Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2025 02 13

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2024 Page3of8 Public Comment: Mark Cathcart, resident, said that he had concerns that the implementation of this policy could produce the negative consequences for nearby residents as the initial regulation of marijuana sales. He asked that the Commission recommend City Council adopt the same regulations for natural medicine businesses as were then in place for marijuana dispensaries. Commissioner Discussion: Moline said that he concurred with the staff assessment, and noted the difficult position the City was in given the requirements from the state. Hunt said that she agreed with Moline, and was in support. Baskett said that she was in support. Choi said that he would abstain as he did not feel comfortable voting for the proposed ordinance. Bangs said he was reluctantly in favor of the proposed ordinance. Brauneis noted that the City was in a challenging position but was ultimately in support. Motion to approve Resolution 11, Series 2024 was moved by Moline and seconded by Baskett. The motion was adopted by a vote of 5 to 0 with Choi abstaining. b) CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 - Preliminary PUD, Preliminary Plat, Land Use Exhibit Amendment, Rezoning, and Special Review Use - 1032, 1034, and 1040 E South Boulder Road: Consideration of Resolution 10, Series 2024, regarding a recommendation to City Council for a mixed use project with 188 residential units and 13,534 square feet of commercial space. Staff Presentation: Post provided a recap on the application. He also introduced new evidence related to a traffic study from November of 2022, and from the 2019 Transportation Master Plan. Public Comment: Lauryl Sagrillo, resident, pooled with Tami Cantrel, resident, said that the connection of Front Street to South Boulder Road no longer made sense given that there was no longer going to be a train station there in the near future. She spoke about the dangers of traffic for children walking and biking to the nearby middle school. She asked that approval be delayed until a more in depth traffic study had been completed. Bob Tofte, resident, said that he was opposed to the application due to the additional traffic it would create. He also noted that this additional traffic could pose a safety hazard to children riding their bikes to and from the nearby middle school.