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 approvalbecause 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, landscaping, and street access <br /> which conform 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 ' s.ubmittal 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 /> Beforethe voting on the amended motion, Mr. Bowerman indicated his <br /> concern that "the Council understand the Commissionrecognizes that <br /> the Detailed Plan as proposed becomes a part of the Concept Develop- <br /> ment Plan for the entire PUD" . - <br />