Laserfiche WebLink
,I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> ! <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> i <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br />the Commu3. ity School allocation by 20%. That motion passed. Councilmember <br />Reimann also stated that he feels there should be a full attendance of <br />Council to consider Councilmember Van Wagners present motion to reinstate <br />$2500 into the Community School Program. Councilmember Van Wagner stated <br />that she has no objection to tabling this case until there is a full attendance <br />of Council. Councilmember Schlueter stated that Council agrees that Council- <br />member Reimann has a right to his opinion and that it is true that the <br />Community School budget has been steadily increasing. Councilmember Schlueter <br />stated that she will vote for reinstating the $2500 into the budget based on <br />the fact th&t this group did put their heads together and make some cost cuts. <br />Councilmember Schlueter suggested that subsequent Community School budgets <br />be prepared in that same direction. Councilmember Reimann replied that if <br />people want this program, they should pay for it themselves. Councilmember <br />Reimann stated that maybe the program is popular because someone else has <br />been paying for it. Councilmember Reimann stated that the school belongs <br />to the community and those wanting a community program should donate the <br />time and money to it. Councilmember Van Wagner stated that every year, each <br />department turns in a budget and some of those departments are requested to <br />make cuts -- the Co~unity School Program is not unique in this situation. <br />Councilmember Van Wagner also commended Mr. Hadley and Mr. Stroscheim for <br />following Council's direction. <br /> <br />Councilmember Reimann withdraws his second to Councilmember Van Wagner's <br />motion. <br /> <br />Councilmember Van Wagner withdraws her motion to reinstate ~2500 into the <br />Community School Program. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Van Wagner and seconded by Councilmember Reimann to <br />table this case until the Council's regular meeting scheduled for the 4th <br />Tuesday in January, 1984. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Reimann, Schlueter <br />and Van Wagner. Voting No: None. Absent: Councilmember Sorteberg. <br /> <br />Case #5: Request For Concept Approval For A P.U.D.; Case Of Mr. Norm Holm: <br /> <br />Mr. Dick Carson and Mr. Rick Foster were present and requested Council's <br />concept~approval of a PUD for what was formerly Flintwood II. <br /> <br />Mr. Foster stated that the PUD will consist of a density of 345 units and <br />3 commercial sites. The PUD will contain single dwellings, quads and 8- <br />plexes. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec noted that the 8-plexes are planned to border an adjacent <br />residential area and this would mean a lot of blacktop facing an existing <br />residential area. Mayor Gamec inquired if it would be a problem to have <br />singles and quads buffering the existing residential area. <br /> <br />Mr. Carscn replied that positioning the 8-plexes at the core of the property <br />would require a lot of grading and eliminating of trees. Positioning the <br />singles cn Thurston could mean a lot of driveways onto a major thoroughfare <br />someday. There will be approximately 200' between the multiples and the <br />existing residential homes. <br /> <br />Councilm~mber Van Wagner stated that some people feel the 16 unit building <br />that is 3 lanned will tend to decrease the value of surrounding properties. <br /> <br />C/November 22, 1983 <br /> Page 11 of 21 <br /> <br /> <br />