Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br /> <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br />'1 <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br />Hr. P~)r9 replied that the way the ordinance reads now, the property <br />w,}uld have to pay a park fee. <br /> <br />Co;~nissioner Deer, er noted that park land was dedicated at the time Flintwood <br />I was platted. <br /> <br />F~'. Carson stated that it is specifically stated in City minutes that excess <br />park land from F]intwood I is to be applied towards Flintwood II. <br /> <br />Motion by Corr~missioner Deemer and seconded by Commissioner Zi~merman to <br />reco]~ur, end approval of the proposed restrictive covenants, which is to include <br />the City's ].cash 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, Co~missioners Deemer, Kennen, <br />Zi.-.'~'nerman, LaDue and Hendriksen. Voting No: None. Absent: Comx, issioner <br />John s on. <br /> <br />.Motion by Crun%missioner Deemer and seconded by Co~mT~issioner Zi~mez~an to <br />reconm, end approval of the proposed Home ©~mers Association, which is to include <br />the City's ]cash law and the storing of licensed vehicles only, for Flintwood <br />}{ills Second Addition, a P.U.D. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Peterson, CoKc.~issioners Deemer, Kennen, <br />Zi}~nern. an, !aDue and Hendriksen. Voting No: !%one. Absent: Cor. umissioner <br />Job n s on. <br /> <br />.?4orion bi, Cor~nis. sioner Deemer and seconded by Co~m. issioner Kennen to reco.~mend <br />final approval of the proposed Planned Unit Development knoenn as Flintwood <br />Hills Second Addition, a P.U.D. <br /> <br />,Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Peterson, Co~umissioners Deemer, Kennen, <br />Zi~mlerman, LaDue and Hendriksen. Voting No: None. AJssent: Commissioner <br />Johnson. . .. <br /> <br />Hr. Ze'thur Dunn stated that the City wil-i probably 'float $1,00-0,600.00 worth <br />of bonds for this PUD project; has the City performed any type of market <br />analysis on this to detez~ine if the project is feasible and worth bonding for? <br />~l~-~e City spent $5000 on a computer study and $40,000 on airport study and the <br />City doesn't even o'.,m the airport land. Has the City investigated and evaluated <br />this PUD project from that vie'~oint? If not, why not? <br /> <br />1~. Schnel!e 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 />~%e lending institution and City ordinances will require the developer to <br />su!z~it a financial statement. 17~e City can require 15%-100% of the project <br />cost up front. <br /> <br />]dr. 07rson stated that the developer has performed a market analysis in the <br />north subur[~n area to determine which types of properties are selling and <br />at what price. We have approached an investment az~ 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 t~ecoming 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 />