My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1993-08-25
Public Access
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Plan Commission
>
Minutes
>
1993
>
1993-08-25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/13/2005 3:55:22 PM
Creation date
4/27/2011 11:03:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning
Document type
Minutes
Planning - Date
8/25/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />August 25,1993 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Page 10 <br /> <br />Ms. Kreishman stated that she feels the motion should be denied. <br /> <br />Mr. Safe stated that he feels it may be better to table the proposal until there is more information <br />available. <br /> <br />Ms. Schuman stated that she had a problem with the amendment because it was open-ended and <br />involved changing the definition of family. These issues were being looked at under the revision <br />of the Zoning Code but from a different perspective. <br /> <br />Mr. Hill stated that Mike Weber, the Zoning Code revision consultant, stated that he was unable <br />to make a definitive judgement on this particular proposed amendment. It was Mr. Weber's <br />opinion that the proposal may not be the best way to solve the problem and perhaps the "group <br />home" route might be better. Mr. Hill stated that tabling the matter to obtain the opinion of <br />legal counsel and the Zoning Code consultant might be better than turning the application down <br />all together. <br /> <br />Ms. Alverson stated that she would prefer the application be tabled in order to give Ms. Lever <br />a chance to answer the questions raised at this meeting. <br /> <br />Ms. Ratner stated that they should not deny the proposal yet because there is not enough <br />information submitted to understand the true nature of the proposal. <br /> <br />Ms. Kreishman moved that the Plan Commission recommend that the City Council deny this <br />application for text amendment. Ms. Peniston seconded the motion which failed by a vote of <br />3 - 4. <br /> <br />Mr. Goldman stated that if the matter is not acted upon within sixty days from the date the <br />Commission members received the Planning Director's report the application is considered as <br />recommended for approval. The Planning Director's report was received by the Commission <br />members on August 20, 1993. <br /> <br />Ms. Ratner moved that the proposal be tabled. The motion was seconded by Mr. Foxworth and <br />was passed by a vote of 6 - 1. <br /> <br />Adj ournment <br /> <br />Ms. Ratner moved that the Plan Commission meeting be adjourned. The motion was seconded <br />by Mr. Foxworth and passed by a vote of 7 - O. The meeting concluded at 10:35 p.m. <br /> <br />m-B-25.plc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.