Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Luna Pier council adds 10552 Evans Drive to marijuana facility overlay with conditional rezoning agreement
Summary
The Luna Pier City Council voted unanimously June 12 to add Parcel 5851-003-007-50 (10552 Evans Drive) to the Marijuana Facility Overlay, accepting a property-owner offered condition that would limit any facility to the four eastern units and require a conditional rezoning agreement with Leaf & Bud.
The Luna Pier City Council on June 12 approved adding Parcel 5851-003-007-50 (10552 Evans Drive) to the city's Marijuana Facility Overlay and accepted an owner-offered condition limiting any marijuana business to the four most eastern units of the 10-unit Luna Pier Plaza. The motion, made by Councilmember Diana Szkatulski and seconded by Councilmember Shawn Boslooper, passed on a roll-call vote with all members voting in favor.
The move followed public comments and presentations from property representatives. Scott Roberts offered to make his property's zoning conditional to limit marijuana operations to the eastern units; developer Andrew Haftkowycz provided a landscape concept for the plaza. Resident Connie Cole said she had not seen negative impacts from the existing Green Lab operation in the city.
City Attorney Phil Goldsmith explained the legal mechanism the council used: "Cities cannot ask for additional conditions/restrictions above what a property is zoned for; however, a property owner can offer additional conditions/restrictions," Goldsmith said, and such conditions can be memorialized in a contract or conditional rezoning agreement that runs with the property.
The council's approval requires a conditional rezoning agreement between Leaf & Bud and the City of Luna Pier spelling out the offer of restrictions. The agreement, as discussed, would bind future owners if recorded per the city's legal advice. No timetable for building permits or a facility opening was provided at the meeting.
The Planning Commission had recommended the overlay change and council action implemented that recommendation with the owner-offered limitations. The decision was taken by formal motion and roll-call vote; council did not discuss imposing additional city-initiated conditions beyond the offered agreement.
