Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />MARCH 9, 1994 <br />subject to finalization of a development agreement. <br />The development agreement will address the park issue, <br />and there has been discussion of either Plan S or Plan <br />C. Herbst reported that the developers are advocating <br />Plan C which would place the public park in both <br />cities, and involve a joint powers agreement between <br />the cities addressing control of the park. Plan C <br />would include a trail and public dock on the Little <br />Canada portion of the park. <br />Herbst reported that initially he was going to <br />subdivide the entire Mitchell estate into single-family <br />lots and sell them off. However, Pratt Homes <br />approached him about a twinhome development on the <br />Little Canada site. Herbst stated that this was not <br />because it was felt that R-2 had a better chance of <br />approval in Little Canada, but because the site was <br />unique and the topography was right for such a <br />development. Herbst felt that the twinhome development <br />was more sensitive to the environment, less costly for <br />the City, and less school-aged children likely to be <br />living at the site. <br />Herbst reported that he has been contacted by other <br />developers regarding the Mitchell property, but felt <br />that none were the quality of Pratt Homes. Herbst <br />reported that all the development done by Pratt Homes <br />is high-quality, the company is financially strong, the <br />plan presented is sensitive to the environment and <br />trees, and he hopes that he does not lose these <br />developers. Herbst felt that should the Council deny <br />the R-2 concept proposal, they would look back on this <br />decision in the future and realize that it was a <br />mistake. <br />There was no one else from the general public present <br />wishing to comment on this matter. <br />Upon motion by Scalze, seconded by LaValle, the public <br />hearing was closed. <br />Morelan reported that he has looked at the situation <br />and if he lived on the lake he would be in favor of the <br />twinhome proposal based on the physical impact on the <br />lake of the R-2 proposal versus R-1 development. <br />Morelan felt that any financial benefit to the City in <br />having an R-2 development versus R-1 was marginal. <br />11 <br />