Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />December 2, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />Johnson replied that the Planning Commission may want to ask the <br />Council to reconsider this purchase. <br /> <br />Janisch pointed out that the use of the park would be very <br />limited, that it is not well connected to the other area, and is <br />mostly swamp. <br /> <br />Esther Collyard stated this is an <br />have been purchased by the City, <br />indeed, reconsider a purchase. <br /> <br />excellent site, and it should <br />and that the Council should, <br /> <br />Johnson replied, in her opinion, a soft recreation program in <br />that general area could work extremely well. <br /> <br />Unnamed resident asked Seltz what he would be donating to the <br />City with respect to the parkland. Seltz stated that he has not <br />decided, and may not donate any land to the City. <br /> <br />Janisch pointed out that this is a DNR protected wetland, which <br />would preclude any building in the wetland area. <br /> <br />Johnson asked Seltz if he were asked to dedicate land to the <br />City, what was his bottom line. Seltz replied that it is not <br />part of his present proposal, but that he may consider it. <br /> <br />Mr. Burroughs, the marketing agent for the land, said he was very <br />comfortable with Mr. Seltz as an environmentalist. He stated the <br />seller was very concerned that the land would go to somebody that <br />would properly develop it. The purchase is contingent on the lot <br />split. <br /> <br />Esther Collyard stated that she thought this was premature, to <br />approve the lot split before the buildings were designed. Thus, <br />she was opposed to the project. <br /> <br />Dahlgren pointed out that one must first develop the lots before <br />buildings can be considered. <br /> <br />Unnamed resident asked the current owner how much land could be <br />donated to the City. Burroughs, speaking for the owner, stated <br />that they would simply like the application to move ahead, and <br />there are no decisions with respect to dedication. The owner <br />simply wants to sell the land. <br /> <br />Berry asked for clarification of the shoreline ordinance in terms <br />of its application in this area. Dahlgren pointed out that this <br />was developed to protect shore land that is on the lake, not <br />necessarily swampland. The proposed homes would be hundreds of <br />feet away from the actual lake. It was Dahlgren's opinion that <br />with a lot depth of 120 feet, a variance in the range of forty- <br />five feet to the shoreline requirement would probably be <br />required. <br /> <br />Goedeke asked what the lot depth was to the east. <br />replied roughly 230 feet. <br /> <br />A neighbor <br />