Laserfiche WebLink
-4- <br /> The public hearing was closed at 9 :20 P.M. <br /> Mr. Bowerman said he believes "the Commission should look at the. <br /> property apart from the undeveloped lots and disagreed with the -. <br /> assumption that if the developed lot is- allowed, the rest will be <br /> "spot developed" . Mrs. Makowske said she had come that evening with <br /> strong feelings of opposition to the proposal but after the hearing <br /> was "leaning towards a recommendation of approval because she saw <br /> . the possiblity this might be the impetus for a development of -the <br /> rest of the site" . Mr. Peterson was for a recommendation of approval <br /> with a specific provision for fencing "to move the proposal along" . <br /> Mr. Jones believes the problem of the undeveloped lots would continue <br /> if this portion of the PUD isn't developed. He saw the proposal as <br /> providing the signage, parking, landsc_ap, and street access <br /> which con orm to the PUD requirements and believed the proposal <br /> would fit in well with the residential. . However, he wanted safe- <br /> guards built in to assure only a "B" use of the property in the <br /> future. <br /> The meeting was recessed from 9 :30 to 9:40 P.M. and when resumed, <br /> a motion recommending approval of the project was made and seconded <br /> by Mr. Sopcinski and Mrs. Makowske and amended as follows: <br /> Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mrs. Makowske to amend the motion <br /> to specify $3,200 as the amount which will fulfill the requirements <br /> for this portion of the PUD for the unconditional irrevocable Letter <br /> ( of Credit required of the developer. <br /> Voting on the motion to amend: <br /> Aye: Jones , Makowske, Peterson, Bowerman, Bjorklund and Enrooth. <br /> Nay: Sopcinski. <br /> Motion to amend carried. <br /> Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to amend the motion <br /> to include as a condition the submittal of a landscaping plan for <br /> staff approval. <br /> Voting on the motion: <br /> Aye: Jones, Bowerman, Makowske, Peterson and Bjorklund. <br /> Nay: Sopcinski and - Enrooth (believed covered in site plans) . <br /> Motion to amend carried. <br /> Before the voting on the amended motion, Mr. Bowerman- indicated his. <br /> -concern that "the Council understand the,Commission recognizes that. <br /> the Detailed Plan as proposed becomes a .part of the Concept Develop- • <br /> ' ment Plan for the entire PUD" . <br />