My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2011 02 10
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2011 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2011 02 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:49:45 AM
Creation date
2/17/2011 1:58:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2011 02 10
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
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
O'Connell agreed the existing should be allowed to exist and then just limit the <br />use. She also asked if it is spot zoning to try to move the CB at 104 and Dillon. <br />Lipton stated the site change would be spot zoning and the criteria should be <br />changed to address the current site at 104 and Dillon. <br />Russell asked if the two existing sites could remain and not allow any others into <br />the city. <br />Russ stated it could be done because we are a Home Rule Charter city. <br />Lipton asked about creating a new zone category. <br />Russ stated it could be explored. <br />Loo asked if there any support by the Commissio c rate language <br />regarding a use with population of children which a <br />Russell and Sheets stated they were uncomfortable with create nother zone <br />district. They both support the idea of more time to consider all th options. <br />Lipton stated he would like to remov <br />Russell sated the prop <br />technical review and he <br />eastern property as <br />Commission Discussio <br />O'Connell stated the ar <br />Lipton asked she was <br />scale one. <br />ea on <br />Brauneis agreed there needs to be a way to limit th <br />population. <br />Pritchard stated the commissio <br />direction but he also stated he w <br />written. <br />d go back <br />rt appr <br />Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />January 13, 2011 <br />Page 9 of 14 <br />ct on vulnerable <br />ity Council for better <br />the ordinances as <br />he east as not compatible. <br />Loo stated this is so restrictive and hypocritical. <br />O'Connell woul• °• like to the area orthe east removed and would also <br />like to address cul on. <br />regulation ;irk but he continues to struggle with the <br />ern property. He would support removal of the <br />ite. <br />gar.. • Cultivation: <br />ents against cultivation are not strong enough. <br />ng about a large scale growing operation of a small <br />O'Connell stated she is looking for guidelines for on -site growing. <br />Brauneis stated he would not oppose on -site growing if it was regulated properly. <br />Russell stated he thinks the scale of the operation is a big discussion point. He <br />stated it would be better to understand the limitations of cultivation. <br />Brauneis asked if the commission is trying to deal with an issue that does not <br />exist. <br />Lipton stated then let's proceed without dealing with cultivation. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.