Laserfiche WebLink
Tree <br />4r. Hill felt we should ask for a total comprehensive plan as it <br />regarded whole area, including green spaces. Mr. Van Nousen noted <br />that we asked for a total plan about a year ago end all we got was <br />a block plan. Mr. Hill felt there was no real park area for kids - <br />they'll be in the street. <br />Mr. McLean advised everyone that this was not legal hearing because <br />it wasn't posted and published. <br />Mr. I1arier asked about the timinu on additional Laterals off of Lantern <br />and Bleck Duck, and how many feet of pipes will be necessary for t`u: <br />additional letcrals. <br />Mr. Bush said that as soon as they get approval they'll put the models <br />up. Possessions should b' next summer. There are 180 sites, but the <br />initial soles will be neer the existing pipes. <br />Mr, Marie:. noted that the Council passed on their Plan 2 and we have <br />money invea.4ed that we haven't gotten anything out of. Ivlr. Meyer <br />figured that the total feet of pipes needed would be about 7,000, at <br />about $4.00 to $5.00 per foot. <br />One resident asked what guarantee they have that there won't be loan <br />cost homes put in there. Mr. McLean and Mt, Locher told him there are <br />no cost requirements in the Village, just footage requirements. The <br />state code is set up to allow state housing anywhere in the state. Our <br />building code gives more protection. <br />Mr. Van Housen said he sew a like buffer none in California and it was <br />very nice, He did feel it should be fully dedicated. He didn't feel <br />the R5 should be left in existence, and that they delete those few <br />lots across from the park as he commented on in his letter. He also <br />noted that there is no way to keep pe,;ple out of a public park end this <br />is one reason for keeping it small and nonrecreational in scope. He <br />asked hew much land they owe us now for parks. He felt this should <br />probably be rejected until a total concept is presented. <br />Mr. Busch said #1 - as layout developed they said they would have a <br />lake access contributed to the village and #2 • park area is not <br />required for land not used for habitation (such as golf course). <br />Larry Johnson felt the residents should have a say so, they are <br />the ones who live there and it is intended for their use and they <br />are saying they do not went the buffer none. <br />One lady asked if there was no compromising plan. <br />Mr. Farrend made a recommendation based on his personal opinion. He <br />recommended that the Council reject the proposed platting change on <br />morel grounds as related to misrepresentation. <br />After discussion a second was celled for twice. There was none so <br />the motion is dead. <br />Mr. Shearen moved to recommend the Council table these variance appeals <br />until we receive more dnteiled plot plans as recommended by the Engineer <br />and Planner. They should submit plans regarding the total concept (5.03 <br />and 5.05) and perk system as they plan to develop present and proposed