Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />FEBRUARY 10, 1994 <br />Sommer reported that there were some definite clashes <br />on that committee, and that Vadnais Heights was not <br />happy with the number of Little Canada residents on the <br />committee. Sommer reported that the consensus was that <br />the committee was really not needed. <br />DeLonais suggested that the number of residents on the <br />committee be reduced to one who would serve as a <br />spokesperson for the area. <br />Sommer felt it better to have two in the event that one <br />of the residents could not attend a committee meeting. <br />Sommer also reported that there is a mixture of <br />opinions of Twin Lake Trail residents on the matter. <br />DeLonais pointed out that most of the lake is located <br />in Little Canada. <br />Larson reported that a couple of the Vadnais Heights <br />Planning Commission members were opposed to a public <br />park in this location, and it was noted that Vadnais <br />Heights had not completed the parks they already do <br />have. <br />Garske pointed out that the majority of the impact of <br />the development of the Mitchell property is on Little <br />Canada. Garske asked if Little Canada could use its <br />approval as leverage to make things happen in Vadnais <br />Heights. Garske felt that the lake should be limited <br />to non - motorized boats. Garske stated that he had a <br />problem with people with motorized boats on the lake <br />saying that motors should not be allowed. <br />Larson reported that the residents on the lake are <br />willing to give up their motors. <br />Sommer felt the developers had some power to deal with <br />Vadnais Heights. Sommer felt that approvals of any <br />development plans should be contingent upon certain <br />requirements being met. <br />DeLonais did not believe it was the Planning <br />Commission's duty to make demands on the developer, <br />pointing out that the Planning Commission's <br />responsibility was to make a recommendation on the <br />concept of development of the property with twinhomes. <br />Sommer asked if it wasn't true that the City had to <br />have a reason to rezone a property. Sommer pointed out <br />that property owners built their homes on the south <br />side of the lake relying on the surrounding zoning. <br />Sommer felt that there should be a reason to rezone the <br />Mitchell property other than to allow the developer <br />Page 8 <br />