Laserfiche WebLink
MINi7TES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />J'ULY 28, 1993 <br />Pratt pointed out that under the twin home development, <br />the homeowners~ association documents would protect the <br />shoreline. xowever, with single-family homes <br />eventually property owners clear out their lawns to the <br />lake and add docks. Without a PUD on the single-family <br />home development, there would be no way to control <br />this. <br />Todd Summer, 285 Twin Lake Trail, pointed out that the <br />concept for the single-family home development looks <br />cramped in. Summer indicated that once the high water <br />mark is established, it may be that a 25 unit <br />single-family home development will not be feasible. <br />Summer felt that the single-family home concept being <br />presented is a worst-case scenario. Summer felt that <br />the City could require larger lot sizes, and again <br />indicated that the high water mark could have an effect <br />on the number of units allowed. <br />The City Planner indicated that the setback for the <br />homes would be 75 feet back from the high water mark. <br />The Planner indicated that the City Code requires a <br />minimum lot width of 75 feet. <br />Summer again indicated that the single-family home <br />concept presented this evening may not be feasible, and <br />questioned making a decision between the two types of <br />development based on the worst-case scenario presented <br />for single-family. Summer felt that the comments made <br />by Mr. Pratt that environmentally the twin home <br />development made sense, but felt that a single-family <br />home development could be environmentally sensitive. <br />With reference to the comments made on valuation, <br />Summer felt that $200,000 per unit versus $300,000 <br />would have a better impact on his property value. <br />Summer asked the Council to consider the sense of <br />community as well. Summer felt it would be more <br />difficult for the neighbors to work on controls for the <br />lake if a reclusive townhome development exists. <br />Summer felt that a single-family home development would <br />provide more sense of community in the area. Summer <br />also indicated that it is difficult to make a decision <br />based on the two concepts proposed, and felt that there <br />was a better single-family home concept than the one <br />presented. <br />Hanson asked how many acres of the Mitchell property <br />are located in Little Canada. <br />The Council was informed that there are approximately <br />45 acres total, 16 of which are in Little Canada, and <br />Page 15 <br />