Laserfiche WebLink
Zoni-ig File #10' ? <br />Juiie 4, 1986 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />The minority of 2 were against Fulmer's petition especially when <br />the planning study is not yet complete. They noted the following <br />concerns: <br />1. )cngerous precedent tc begin after the long struggle the City <br />had to deter all local service to the interceptor line. <br />Planning study should ue completed before we make such <br />decisions. <br />3. Applicants were advised in 19 net th- site was seve ply <br />limited for the proposed interisification in uae - L:he cost'' 31 <br />use permit was granted because the Council was Ivised to <br />could pravide the additional septic Fria. <br />Ordinance 13 notes that t: rollovir:^ findings must be made <br />before the Planning Commission ca. -ake a recxnmendation of approval: <br />;. is the pror- snl contrar, intent of the Comprehensive <br />Flan? <br />Z. Is the proposal compatible wi zoning and ._icial <br />-ontrol amendments b(-ing considered City in our planning <br />ALudy" <br />3. Will this prop.)sal <br />safety or welfare of ti <br />rlanni.- Coauission Cflaa <br />rt -se impact on t tie health, <br />, ,tridation and Additional. Staff <br />The ma* . � b u of the - ; tommisG felt _ council had <br />ai: .ads, iao,, see' Elie issue <..acring Ful! is propf-,y and that the <br />moratprium var`. ante for ti1F.r part becomes a routine procedural rev..ew. <br />Courici_ . d alieedy made a determination. he minority di.agretd zad <br />oted against tre variance �q;3e- t and voiced strong (support of tb,4 <br />ri:.:►ority positio ° the Council. <br />Tn a vott. of 3 tn, 2, Planning Commission voted to rec�,mmenC <br />Apprc cf ' ulmer'�. variance - ppli^a'-ion b,� Id on the <br />.Lindini,: <br />1. t ;s a .que situat <br />1. F•ulnic:'s reruta _ion in the ope:-ation of hi.s kennel business <br />i a excellent anu the City must ::ooparste or as, ' -t in t.eeping the <br />Fulmers in th-- Zommunity. <br />