Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 07-12-12.pdf Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED 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, 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 07-12-12 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�he 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 zintil all those who have si�ned in have had an o�ortunitv to speak. „f �� , �;*f�,a t„ � �,v , ,�f;� �,n f�„�� ,,,�„ � ,,,a ;� ��„ „ c-�*;s���At any public hearing, persons who have signed in and wish to be h�eard 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 pro.�y shall be allowed. Mr. Carroll's concern was if there was no� a complete Commission in attendance it could give more weight to a negative vote. Mr. Drislcell 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 th�e Chair's absence, to th�e 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 City's Governance Manual, which talks about Ciry Council liaisons for committees. Mr. Driskell said if one reads the language it states a Ciry Council member attends a committee and then comes back and reports to the Ciry 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 Planning Commission Minutes 07-12-12 Page 2 of ll personal interpretation of what happened at the meeting, which could be different from the 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 parry 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 City 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. Drislcell 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 we1L 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 minority 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 07-12-12 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 per�ceived conflict of interest, then the Commission member should be allowed to recuse or withdraw fi^om that cleliberation. 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 `wi1P "_then the Commission member�c�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 Commissio�r 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 discovej;v a�' determination of a conflict is made durin�a Commission meetin� the Commission member shall publiclv 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 de�ne 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: IMissing three or more consecutive regularly scheduled meetings or study sessions without such absences being excused by the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes 07-12-12 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 th�e reason for such absence, and inquire if th�ere 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, � t'� ���;,�,�;,�� „��'� p'�.,�,�;,�� r'�,��,��;°°;�,� , �';,�� after roll call bv the Secretarv, 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 woiild 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 the 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 07-12-12 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,body and fender works: Proposed as an allowed use with conditions in the Community Commercial zone. 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 thaf 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. Brewerv,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 aones have signi�cant vacancies and would be appropriate for this type of use. Other uses already permitfed 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 siae and do not generate traffic or noise in amounts that would be disruptive to the adjacent 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 Hea�y Industrial zones. Church, temple,mosque, svna�o�ue and parsona�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 aones. 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 aone. 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 07-12-12 Page 6 of ll Exercise facilit��ym/athletic club: Proposed as an allowed use in the Office zone. Small scale fitness 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,� 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 locafed, would need fhe 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. Office & Com�uter 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�ra�hic Studio: 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. 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 07-12-12 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 talcing 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 Counry 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 07-12-12 Page 8 of ll similar uses in the vicinity 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 cct 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 weelc, 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 facility. Ms. Moore stated she felt there was a huge demand for this type of facility and it should be a viable faciliry, 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 faciliry 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 facility: • 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 07-12-12 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 City compares to the City of Spolcane and Spokane County. Mr. Hohman said he would like the time to do some research. Commissioner Stoy, Hall and Ba�es al1 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 weelcends 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 rype of faciliry 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. Planning Commission Minutes 07-12-12 Page 10 of ll XL ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m. Bill Bates, Chairperson _. D ea n n a Digitally signed by Deanna Griffith DN:rn=Deanna Griffith,o=Ciry of Spokane Valley,ou=Communiry Development, Griffith DateI20g2092�93130 0700'rg,r—US Deanna Griffith, PC Secretary Date signed Planning Commission Minutes 07-12-12 Page ll of ll