My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-12-2024 Planning Commission Minutes
>
Minutes
>
2020-2029
>
2024
>
12-12-2024 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/22/2026 8:40:25 PM
Creation date
6/22/2026 8:39:50 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />DECEMBER 12, 2024 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />The Community Development Director explained that those options would remain within the <br />ordinance to provide the City with options. He confirmed that it would be unlikely to set a time <br />period for the expiration of a business. <br /> <br />Commissioner Masrud referenced the change in the application timeline to two weeks. <br /> <br />The Community Development Director stated that currently, applications are required to be <br />submitted five weeks before the Planning Commission meeting, which cuts into the 60-day <br />review window. He stated that with the guidance of the City Attorney, it is recommended to <br />reduce that review window to two weeks. <br /> <br />Chair Johnson asked if there is any risk in the City choosing between the three options for <br />expiration. <br /> <br />The Community Development Director explained that it would be similar to findings of fact for a <br />variance and the decision will be made on a case-by-case basis. He noted that each case would <br />have a recommendation on the timeline in the staff presentation. He noted that for cannabis <br />businesses the IUP term would be tied to the expiration of the license. <br /> <br />Chair Johnson asked if there would still be a mechanism for enforcement should there be a <br />nuisance issue. <br /> <br />The Community Development Director explained that an IUP is basically a CUP that expires and <br />therefore would still have the same ability to enact conditions. <br /> <br />Commissioner Masrud asked if this would cause issues for a business that wants to sell. <br /> <br />The Community Development Director stated that could be a potential roadblock as there would <br />be less of a guarantee and the sale of the business could be contingent upon IUP approval from <br />the City. <br /> <br /> Carlson-Clark introduced the following motion: <br /> <br />RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 906 <br /> <br /> The foregoing motion was duly seconded by Thorson. <br /> Ayes (5). Nays (0). Motion passed. <br /> <br /> <br />REPORTS FROM STAFF <br /> <br />LITTLE CANADA HOUSING DATA
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.