Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r <br /> <br />REVENUE roNDS '1'0 FINANCE THE. CONSTRUCTION OF AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING FOR <br />JOHN PLAISTED. SUBJECT TO THE REVUE AND APPROVAL BY SPRINGSTAD INCORPORATED <br />AND THE CITY' S ATTORNEY. COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN SECONDED' THE MOTION. MOTION <br />PASSED ~. . <br /> <br />6. city Auditor <br /> <br />Gary Groen and Bob Davis, representing Olsen. Thielen &: Co.. presented a <br />formal auditing proposal to the members of the Council for the' City'sfUture <br />auditing business. Mr. Groen and Mr. Davis indicated their desit"e<t~continue <br />with the City's auditing business in the same fashion as they have in the ' <br />past. The City Administrator also distributed to the members of the City <br />Council a formal proposal from the auditing firm of Anfinson and Hendrickson. <br />The Council concensus. was to take the proposals under advisement ..and to make <br />the determination regarding the City's auditor at a future meeting. <br /> <br />SantWire Pro ect in I sland View <br /> <br /> <br />7. <br /> <br />. . 0_"1 . <br />The City Administrator reviewed the Planning Commission's action in this matter <br />and indicated that the Planning Commission had voted to deny the n~e~$S~ry . <br />conditional use and variances for Mr. Santwire based upon several reasons, <br />such. as increased lake .. traffic, ,lack of .pri vacy and increased. rQad. t~ffic in <br />the- area. The Administratorindic.ated .to.theCounciltbat,aftera.staff review. <br />it had been determined that each of the reasons sited in the Planning Commission <br />minutes were somewhat qu.estiona'ble, and. as a result. in the opin10ILOf.the- <br />City planner and the City staff. the project was desireable and should be <br />approved. Mr. Zack Johnson, the City' splanner, indicated speci!ie~l].y that <br />t.l1ere. we~. no planning objections, and that. tmLsitea.ppeared-:aj.~t'~able for... <br />"s~ewer purposes.' The City Administrator recommended that the City 90uncil grant <br />approval of the conditional use and variances required for the project and then, <br />as condition of the conditional use permit, that an architectural and site review <br />and approval be imposed by the Council upon the project. Mr. Gary Santwi3re, the <br />developer of the proposed project, addressed the Council and indicated that the <br />two adjacent land Olmers were no longer opposed, to the. project now that they <br />understood Mr. SantWiret s intentions and use of the land. Mr~ Santwire indicated <br />further that there was a need for townhome projects such flst-his in the City, <br />and reviewed the workings and operation of the proposedsewEilr SY-stem for. the area. <br />Mr. Santwil'e indicated that maintenance of the sewer system, as well as the grotmds <br />of t.he building, would be the responsibility of a townhom., owners ~ssociation. <br />Several residents in the area addressed the Council regarding the proposed project <br />and indicated they felt that it was not in the character Of. the area to have <br />townhomes located on the lake shore. Mr. Joe Berglove' indicated thS.t . he was <br />opposed to an increase of traffic on t.he streets, and'anincrease of lake traffic. <br />The Council informed Mr. Berglove that as a public lake, lake traffic was not a <br />valid planning concern in this instance, and that street traffic ~ not increase <br />at all in comparison to the traffic that. might' be generat.ed from a single family <br />development. Mr. Tom Hartman, representing the Lake Orono Home Owners Association, <br />indicated that., in general, the association was opposed to thec~nstruction .of <br />townhouses on the lake shore area. Mr. .Vern ,Drexl.er'.,acldressed .t11e ,Council. and <br />indicated :iU.sopposition to the project. . Mr. Dan Anderson questioned the City <br />Council as. to what constituted a public lake., The City Administra.tor indicated <br />that any body of water such as one the size of Lake Orono,. with. a. public access, <br />was a public. body of water, and, further, it was proposed to {end. PUblic. tax <br />. dollars maintaining.the.1akelevelinthe future. CoUncilmen ot.to and Toth . <br />asked residents present what concerns they ,might bave .it.tne.are. were to be . <br />developed into seven single family lots with the same traffic and lake problems. <br />There was no response to the Councilmen's questions from the residents present. <br /> <br />