03/06/78 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

t 7I P & Z -2- ~ 5/6/78 Kathy Schneider stated that ~i~*e these were only one acre lots to begin with that it would not be asking t~o. m~ch to limit building on the lots in question.,~ G~].bert Menkveqd arrived and~;w~s informed of the neighbors concerns re- gardinF -p~vSnF ~nd the commissions concern for certain lots. Mr. ~taSed [ha~ he would be witl~.n~ go,paVe 150th Lane ~nd p~y hSs cost if nacessary~ but prefe'~ assured the neighbors presen~ ve]_opments in this matter. The Co~'~,mission discussed the and Art, Duun inquired about between Blocks 5~& 6. It Block 5 thus preventing exte~ r~d not to have to pave this road. Phil Nereson t~at~'they would_ be kept informed of any de- e~estionable lots e×tensively with Mr. Menkveld .h~, possibility of eliminating Rhinestone St. S ~et~rmmned that this would add to lots 1 & 12, si!re'fill on these lots. Gerry Zimmerman su~'gesteS an utility easemen~ ~etwe.en lots 3 & 4 and 5 & 6 Block 6 as an alternative No,ion by Art Dunn, seconded by~ A1 Sorteberg to recom~end to the City Council to ~ Dlgrov ' ' ' ]~ ; ' ' ' ~ ' ' , e the preliminary n at[ for P~nev~ew =states subject to the fot!owin~ change?;: Eliminate RhinestOne ,Btreet between block 5 & block 6 and ad~ the entire 66' to lots i a. la, b~bck~ 5. Combine lots P_ & 3 Block 5 and Lots 10 & 11 BLock 5 to create two lots~ ~n~ add an' u~ility easement between ~sts 3 ~4 and ~, & 6, P,l. ock 6 of 53' per lO of cash ~n lieu of ].and for Item 4. Ra~sey's Shoppers M~ Mr. KeJ. th Cable Was present the ].Jst of proceedures provJ Phil Nereson stated that that jacent areas would probably ~or a total 66' easement. Subject to payment ark fee. 5 ayes 1~, ~o~nty Road 57 & State Hwx.__-.~4Z. ~ ,~ preliminary sketch plans and to discuss d~e~./by t.h~City Engineer as to develoo~ent. ~e'part dealing With compatibility ~o ad- obi be applicable since KAN0 was the only ad- jacent developed area. Art Unb asked what .environmental assessments would be included in the zoning of{iC~ers Written findings. Phil Nereson read the requ].rements stating tha~ ~, felt it would adequately covered. Mr. Cable Was asked if he had no~i-~ied KANO, and he replied_ that he hadn't as of yet, but could stop by wi~h.jthe sketch plan. Mr. Cable explained how the ce'~her would be built in[St~ages over a period of time. Kathy Schneider ask d } .... Cable 1~, the Highw~,y ~Department had been contacted. It was ex- plained by Pete Raatikka tha~ ~ center of this size would require three entrar, ces unless a variance ~aS;. Kranted, The Commission discussed sur- face drainage poSsibilities~]an~.-MP..' Cable inquired into how the park fee was determined. ;Mr. Cable ~at~d that the main change that would'be made wo~].d be the alignr.~ent of #5~. i$ pete Raatikka was asked how many soil borings shou].a ba necessary~ and s~at~d that he estimated 3-2. Mr. Cable asked when a Public Hear.ing could %e ~eld, and Phil Nereson exolained that if ready a bearing could be hel¢ Item 5. Flintwood Hill //,2 Mr. Dick Carson and Eugene F'!intv.,ood Lril I..fi2, and Pete April 4. ak~nson were present with a sketch plan for aa!tkka read the engineers report. Mr. Carson e×~]_o~od th,hr the r~ethods of~ b~ndling the assessments for this area as 5ecid~.~ ~n by the Council were Rnrealistic and would make it almost nossl, b]o fo~ him;to continue ~th~s project. There was general discussion inc] ud~ns: bow anyone could c~t~ol what lots would be built on once it was n'stted and recorded. K~tby Schnemder asked if restrictive covenants coul~ not used . P~il ask M~.'Carson if necessary would he agree 2o cOvensnfis~ and Mr. Carson sta~e~ that he would.