Laserfiche WebLink
5^ <br />PUBLIC ffi.AR^’G ■ AMEND-NENT <br />(Discussion and Recommendaiion - Commuea) <br />iic r^femnR to the various Business zones, was not <br />It was noted that the Location itein ^5, refemng <br />„e«Jed in the Conunercial B-» draft antendraent. <br />Location trd. "don-.cstic abuse" was ondtted to be consistent. <br />U was conunented that Nh. Mf "u.^ - -““as the <br />indicated that Utniting the ,„,on this is added is to not duplicate a <br />sole legal reason to deny an »PP''^ ^ ^ „ on the neighborhood. Hessburg satdrs«r» ”X. <br />other. <br />Under "II. Site/Buildings", no changes were required. <br />Rowlette asked what the reason was for ^equi^m^ was not easUy <br />Gaf&on said this came from other aties^ ^ problem. Rowlette asked about <br />justified, but if the area suggested a certain amount of space to limit <br />parking space and play ^d needs. ^rhout getting specific. Peterson <br />the number of people. Hessburg said there were not and direction <br />asked if there were any state gu^ehnes. Hessbur^^^^^^ t^^ ^ <br />usually came from the city. guidelines for nursery schools and day cares. <br />Mabusth did say there were ^ a privacy fence and screening, as well as a <br />Rowlenc ^referred to . "shelter". *en this would not <br />'alwa«“ppl^ “lition could be stipulated in the CUP resoluuon. <br />toe access from CoRd 19 and no service from the back street. . <br />Regarding Section BI. Operations, item Gafrbon suggested the second sentence be <br />changed to: <br />■Anv conditional use permit granted pursuant to this ordinance • <br />State or other licenses become invabd. <br />This would eliminate the automatic invahdation that concerned the anomey. <br />After some discussion regarding ^ Couned will <br />r“«tiv“®?o^^ of Directors". This would be less burdensome ti«. <br />having a separate board. <br />s