Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MAY 13, 1993 <br />Remerowski asked if there was more of a market for <br />townhome development than single - family. <br />Pratt replied that the market is there for either. <br />Pratt pointed out that it is a 16 acre site and two <br />units per acre are allowed for single - family, therefore <br />up to 32 single - family homes could be developed on the <br />site. <br />Remerowski suggested that considerably less single - <br />family homes would be developed on the site. <br />Pratt pointed out that the townhome proposal is for 13 <br />two -unit clustered townhomes. Pratt did not believe <br />they were trying to over use the land, or would put <br />more pressure on the lake than could be expected in a <br />single - family home development. <br />Remerowski asked if the market was the same for either <br />single- family or townhomes, why Pratt was not proposing <br />single - family. Remerowski suggested that single - family <br />homes be developed on the Mitchell property both in <br />Vadnais Heights and Little Canada, and that only those <br />lots along the lake be allowed lake access. <br />Pratt replied that they are ready to discuss access to <br />the lake through a homeowners' association. This would <br />provide more control than developing the property as <br />single- family. Pratt did not believe that access to <br />the lake would be the reason buyers would purchase <br />townhomes. <br />Remerowski disagreed. <br />Pratt pointed out that the homeowners' association <br />documents can limit development to one dock on the <br />lake, specify the length of the dock, the number of <br />boat slips, etc. If the property owners wanted to <br />amend that document, they would have to come back to <br />the City for approval. If the property were developed <br />as single - family, there would be 16 homes on the lake, <br />and 16 docks. The same restrictions could not be <br />applied to a single- family home development as a <br />townhome development. <br />Remerowski did not believe that any of the property <br />owners on the lake abuse it. Remerowski stated that <br />the current homeowners' on the lake do not want an <br />association or another governing body telling them what <br />to do. Remerowski pointed out that Pratt has given no <br />legitimate reason for rezoning this property from R -1 <br />to R -2. Remerowski urged the Commission to retain the <br />R -1 zoning on the property and suggested that it would <br />be possible to develop about 12 lots along the lake. <br />Page 7 <br />