Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Berg.replied that the way the ordinance reads now, the property owner <br />would hav~ to[pay a park fee. <br /> <br />Co~issio~er Deemer noted that park land was dedicated at the time Flintwood <br />I was pl&ttedl. <br /> <br />Mr. Carson stated that it is specifically stated in City minutes that excess <br />park land from Flintwood I is to be applied towards Flintwood II. <br /> <br />Motion by~Con~nissioner Deemer and seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman to <br />recommend approval of the proposed restrictive covenants, which is to include <br />the City's l~ash law and the storing of licensed vehicles only, for Flintwood <br />Hills Second Addition, a P.U.D. <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Peterson, Commissioners Deemer, K~nnen, <br />Zimmerman, LaDue and Hendriksen. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner <br />Johnson. <br /> <br />Motion ~byrCo~issioner Deemer and seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman to <br />recommendi approval of the proposed Home Owners Association, which is to include <br />the City's l~ash law and the storing of licensed vehicles only, for Flintwood <br />Hills SecondlAddition, a P.U.D. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Peterson, Commissioners Deemer, Kennen, <br />Zimmerman, LaDue and Hendriksen. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner <br />Johnson~ <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Deemer and seconded by Commissioner Kennen to recommend <br />final approval of the proposed Planned Unit Development known as Flintwood <br />Hills Se~ondlAddition, a P.U.D. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Peterson, Commissioners Deemer, Kennen, <br />Zimmerman, L~Due and Hendriksen. Voting NO: None. Absent: Commissioner <br />Johnson. <br /> <br />Mr. Arthur D~nn stated that the City will probably float $1,000,000.00 worth <br />of bonds~for this PUD project; has the City performed any type of market <br />analysis on this to determine if the project is feasible and worth bonding for? <br />The City spent $5000 on a computer study and $40,000 on airport study and the <br />City doesn't even own the airport land. Has the City investigated and evaluated <br />this PUD project from that viewpoint? If not, why not? <br /> <br />Mr. $chnelle stated that cities normally don't do these types of studies; the <br />developer is the one investing and the City serves as a vehicle for bonding. <br />The le~d~ng institution and City ordinances will require the developer to <br />suhnit a financial statement. The City can require 15%-100% of the project <br />cost up front. <br /> <br />Mr. Carson stated that the developer has performed a market analysis in the <br />north subur, ban area to determine which types of properties are selling and <br />at what ~riCe. We have approached an investment arm of TCF and they prepared <br />a market study and they feel the project has a great deal of potential and <br />are interested in becoming involved on a co-venture basis. Every project <br />TCF has .co-ventured with has been very successful. It is the developer's <br />intention to be involved with a major lending institution. <br /> <br />P & Z/March 6, 1984 <br /> Page 5 of 10 <br /> <br /> <br />