Laserfiche WebLink
.� I'V��LII1�S V1e�14/ Pi�YlI1191� C011lii1153%OSl <br />Special meeii�tg <br />�ctober 15, 1997 <br />Page 3 <br />Comaniss�one�° Jot�e�s�on told the Commissioners that upon reading the October 1994 <br />meeting minutes that refers to this project, he nofiiced that the Planning Commission at <br />that time made note that the driveway entrance on the south side of the dev���rpment site <br />was to close to the adjaceni curve. As a condition of approval, ����est;�iup, Ltd., at <br />that t'tme had agreed to move the driveway opening farthe�- to tk�;:���t;'>k'� <br />Associ�te Erics�n s�ated that a full development <br />the plan that had been agreed to previously were:; <br />Chair Peterson said it was his feeling that the F <br />plan at which time it might be possibfe to do ar�d <br />the plan and approve it at the same meeting. <br />A.ssoe�ate �ric�on totd the Commission th <br />Council only if ehe Planning Commissiot�_;� <br />C6�Rir Pete�°soat siated that there <br />present time, <br />�,ssociate Er�cson told ihe:���r�ii <br />i@VleW WaS T1Qt GOC1t11i�efl�;::�'�30ri � <br />�¢����sioner° ��`il��:��ed her <br />��;��t'�: .;;��at.� the in���:;t��;��i�;Resc <br />;::�:;:.>; ;;;;,.. <br />Chair �������� su��este� �:h��z�� <br />senten�� �,>2����t�: �ith WFt�g��$ <br />5 <br />no ap <br />e. <br />c <br />the <br />reapproval process; review <br />;it;�.�as Fus inten�;;�:�:::��id;:the plan to the City <br />tG�c�;:��<c�o �� tull r����v��process. <br />,. :; <br />; <br />�€�r��� €��`�1�� 1�� ihat was in effect at the <br />� .... <br />the r..:�soiution approving the deveiopment <br />�ip;,�y set period of time, <br />n;:t��t the language in Resolution 531-97 did not <br />in its title. <br />�g the word "property" to "properties" at the first <br />in the resolution. <br />�r�issioner I�������:��d she woufd tike to see the inclusion af the words "four parcels <br />�� • ;:;:;.:.:::::: :. : <br />one in the ti���<:��:��ie resolution. <br />Associate Eric��t� said that he woutd add the words "to be legally described as lot l, <br />block 1 of Mo��ids View Business Park East 2nd Addition," into the.last Whereas <br />�?ara�rat��';c��`�qa�e 1 of Resolution 531-97. <br />��r�rnissioners agreed unanimous(y. <br />Motion/second: Brasaemie/Johnston moved to recommend approvai of Resolutian No. 531-97, a <br />Resoiution Recammending Approva( of the Final 1'!at for 1Vlounds View Business Park East 2nd <br />Addition; Planning Case 505-97, as amended. <br />