02/21/1973 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • Page Two Mr. Shearen said this discrepancy was discussed at the preliminary hearing and his understanding was that the impression given to U. S. Lakes was that these lots would be approved as platted. Mr. Marier felt that the 75' at the street was the intent of the Planning & Zoning Board and he thought that the 75' set back requirement should be elim- inated by resolution. Mr. Kelling moved to accept the plat with recommendation to the Council to change the set -back requirements for future plats and to require 75' frontage on the street as well as 75' at the set back line on all lots. Mr. Busch said this would make it difficult on developers for platting purposes. That all platting would have to be done with the grid principal. The motion was seconded by Mr. Karth. Mr. McLean wondered if we were setting a precedent by allowing these cul -de -sacs. Mr. Karth asked if we could specify that all cul -de -sacs lots have a 65' frontage - would we then be accused of discrimination? Mr. Marier felt that this would only be in the interest of the Village - that it would be 'a protection against lots that would conform to the overall size but would be odd shaped lots that would be hard to build on. Mr. Busch made the comment that with the street frontage and the set back foot- age the same there could only be rectangular platting - or if on cul -de -sacs the lots would be oversized. He suggested that before a decision was made on this that the Planning and Zoning Board consult with a Planner and an Engineer. Mr .McLean called for a vote on Mr. Kelling's motion. Motion failed. Mr. Kelling moved to accept this plat as presented by U. S. Lakes for Lakes Addition #3. Seconded by Mr. Shearon. Motion carried. Mr. Shearen moved to recommend to the Council that they took into the discrep- ancies of the lot frontage and the set back footage in order to avoid this conflict in the future. Seconded by Mr. Kelling. MOtion carried. Mr. McLean moved that all lands covered in Lakes Addition #3 plat be revised to R 1 zoning in all instances. Seconded by Mr. Shearen. Motion carried. Mr. McLean noted that all Park lands had been eliminated from the new plat, but asked about the open space, would this be regarded as Public Property? Mr. Marier felt that if it was accepted as Public Property it would create a problem as to patrolling and maintenance. Mr. Shearen asked if this area could be absorbed by extending the existing lots and having a common lot line at the rear of the lots. Mr. Busch said it had been platted in that manner so as to conform to an Open Space concept. The problems encountered in extending these lots would fall into the area of lots on East Shadow Lake that are already occupied. This open space concept had been approved by the Council.