My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10/24/1972 Council Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1972
>
10/24/1972 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/16/2014 11:00:45 AM
Creation date
12/16/2014 9:06:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
10/24/1972
Council Meeting Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
10 -24 -72 <br />They read as follows: <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 proposals form the two applications. <br />3. The platting be revised to tuilize those areas that were designated <br />as 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 presently <br />serviced areas before proceeding to platted areas requiring extension of <br />services. <br />Mr. Kelling moved secondly that the P &Z Board recommend to the Council that they <br />develop an open space or park proposal that will also provide public access to <br />Reshnau Lake and that this proposal be presented to U. S. Lakes. After negotations, <br />U. S. Lakes will provide lands in their development to support this proposal in <br />a quanity related to their 10% requirement under our Ordinance. <br />Mr. Bohjanen asked how many points of this proposal could U. S. Lakes agree to. <br />Mr. Busch answered that points 1, 4, and 5 were compatible with the company. The <br />Company felt that points 2 and 3 should not be followed but that they would abide <br />by the Council's ruling. <br />Mr. Bohjanen asked the Council members for their feeling on these points. <br />Mr. Marier explained that point 2 was for the protection of both the Village and <br />the residents. They felt that the open space would create a maintance problem and <br />an expense that the Village could not absorb and that it would create a traffic <br />nuisance and a parking problem for the residents. On point #3, the P & Z Board <br />felt that if this area was not to be used as open space then it should be replatted <br />into the overall plan. <br />Mr. Cardinal asked about the area designated as open space or the buffer zone. <br />Mr. Marier explained the areas using the map on display. <br />Mr. Bohjanen asked Mr. McLean , P &Z Board Chairman, about the reasoning behing the <br />recommendations of the Board. <br />Mr. McLean replied that Mr. Marier had covered all areas. The intent of moving <br />the park was to eliminate the traffic through a residential area. <br />Mr. Bohjanen then asked for remarks from the people of the area who were present. <br />Mr. Gotwald arrived. <br />Mr. Bohjanen asked Mr. Gotwald if he had anytning to add to this report. Mr. Gotwald <br />said, No., that his report was the same as before. Basically the area was the same <br />and there wouldn't be any change in his report. <br />Mr. Bohjanen said that the concern of the Council was to solve the problem in the <br />best possible manner and as s -on as possible in order to have the special assessments <br />certified to the County Auditor's office in time to put on next year's tax rolls. <br />Mr. Marier asked the Clerk to read both the Planner's and the Engineer's reports. <br />Mr. Locher arrived. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.