Loading...
Minutes - 06/24/2010 Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. June 24, 2010 L CALL TO ORDER Chair Carroll called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance IIL ROLL CALL Commissioners Carroll, Eggleston (arrived at 6:02) Hall, Mann, Sands, Sharpe and Woodard were present. Staff attending the meeting: Kathy McClung Community Development Director, Greg McCormick, Planning Manager; Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner; Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner; Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant, Dean Grafos, Councilmember. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner Sands, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the June 24, 2010 agenda as presented. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Woodard and seconded to approve the minutes from the May 13, 2010 as presented. VL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VIL COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Woodard stated he had been attending Council meetings, Commissioners Hall and Sands reported they had attended the Mixed Use Avenue Community Meeting Commissioner Carroll reported he had attend the Council meetings as well as the Spokane Valley Business Association meeting. VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Director McClung reported that on June 16, 2010 the City held its first Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan workshop. She stated that it was well attended, approx. 45 people who were split up into groups for an interactive exercise. Everyone was engaged and supportive. The Director also reported that the Council retreat is scheduled for July 13, at CenterPlace from 10- 4 and will cover the budget. 06-24-2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 10 IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. New Business: Public Hearing —Code Text Amendment CTA-03-10 Assistant Planner Christina Janssen: Commissioner Carroll opened the public hearing at 6:09 p.m. Assistant Planner Christina Janssen gave a presentation to cover the three amendments that are being proposed in CTA-03 -10. • Chapter 19.140 (Administrative Exceptions)- Add language which gives the Community Development Director authority to grant administrative exceptions for minor design changes to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. • Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use) Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan-Allow vehicle sales with the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone with a Conditional Use permit and allow Full Service Restaurants as a permitted use. • Table 2.2.2 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan-Allow restricted access to "Other Streets" in the Mixed Use Avenue zone. Ms. Janssen explained that full service restaurants were limited to the City Center but a shift in Council direction has made this restriction less critical. The proposed amendment would make full service restaurants a permitted use in this zone. Secondly the prohibited uses section would be removed and vehicle sales would be allowed in the Mixed Use Ave zone, with a conditional use permit. Ms. Janssen also stated that after staff began to process this amendment they also received a privately initiated amendment to allow all vehicle sales in the Mixed Use Ave zone, and that the Commission could expect to see it at a future meeting. The next amendment would allow restaurants to take access from other streets where currently they are only allowed access from Sprague Ave. This amendment would only apply to full service restaurants in this zone. The third amendment in CTA-03-10 is to 19.140. It has become noted that with the adoption of the Subarea Plan that in some cases minor design changes to the plan would help business owners to locate within the corridor while also meeting the intent of the plan. This amendment will add language to the Administrative Exceptions section of the code to allow the Community Development Director to make these kinds of changes. Commissioners asked for a definition regarding what constitutes a full service restaurant, for clarification regarding the access issue in Table 2.2.2, full service restaurant would be allowed access from other streets including Sprague, this would mean all vehicle sales, not just used vehicle sales and would require a conditional use permit. Mr. McCormick clarified that vehicle sales in the Subarea Plan encompassed all types of vehicles, including boats. It is an inclusive term. Commissioner Woodard asked if this would take care of the issues we had in the Mixed Use with the Elephant Boys. Commissioner Sands asked if that was the driver for this amendment, that one boat sales place, if so could we not find another way to handle their problem. Commissioner Eggleston questioned a`grandfather clause.' Director McClung clarifies the issues and responds: Elephant Boys was the initial driver of the Council's direction to take this back to the Planning Commission to have a look at it. It would be up to the Planning Commission to determine if they think there is another way to handle the issue. In reference to Commissioner Eggleston, Elephant Boys moved from their original location 06-24-2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 10 to the lot next door, and that is what caused the issue. Commissioner Hall asked if this would be a conditional use permit that would require a public hearing? Yes, that is correct. Commissioner Carroll, would this not allow vehicle sales in almost every aspect of Sprague, would there be any place they could not go? Ms Janssen answered it would be the majority of the corridor. Director McClung stated that a conditional use permit is not used to deny a use, it is a device to put restrictions or extra conditions to help mitigate impacts to the community. Discussion of where the Mixed Use zones are, what would be covered under the word vehicle. Commissioner Hall asked for justification as to why this was considered during the adoption of the plan and it was decided not to allow vehicle sales in the Mixed Use area and now we are changing gears and adding it back in. Why this change in direction. Director McClung the original idea was car dealerships would be all focused in the Auto Row area. Originally only new car sales would be allowed there, but then the determination became that if you were going to allow new car sales you had to allow used car sales. Senior Planner Scott Kuhta stepped up to the microphone to assist in the clarification. Mr. Kuhta stated that when the Public Hearing draft of the Plan went before the Planning Commission, it was originally written to allow used car sales in the Mixed Use areas to compensate for the fact that they would not be allowed in the Gateway areas, only new car sales would be allowed there. However through the process and the Planning Commission recommended that all the vehicle sales would go in the Auto Row area and be prohibited in the other areas. A conditional use would allow some mitigation factors like display of boats. Originally a business owner complained about the boats that were blocking their business from being seen and another business did not like the fact that there were boats being displayed everywhere so one mitigating factor could be the way the boats are displayed. Maybe you could limit the number of boats you could display. You could allow the business to locate there but still make it more compatible with the adjacent land owners. Mr. McCormick also added that before the Subarea Plan, the zoning that area (along Sprague where the White Elephant/Elephant Boys is located) was Corridor Mixed Use, which did new and used vehicle sales. Commissioner Mann asked if a conditional use permit could be used to deny a permit. Commissioner Mann also asked if the Elephant Boys problem was generated by other business complaints and staff confirmed this was true. Commissioner Mann asked if there was another way to handle the problem, he stated he had an issue changing the zoning for entire district for just one business. Director McClung stated she had never seen a conditional use denied. Commissioner Sands then asked if restaurants would also be appropriate for a conditional use permit and Director McClung stated she did not feel that restaurants have the same impacts as other businesses also that the limitation for restaurants to the City Center and Neighborhood Centers only was to be a temporary limitation in the Plan. Commissioner Carroll opened the public testimony at 6:27 p.m. Ben Goodmanson, Whipple Consulting Engineers: Mr. Goodmanson stated he was attending to encourage approval of this amendment. Mr. Goodmanson also stated his firm also had an amendment that would be coming before the Commission soon and is very similar to what is before the Commission now. He also stated that it was not just for vehicle sales but it also allows for a conditional use where one did not apply before. Mr. Goodmanson offered that the firm felt it was a ideal while the City goes through the transition phase of the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. This would allow 06-24-2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 10 business to continue to operate Mr. Goodmanson said he would appreciate if the Commission would approve this conditional use, and as such staff has recommended that Whipple Consulting withdraw their request once the City sponsored text amendment is approved. Richard Behm, 9405 E Sprague Ave.: Mr. Behm stated he owns Behm Center. Mr. Behm stated he was both a proponent and an opponent. Mr. Behm said that the discussion on allowing auto sales in the Mixed Use Avenue area began as a effort to resolve the problems with the Elephant Boys Marina and Boat Sales being non-compliant under the Mixed Use zoning. At the present time, the City has auto sales and boat sales under the same category, which does create this problem. Therefore it would seem a simple solution to separate auto and boat sales into separate categories and allow boat sales in Mixed Use zoning and not have to change the zoning requirement for auto sales in the whole City. Mr. Behm stated he was confused as to why the City put boat and auto sales in the same category, the state does not license them as the same. Mr. Behm said that sometimes a hasty decision to resolve one problem can lead to many more down the road and that this could have consequences in the Auto Row area that were not thought of now. Mr. Behm said he has no interest in any auto or boat sales business, his only concern is a reasonable implementation of the new zoning requirements. Mr. Behm said he would rather be a neighbor to boat sales than car sales, he feels they would make a better neighbor. Now Mr. Behm stated he would like to address the restaurant issue. Mr. Behm has a restaurant on his property that is now non-compliant. He stated this fact does not bother him, his creamery has been non-compliant for 30 years and has never bothered him. Mr. Behm stated it would only be a problem if it was completely destroyed, the insurance would not cover to relocate the restaurant. The only issue the restaurant has is that the one-way street took away 40% of the business and it has ever come back Mr. Behm said that if the two-way street comes back between Argonne and University the properties in between will begin to develop. Mr. Behm said there has to be a plan, there has to be something that the builders, developers and property owners can hang their hats on and know is going to be there. Seeing no one else who wished to testify Commissioner Carroll closed the public testimony at 6:35 p.m. Commissioner Woodard made a motion to recommend approval of CTA-03-10, second by Commissioner Sharpe. Commissioner Sands asked staff for an opinion regarding Mr. Behm's suggestion about separating the auto sales from the boat sales. Mr. McCormick addressed the question. Mr. McCormick stated that he felt that it would further the intent of the Subarea Plan by focusing auto sales in the Gateway Commercial area and address the issue that has been brought up before Council related to the specific situation. Commissioner Sands also asked if the Commission were to split the car sales from other kinds of vehicles, could it still be considered as a conditional use so that conditions could be placed on the uses? Mr. McCormick answered in the affirmative. Discussion began as to how far separating out the vehicle categories would have to be broken out, ORVs, RVs, motorcycles, boats? If these are not broken out and allowed or not allowed will this become an issue down the road that will need to be addressed? 06-24-2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 10 Commissioner Carroll stated what he understood was that the Commission is being asked to open Sprague up to all vehicle sales, the alternative is to limit it to a specific type of vehicle. One consideration that goes along is how big does the Commission want to open this? Would allowing auto sales up and down Sprague, do a disservice to the Auto Row people? Another thing to consider would be the service departments that need to be with each dealership. There are vacant auto lots on Sprague already, do we want to open this subject up a little bit or all the way? Commissioner Woodard commented that the motion is all inclusive to all vehicle types, not being restrictive. Commissioner Woodard stated that if it was all inclusive, it would allow the lots already in the Mixed Use Avenue to become conforming instead of non-conforming. Mr. Woodard also stated he was concerned about property rights and being able to use property as an owner wants. He also stated he was concerned about the City's image. Commissioner Woodard said that maybe the boat sales issue was driving the amendment but that all vehicle sales should be considered. Commissioner Eggleston commented that amending to only allow boat sales would in fact fix the current problem and not change the intent of the Plan in general. Commissioner Mann stated he felt concern that once you separate out boats, what will keep a motorcycle dealer from coming and asking for the same thing saying `you did it for them, now do it for me.' He wondered what the legal ramifications and doubted that (the staff —City) had any ideas yet. Commissioner Mann stated he was concerned about opening the whole code to accommodate the needs of a single business and wondered if there wasn't another way to deal with the issue. Director McClung stated that this amendment is not just for one business, it would affect the entire Mixed Use Avenue area of the Subarea Plan. The Commissioners stated that they did understand that. Commissioner Sands also stated that all of the current auto dealers we legal non-conforming uses and can stay and continue to do business without a change for as long as they would like. Commissioner Hall stated he would like to see the amendment for the vehicle sales returned to staff for further consideration and move forward with the other two amendments which do not seem to be causing issue. Mr. Hall stated he wondered what Auto Row's plans were for the area and Mr. Behm's suggestion to split the boat sales out and what it would mean to the plan. Commissioner Eggleston concurred with Commissioner Hall's suggestion. Mr. McCormick noted that in the municipal/uniform development code auto sales were broken out from boat sales, so he did not feel it would cause a problem to make that distinction in the Plan. Commissioner Eggleston made a motion to amend vehicle sales to read boat sales. Commissioner Sands second the motion. T�ote by show of hands: In Favor: two. Eggleston, Sands Opposed: five, Abstentions: None. Motion fails Commissioner Sands made a motion to remove item #2 regarding vehicle sales along Sprague Ave for further discussion and research. Commissioner Eggleston seconded the motion. T�ote by show of hands: In Favor: four. Opposed: three Sharpe Mann and Woodard Abstentions: None. Motion passes. Commissioner Carroll asked if there was any further discussion on the original motion as it had been amended. Vote by show of hands: In Favor: four. Opposed: three, Sharpe, Mann and Woodard Abstentions: None. Motion passes Director McClung requested that the Commission to give specific direction on what they would like staff to come back with. Commissioner Carroll stated they would like staff to 06-24-2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 10 come back with how to categorize vehicles, new vs. used, cars vs. others (all other vehicles) Commissioner Sharpe stated he would like to go on the record that he is not opposed to the amendment, what he is opposed to is the redefining redefining redefining. Commissioner Mann stated he would concur with Commissioner Sharpe's statement, every business deserves the right to conduct their business, but changing the entire code and coming back and redoing and redoing, over and over again. Mr. Mann stated he would rather deal with these issues on an individual basis. Commissioner Sands asked if it was possible to deal with these things on an individual basis? Based on the code the Hearing Examiner would look at black and white and say it came in after the code and it is not allowed. Commissioner Carroll stated that the Commission's business is not to look at the individual business it is to look at City wide uses in general. Mr. Carroll also stated he agreed with Commissioners Sharpe and Mann that `we' cannot keep redefining but it came up here as a suggestion, do we open it up a little, a lot or shut it down completely. Commissioner Sands said she would like to have legal's opinion on the ability to split car and boat sales. Commissioner Carroll closed the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. B. Public Hearing — Public Hearing Code Text Amendment CTA-04-10 Sr. Planner Scott Kuhta. Commissioner Carroll opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. Senior Planner Scott Kuhta introduced the amendment to the Commission. This is a privately imitated amendment concerning the expansion of non-conforming uses to adjacent properties. The proposal is to allow non-conforming uses to expand onto adj acent properties without regard to the ownership of the adjacent property at the time the use became non-conforming. A non- conforming use is a use that is not permitted in the current zone. There is a difference between legal non-conforming use and a illegal non-conforming use. A legal non- conforming use is a use that was permitted in the zone at the time it was established on the property. Subsequently the zoning may have changed to make the use non- conforming, but it is still a legal use but a legal non-conforming use. Another word for it is grandfathered. Why do we care about non-conforming uses? Land uses change over time, either by the nature of the changes in the area, for example an industrial use which stayed around for a long time and then residential developed around it. Land transitions over time and the zoning will transition with it. The new uses become incompatible with some established uses and the new zoning regulations. The non-conforming provisions allow for the continuation of that legal use. The City does have very liberal non- conforming provisions. The intent is that over time for as those uses transition out, and uses that are more compatible and conforming would move into the area. The code allows them to continue on in their present location until such time that a conforming use becomes more viable in that location and the non-conforming use decides to move on. The current rules for expanding a non-conforming use are as follows: 4. A nonconforming use may be expanded only within the boundaries of the original lot or tract and any adj acent lot or tract that was under the same ownership as the lot or '�� tract at the time the use on the original lot or tract became non-conforming, if: '��� a. The expanded use does not degrade the transportation level of service greater than ' the original use; and ' ',b. The expanded use does not adversely affect or interfere with the use of ' ' neighboring property; and ' 06-24-2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 10 c. Any transfer of ownership or interest on adjacent lots or tracts was made contemporaneously with the transfer of ownership of the lot or tract on which the ' ' nonconforming use is located as part of a single transaction; and ' d. The expansion does not create additional development opportunities on adjacent ' ���� tracts that would not otherwise exist. '����� This would be an administrative decision made by staff, not something that would go before the hearing examiner. The proposal is a fairly simple one it is to remove the ownership requirement. This proposal would allow the expansion of a non-conforming use at any time onto adjacent property if it meets the other criteria. Mr. Kuhta did review non-conforming regulations for other jurisdictions, knowing the City's regulations were already liberal, this is the other city regulations that were found: City Ex andin Nonconformin Use Provisions Cheney May not expand non-confornung use. Clark County Onl within e�stin structure Kennewick No provision to expand non-confornung use. Liberty Lake May not expand use or structure. No addirional structures. May not move use to a portion of lot other than tl�at occupied by such use. 0 � May not enlarge, relocate or rearrange non-conforming uses unless CUP is granted by Hearin Examiner. Post Falls May not be eapanded or ea�tended in any way. Richland May not expand use in any way, even in building where use occupies a portion of the building. Spokane Some allowance for expanding onto adjacent properry not under ownership, limited to some commerciaUindustrial zones Spokane County Ex ansion discoura ed but is ossible with CUP a roved b Hearin Examiner. Vancouver Cannot expand Use outside exisring building Walla Walla May expand non-conforming use one rime not to exceed 20% of floor area or land area which it occupied when use became non-conforming with CUP. Expansion of an enclosed non-confornung use to land outside the building is not pernutted. Yakima May expand non-conforming use outside of structure on e�sting lot w/admin approval if strict criteria are met. Some jurisdictions only allow expansion in the same building, some don't allow expansion in the portion they are using, some allow expansion on the lot, very few jurisdictions allow expansion on the lot adjacent. The exception is Spokane, there is some exception for expanding to the adj acent property not under ownership, but they do limit it to the more heavy commercial and industrial areas. They do not allow it in the Mixed Use zones, or residential zones. Spokane County the expansion is discouraged, which is what the language says in their code but it is possible with a conditional use permit which is approved by the Hearing Examiner, it does not differentiate between ownership. If you wanted to expand a non-conforming use in Spokane County, it does not matter if you own the property, however it does require a conditional use permit that needs approval from the Hearing Examiner. 06-24-2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 10 Mr. Kuhta stated that staff believes that this proposal is inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan which speaks about protecting neighborhoods from incompatible uses. Zoning is a police power that is afforded to cities and counties to protect the public safety, health and welfare of its citizens. Zoning implements the Comprehensive Plan and it separates incompatible uses staff believes that the proposed amendment goes too far and does not further the public safety, health or welfare of the community. The recommendation from staff is that this is an uncommon zoning practice based on staff's experience and review of jurisdictions around this area, other parts of the state and in Idaho, the change is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to protect neighborhoods, it begins to render zoning meaningless. There are other approaches which could be taken, possibly a conditional use permit, maybe the use should be allowed maybe the use chart should be changed. Based on these reasons and the more detailed reasons in the staff report, Mr. Kuhta stated staff is recommending denial of this proposed amendment to the municipal code. Commissioners ask clarifying questions to make sure they understood the current code and the proposal before they continued. Commissioner Carroll opened the public testimony at 7:12 p.m. Dwight Hume, 9101 Mt View Lane: Mr. Hume stated he was the applicant requesting the change. Mr. Hume stated he has read the staff report and disagrees with it for the following reasons: • It is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Non-conforming uses by their nature cannot be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, that is what makes them non-conforming. If they were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan it would not be non-conforming. Because it is there and you changed your Comprehensive Plan it is a fact, not a fault. The statement by staff is that it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan is overlooking the nature of the beast. • We are trying to split hairs and broaden the benefit package. If I own parcel A, and I don't own parcel B, and I acquire parcel B but I had a non-conforming right on parcel A and I would like to expand it, that privilege exists today if I already owned parcel B. However if I buy it now but did not own it before, that gives me the privilege just like the guy who happen to have it, under the current formula. That is only a distinction of who owned it when. It is not a land use issue. You could have expanded, had you owned it, and therefore had an expanded non- conforming use. You have a very finite number of people out there that would have that benefit. • Another aspect of the staff report is that the proposal does not meet criteria, and we do. We left the other criteria in there except to take out the limitation of ownership. The other criteria that is still in place. As long as you have already met the criteria and can continue to exist, then you can expand. • To address a comment that was made earlier which was that this was for only to benefit is exclusively to the applicant. These types of changes come up in the land use world when we find that the zoning code does not fit the circumstance. Mr. Hume stated he does not bring them before the Commission if he does not see benefit citywide. For example, Elephant Boys problem. The White Elephant is 06-24-2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 10 non-conforming use now and boat sales are not permitted, and this amendment would allow them to expand to the adjoining property. It could go from White Elephant to Elephant Boys next door and be allowed as an expansion of a non- conforming use and would not require and exclusive zoning code change for boats. Mr. Hume stated he did not feel this would open Pandora's Box because there was not a lot of expansion of non-conforming uses. Non-conforming uses are allowed now, not withstanding ownership type. Mr. Hume did state that he did think of a couple of things that were triggered by the staff report and he is suggesting that additional criteria be added: • The expanded use must be located within the same zone, as the adjacent non- conforming use. Mr. Hume said that staff was talking about it going into any zone. Mr. Hume stated he felt that the expansion should stay in the same zoning district and should not be allowed to expand into a more restrictive zoning district. This could be a suggested addition. Mr. Hume had a question for staff, he stated he did not understand the last criteria already established in the code, 4) d) "the expansion does not create additional development opportunities on adjacent tracts that would not othenvise exist. " Mr. Kuhta stated he did not quite understand that requirement. Mr. Hume said he would like to suggest language that everyone could understand. • No additional expansion except within this combined parcel and subject to the criteria of a-c above. Mr. Hume would like to suggest removing criteria d and adding in his two additions as well as striking the ownership language to the amendment. Mr. Hume stated that if business went well and the business needed to expand more, it could do so, but only on those two parcels, or site, but not onto any other additional parcels. This would keep you from being able to expand to the next piece and the next piece, which we all agree is not what we are trying to do. Commissioner Sharpe asked Mr. Hume if he as proposing to change or alter `d'? Mr. Hume said it was a suggestion to replace `d' with his earlier suggestion, "the expanded use must be located within the same zone, as the adjacent non-conforming use. No additional expansion will be permitted except within these combined parcels, subj ect to a- c above." Seeing no one else that wished to testify, Chair Carroll closed the public testimony at 7:22 p.m. Commissioners had some clarifying questions regarding options other than changing the non-conforming provisions, the ability to amend and add Mr. Hume's suggestions, the reasoning behind the current non-conforming language. Commissioner Sharpe made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of the proposed expansion of non-conforming rules under 19.20.060 (B). Commissioner Woodard seconded the motion. Commissioner Mann asked to clarify that Commissioner Sharpe was asking to not accept staff's findings. C. Mann also asked for clarification regarding when you had to own the 06-24-2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 10 adjacent parcel, or if the adjacent parcel had to be owned by the same owner of if it could be owned by someone else. Commissioner Woodard stated he was in favor of Commissioner Sharpe's motion, because he feels people should be able to expand if they choose no matter when they bought property. Commissioner Hall stated that he felt that the City's were already very liberal and that if we were not going to defend the zoning code then we don't have much. If non-conforming doesn't mean much then why do we have that term? C. Hall is concerned that someone could take advantage of this amendment. Commissioner Eggleston stated that he is concerned this is that this will be a City-wide issue. Commissioner Sharpe stated that as many people that could use this as taking advantage, there are limiting criteria but there would be just as many people who this could be a benefit to and allows their business to continue. Commissioner Woodard stated he would like to amend the motion striking the current language in item `d' and replace it with `the explanation could occur only in the same zone as current non-conforming parcel is located in and it could only stay the original adjacent property to that original property regardless of ownership. Motion fails for lack of a second. Commissioner Sharpe asked who makes the final determination on these decisions, Mr. Kuhta answered that these are administrative decisions, made by the Community Development Director. Commissioner Sands stated she felt it was wrong to make a change that would affect 90,000 people to benefit one party and that if the business was that viable where it was then maybe rezoning the area would be more appropriate. Commissioner Sharpe countered with he felt that it was only one now but others would benefit in the future. Commissioner Carroll stated he felt that at one time or another through growth every parcel in the city could become non-conforming, and that non- conforming was a way to ease though those changes. Good zoning protects the ethical business man, therefore he would vote against the motion. Commissioner Carroll called for the question. T�ote by Show of Hands: In Favor: Two. Sharpe, Woodard Opposed: Five, Abstentions: None. Motion fails Commissioner Sands made a motion to recommend denial of CTA-04-10 to the City Council, second by Commissioner Mann. T�ote by Show of Hands: In Favor: Five Opposed: Two. Sharpe, Woodard, Abstentions: None. Motion fails 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 7:44 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant John G. Carroll, Chairperson 06-24-2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 10