04/19/1972 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

2 4/19/72 Carlos Avery, but he doesn't know what it is. This is something that should be looked into. He felt that the state proposal for an equal tax base per pupil would help here. He stated that the County is simply trying to come up with a reasonable alternative plan to Metro's, because if we don't they will force theirs upon us. Mr. Torkildson further noted the uses of the park as nature center, day camp, wild life preserve, camping, swimming, historical sites, trails, golf courses, etc. There will be a number designation as to what "recreation" can be found in what part of the parks. The roads will be constructed and maintained by the county. At present the county parks are not policed. Bunker Prairie has a caretaker who watches after it. The question was asked whether the village had any say -so on what facilities would be in certain areas. Mr. Burman said that they will try to work out some- thing to be compatible with the village and their needs, but since outsiders would also be using this area, their needs would also have to be taken into consideration. Mr. Kelling advised that the State Legisiature gave St. Paul Water Dept. the rights to Centerville Lake. We have no rights. There is a conflicting public use here, and since St. Paul needs water they would have priority. The Committee reviewed Chomonix South, First and Second Additions to see the progress. U. S. Lakes' Engineer noted that the only change was double garages were allowed on the Plat. Mr. Boyd wondered about the problem with sewer now that Metro isn't putting it through this year? Mr. McLean advised that we only recommend to the Council. It will be their problem at that time. Mrs. Swanson inquired about the setbacks from the Lake. She noted that there will be a new act regarding this. Mr. McLean advised of communications from the planner and engineer. Mr. Van Housen's letter, dated March 28, 1972, advised: Lot 1 - Block 7: No objection to this plan, however this is only a legal document and doesn't relieve the developer of the responsibilities and contingencies placed upon his approved preliminary plans. Outlot A: if this has been revised from its original approval it should be accompanied with a proper site plan. Building Group ti- Lots 1, 2, 3, & 4: Previously were agreed to a 50' landscaped setback from Birch Road. His general comments were: "...I have been impressed with the thoroughness of planning, I was equally unimpressed with the poor, unimaginative architect- ure, sloppy construction techniques and general poor site maintenance control." He also suggested they be reminded of their landscaping responsibilities this spring. Mr. Gotwald's letter, dated April 17, 1972, stated that the final plats general- ly conform to the approved preliminary plats. He did note a difference of less than 1 foot on outside plat dimensions. U. S. Lakes' Engineer advised this was because their builder wanted to make sure lot lines ran right as close as pos- sible through building foundations. Mr. Kelling moved to recommend acceptance of the plat as laid out with comment from the Engineer and Planner, and with prior recommendations and restrictions