Laserfiche WebLink
Page Three <br />lug; Merier went over the lots which W. Gottwald suggested as needing rill. <br />W. Hill asked if the Park Board has any feelings on what they went in a perk. <br />Mr. McLean felt they had not set down any criteria. W. Merier thought the <br />Council would be in favor of a park system in one area rather then spread <br />throughout an area. <br />W. IGelling felt the P & Z Board should go on record as saying that they want <br />powered vehicles kept at zero. <br />There was discussion concerning the 7,000 feet of sanitary service extensions <br />needed, also the assessment proposal. Mr. Busch said W. Carley hes all of <br />that in his notes. He could see no need for another bond issue. Mt. Marier <br />paid it would require a tax, or a levey or a bond issue. <br />Mr. McLean read a letter from W. Gottwald regarding the sewer question. There <br />was general discussion, also as it regarded fiscal relationship. <br />Lakes was asked about sales in the vedelopment. They said the sewer problem <br />has restricted sales. Only 23 out of 160 lots have been sold. Sales have been <br />slow since February since the sewer problem appeared in the papers. <br />M. Nadeau asked if expanding the sewer now will improve the system now. W. <br />yer said yes, it would improve the flow. Mr. Nadeau noted it wouldn't make it <br />ziy easier to handle and haul away. <br />Mr. McLean asked if there was a covenant in the contracts with the individuals <br />oatline a golf course as related to their lots. W. Musoh said no. gnether <br />they had a legal case, he didn't know. <br />Kelling coved that the Pllenning and Zoning Commission recommend to the <br />Council that the two (2) applications for variance to our Zoning Code presented <br />by U. S. Lakes be accepted provided that U. S. Lakes revises their applications <br />as follayst <br />1. Both applications be revised to provide for R 1 zoning on all lands <br />covered in the two applications. <br />2. Delete all open space or park proposal from the two applications <br />3. The platting be revised to utilize those areas that were designated as <br />open space. <br />4. Revise East Shadow Lake Drive to suggested layout provided by U. S. Lakes. <br />5. The development and sale of lots be restricted to 75.80% of the <br />presently serviced areas before proceeding to platted areas requiring <br />extension of services. <br />rylonded by Mir. Shearen. Carried with Mr. Nadeau voting no, as he didn't <br />understand every aspect. <br />W. Kelling moved secondly that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend <br />o the Council that they develop an open space or park proposal that will also <br />provide public access to Reshnau Lake and that this proposal be presented to <br />U. S. Lakes. U. S. Lakes after negotiation, will provide lands in their <br />development to support this proposal in a quenitity related to their 10% <br />requirement under our ordinances. Seconded by Mr. Karth. Motion carried