PCMin_82May3 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~INUTES PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 TRAY 3, 1982 conditions can be made as part of the approval of the variance setback JOHN provisions. Unless other arrangements are made tia~ith the developer, LABALESTRA the matter of enforcing, if push comes to shove, it would be the (CONT'D) responsibility of the City to require conformance. The Council could require a performance bond in conjunction with the granting of the variances. The ordinance does allow attachment of conditions. He feels that the storm sewer would be developed by the City under Chapter 129 as a local improvement, the cost of which would be financed initially by a bond issue and then assessed against the property owners. Normally it is not required that the developer himself undertake the improvements and deed them t o the city. He asks whether these conditions were required as part of the Resolution, and Erma Olson answers that they could. Harold V~iestin has no objections to conditions and finds them acceptable. V~~allin states that he feels the points addressed by the City Engineer JERRY WALLIN shoiid also be included in the Resolution. '.'~aldo states that she would RE50LiITION also like to see that the City Engineer's Report incorporated in the AMENDI;~NT Resolution. 1~`allin moves, seconded by Mead, that the last sentence of the second paragraph be amended by adding the words "and the recommendation of -the City Engineer, Robert Schunicht, in his draft letter dated it4ay 5, 1982". Motion approved unaminously. Olson and Nilsen approve the amendment to the Resolution. Bourquin stated he felt the vrords "well and assure that justice will prevail" are unnecessary and should be stricken from the last JIM BOUR~UIN RESOLUTION paragraph. He moves, seconded by Z'~a1do, that the words be stricken. AMENDIt~NT Motion approval unaminously. Olson and Nilsen approve the amendment to the Resolution. Upon a vote taken to determine if the Resolution, as amended, meets VOTE ON with the approval of the planning Commission, the following voted RESOLUTION "yes" : Olson, Bourquin, ZETilsen, Labalestra, -4~allin, Blomberg, Stefanson, Mead and l'ialdo. IVlotion carried unaminously. Carl Dale presents an addendum modification dated April 23, 1982, to CARL DALE the Planning Commission Report previously submitted for the criteria CRITERIA AND and guidelines under consideration. He makes alternate recommend- GUIDELINES ations and these five recommendations are contained in that report along with certain conditions. The Planning Commission members expressed comments regarding the alternate ways that the remaining vacant area could be developed. Bourauin moved, seconded by Nilsen, that the meeting be adjourned at P.DJOURNMENT 10:25 P.M. I•.~Iotion carried unanimously. ~~~~ Jer a , Secretary