Laserfiche WebLink
1 that the PUD process allows the City to assist in being creative; there are not <br />2 enough details of physical developments. <br />4 Member Wilke suggested tabling for two weeks. <br />6 Chair Klausing asked if applicant can supply information for Apri126' <br />s Motion. Member Mulder moved, Member Wilke seconded, to advise the Council <br />9 to review the project on Apri126�' and table action to May 8; and, further that the <br />10 Planning Commission hold a special meeting and continue the public hearing to <br />11 Apri126 to review details of the applicant plans. <br />12 <br />13 Member Cunningham noted that he prefers this not be postponed any further, but <br />14 with applicant's final plans being prepared for the Council meeting, including bus <br />15 pick up/drop off, traffic, roofing, landscaping, hours of operation and other items. <br />16 <br />1� <br />1s <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />Chair Klausing discussed procedural issues of changing zoning. <br />Thomas Paschke clarified reuse and redevelopment consistent with the <br />Comprehensive Plan. The uses which change also require change in the Code <br />requirements related to the site. <br />2s Member Mulder stated that if the Planning Commission believed the uses would <br />24 not work, the developer should be told that at this time. The uses proposed could <br />25 be either well done and a complimentary use and to existing uses, a community <br />26 asset or a community problem. <br />27 <br />2s Member Rhody stated that the neighborhood planning process should be <br />29 undertaken and that reviewing the plans is necessary to appropriately respond and <br />3o to allow neighbors to also respond. The developer must explain how they will <br />s� spend their limited budget on this. If residents are not included, this appears to be <br />32 circumvention of the neighborhood process. � <br />33 <br />34 <br />I 35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />`Member Wilke noted the charitable gambling final approval is necessary by the <br />City Council. <br />Member Egli supported the motion and supported the critique of school, traffic, <br />outdoor plan and improvements to the site. <br />Member Cunningham supported the proposal to bring quality schools as the <br />anchor tenant, brings a new vitality, health and safety to the site. <br />Motion carried 7-O. <br />