he reevaluated it and
believes that townhouses fit ok in the neighborhood commercial zone. Mr. Kuhta stated
that the Comprehensive Plan includes policies that support townhouses, specifically that
there is a policy that talks about mixed uses in the neighborhood centers. Mr. Kuhta
explained a townhouse is a single family unit with at least three units attached, up to six
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5
total, in each block and developed on individual lots. This is a specific development type.
Commissioner Anderson needed some explanation about the lots. Mr. Kuhta explained
that six units would be on their own lot and would have their own front and back yard.
Town houses are different than duplexes. They are 3-6 units attached, all on their own
platted lots. They are connected with a zero lot line. Chair Bates wanted to know if they
have the same regulations as far as height and setbacks. Mr. Kuhta informed Chair Bates
that they are the same regulations that you would find for all residential development in the
zone that they are in. Mr. Kuhta discussed how there is a provision in the Code that says
townhouses are developed and separate platting process for town houses. Commissioner
Carlsen asked if the lot was big enough to split into lots to have town houses built. Mr.
Kuhta stated that this property is small that and that it would be limited. The Neighborhood
Commercial zones are meant to be smaller areas. This proposal allows the market to work a
little bit if retail isn't working. It allows flexibility in such a way that it wouldn't be sitting
vacant. Mr. Kuhta proceeded to say that the proposal is to put the P back under
Neighborhood Commercial and to add the reference condition. Commissioner Stoy
mentioned the residential requirements and asked if the minimum would be met on that
particular property. Mr. Kuhta stated that if they can't they will have to look at something
else. But they still need to meet the required setbacks. Mr. Kuhta explained that a
Neighborhood Commercial zone does not specify minimum lot size because there are no
other residential uses that are allowed there. There are no residential standards, so Mr.
Kuhta stated he will look into this and bring back some information to the public hearing to
see if that is something of concern.
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER
There was nothing for the good of the order.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m.
Bill Bates, Chairperson
Cari Hinshaw, PC Secretary
Date signed
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5