PCMin_82Apr12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING C02;~,~ISSION MEETING APRIL 12, 1982 The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M. by Chairman Al Stefanson. Stefanson, Olson, Bourquin, Nilsen, Blomberg, Labalestra and Wallin. Also present were Council Liaison Larson and Planner Carl Dale. Waldo and Mead. The first agenda item to be considered was the approval of the 1+'ebruary and March minutes. Jerry N~~allin and Al Stefanson did not detect any discrepancies in the February minutes so Bourquin moved and Labalestra seconded a motion to approve the February 1, 1982 minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. The March 1, 1982 minutes were discussed and again ti"tallin and Stefanson did not find any discrepancies. John Labalestra indicated that his comments on page nine should have contained more than one objection to the plan as submitted--specifically that traffic patterns had not been established but since his comments have been documented later, he had no objection to approval of the minutes. Jerry Wallin moved and Olson seconded that the minutes be adopted as currently written. I~4otion carried unanimously. V~rith regard to the minutes of the March 29, 1982 meeting, due to the fact that the tapes did not record, a discussion was held as to what action should be taken to fill in the speaker gaps. Jim Bourquin stated that he felt that there was another resolution considering the fact that there would be no more proposals for the development of the Hawkins- Hermes property. Al Stefanson stated that he remembered such a proposal being a recommendation but it was not in the form of a resolution. Labalestra agreed. He felt that the minutes should be approved as written since there would be no way to functionally recall what speficially har~pened that evening. Jerry 6"allin agreed and stated that although they were incomplete, they do appear to contain the substantial elements that were discussed. Jim Bourquin also agreed to approve the minutes as submitted but to add a paragraph indicating the desire of the Planning Commission to work on criteria for the development of the property. Jerry V~allin mentioned the fact that there is a pending law suit regarding the failure ~f the City Council to approve the PUD as approved by the Planning Commission and if the courts were to decide that Council action was arbitrary, fig: believed that the original PUI) would be given new life and any criteria established after the fact would be moot. But, if the law suit were dismissed or denied on its merits, he feels it is a good idea to establish criteria since there is an opz~ortunity to do so. Therefore, he moved that the minutes be approved as they are written with the understanding that there were other discussions that were not reflected. Olson seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. PRESENT ABSENT FEBRUARY 1ST MINUTES MARCH 1ST MINUTES MARCH 29TH PQINUTES