My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 01 10
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2019 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 01 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:12 AM
Creation date
2/25/2019 3:39:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2019 01 10
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
515
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />December 13, 2018 <br />Page 4 of 21 <br />Zuccaro replied that the Commission's recommendation would go to Council and they <br />would make the final decision. <br />Moline asked where the impetus for the changes in the ordinances came from. <br />Zuccaro replied that from the changes to the sales side it was a desire to treat <br />marijuana stores similar to liquor stores. On the cultivation side, it was about business <br />development. <br />Brauneis noted that he thought the state legalization process involved a discussion <br />about treating marijuana like liquor. <br />Zuccaro added that the CTC (in an Industrial District) was not in favor of the cultivation <br />in their area and it may not be allowed due to private regulation under the CDC. <br />Moline asked if the licensing authority was the same for liquor as for marijuana. <br />Muth replied that it was the same licensing board and the process for getting a <br />marijuana license was similar to getting a liquor license. <br />Williams asked if the City would have authority to deny any of the allowed marijuana <br />stores. <br />Muth replied that if they met zoning and licensing requirements, then no. <br />Moline asked how the City would ensure compliance with a cultivation business that <br />was a use -by -right in an Industrial District. <br />Zuccaro responded that the business would still need to get a tenant finish building <br />permit and also a license. The licensing stage would be when staff would verify <br />compliance with things like the ventilation system. Staff had also added a requirement <br />to provide an industrial hygienist report during the licensing process. <br />Howe asked about the process to report odors. <br />Zuccaro replied that a code enforcement officer would go out as soon as possible to <br />verify the odor. Staff from other cities said that it was a difficult thing to enforce, because <br />odors vary by the time of day and so complaints without verification sometimes happen. <br />The Code amendment included a reporting requirement, but staff and Council had also <br />discussed additional requirements. <br />Howe asked how the filtering systems worked and if the ordinance would specify the <br />filtration specs. <br />Zuccaro stated that the Code would not mandate specific filtration systems, but it would <br />be up to the facility to prove that their filtration system met the standards in the Code. <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.