Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />MARCH 9, 1994 <br />DNR sent that city information about public lake access <br />across a scrub wetland. Sommer indicated that at this <br />point he is not sure where the park issue is in Vadnais <br />Heights. <br />Sommer pointed out that nine months ago the developer <br />was before Little Canada with the same proposal. At <br />that time the Council denied the R-2 concept. Sommer <br />stated that he sees no difference in the plan presented <br />this evening and the one presented nine months ago. <br />Sommer was not sure why the Planning Commission was <br />supporting R-2 development. Sommer felt that if the <br />City were paying a planner, the planner should be <br />assessing R-1 plans and not spending time on R-2. <br />Sommer pointed out that R-1 plans have not been <br />presented for this property. The differences between <br />R-2 and R-1 have not really been presented. Sommer. <br />reported that at the Planning Commission meeting the <br />City Planner offered an obscure estimate of 38 to 42 <br />single-family homes that could be developed on the <br />property under R-1 zoning. Sommer believed that only <br />26 single-family homes could be developed. Sommer <br />reported that the residents on Twin Lake want to see <br />the property developed as R-1. <br />Sommer felt that sinqle-family property owners on the <br />lake would police the area and ensure that access to <br />the lake is controlled. This would not happen with R-2 <br />development, and there would be no management of the <br />dock that is proposed as part of the townhome <br />development. Sommer felt the townhome dock would be <br />the same as a public access. Sommer reported that the <br />property owners on the lake are willing to deal with <br />the issue of single-family homes having individual <br />docks. Sommer again expressed concern that he cannot <br />get an exact figure as to the number of single-family <br />lots that could be developed on the Mitchell property. <br />Sommer felt that the Planner's estimate of 38 to 42 was <br />not even close. <br />Sommer pointed out the comments about driveways onto <br />Vadnais Blvd., and pointed out that the City can <br />control this. <br />Sommer stated that the reasons for wanting the property <br />rezoned to R-2 do not outweigh the reasons for leaving <br />the property R-1. Sommer stated that the reality of a <br />9 <br />