Laserfiche WebLink
) <br />10 -19 -72 <br />to be accepted provided that U. S. Lakes revises their applications as follows: <br />1. Both applications be revised to provide for R I 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 open <br />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 serviced <br />areas before proceeding to platted areas requiring extension of services. <br />Seconded by Mr. Shea ren . Carried with Mr. Nadeau voting no, as he didn't understand every <br />aspect. <br />Mr. Kelling moved secondly that the P &Z Commission recommend to the Council that they <br />develop an open space or park proposal that will also provide public assess of Reshnau <br />Lake and that this proposal be presented to U. S. Lakes. U. S. Lakes after negotiation, <br />wi l l provide lands in their development to support this proposal in a quantity related to <br />their 10% requirement under our ordinances. Seconded by Mr. Karth, Motion carried <br />unanimously." <br />Mr. Gotwald said he had not had time to look at the latest drawing. His report was on the <br />first c cncept. He would need more time to look at the newer map. <br />Mr. Locher read the law pertaining to the park area - -a reasonably portion may be developed <br />and dedicated to the public as a park - or an equal amount in cash in proportion to the <br />undeveloped land may be paid, this money to be used for park purposes. This must also <br />take into consideration the land that is used as a common area for the residents. <br />Mr. Carley reported that all he needs to know is which plat to compute the assessment <br />against. A l l he really needs is the total number of Tots to charge the special <br />assessment against. He said that there is no problem in doing this. <br />Mr. Marier said that we didn't know what the final would be. Mr. Marier explained the <br />concept of the parks from the map. He suggested that the Council delay any decision until <br />the plans are all in. <br />1 <br />Mr. Bohjanen asked about certification of the special assessments to the Auditor's Office. <br />Mr. Locher said the certifications were supposed to be in by October 24th, but he thought <br />it was possible to get an extension. He would try. <br />Mr. Busch explained that the new map was exactly the same as the one the Planner and Engineer <br />has had for a couple of weeks. That the new map only shows how the new plat will fit into <br />the overall plan of the development. He then went over the P &Z Boards recommendations, <br />stating that these are things that are not concerned with the platting but with the mechanics <br />of the area. The only two things in question are the relocation of one street and the usage <br />of the land now proposed for open space, and these things are not connected with the approval <br />of the plat #3. <br />Mr. Gotwald said that the 2nd drawing was basically the same as the first - -the new map just <br />shows how the plat fits into the overall picture. <br />Mr. Radcliff from the audience said that not a single resident was in favor of this new <br />planning. Didn't the residents have some rights? and wouldn't their objections carry <br />any weight? <br />Mr. Borovansky said he felt that Mr. Marier's implication was that it was not approved, <br />but that Mr. Busch seems to feel that it was approved. <br />1 <br />