Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />FEBRUARY 10, 1994 <br />potential for finishing off the lower levels of the <br />townhomes. <br />Keis asked what has changed in this townhome proposal <br />from the last one submitted. <br />Pratt reported that when the first townhome proposal <br />was submitted, he was asked to do several things. The <br />first was to determine what would happen to the <br />property in Vadnais Heights. The Vadnais Heights <br />portion of the Mitchell property is being proposed as a <br />single- family community. The other issue to be <br />addressed was that of the parks. Pratt reported that <br />the Little Canada Park & Recreation Commission has <br />recommended a cash rather than land park dedication. <br />Pratt further reported that he was asked to do a more <br />specific comparison of the two types of development, <br />townhome versus single - family, and to be more specific <br />as to amounts of hard surface, areas to be graded, etc. <br />between the two. <br />Keis asked why townhomes are proposed for Little Canada <br />and single - family homes for Vadnais Heights. <br />Pratt replied that it got down to analysis of the two <br />sites and the physical characterists of each. Also <br />taken into consideration is the environmental <br />conditions and what was more right for the Little <br />Canada site. Pratt reported that the developers would <br />like to see the two cities work out an agreement for <br />how the lake would be handled. Pratt pointed out that <br />the development of the Little Canada site proposes a <br />private park with one combination fishing pier /canoe <br />launch on the lake. That dock will be restricted to <br />the private use of the townhome owners. Pratt reported <br />that they are proposing a covenant in the townhome <br />documents restricting craft on the lake to <br />non - motorized. Pratt also reported that the townhome <br />documents can be drawn to require a super majority vote <br />approving any change in the use of the lake or <br />shoreline. <br />Uban pointed out that the development is proposed as a <br />PUD, therefore, any change in what occurs at the site <br />will require City approval. Uban pointed out that if <br />another dock is proposed at the townhome site, that <br />change in the development would have to be approved by <br />the City. The City would not have this same control if <br />the property is developed as single - family. The PUD <br />process gives the City much more control over the <br />development. <br />Carson asked if there was a public dock on the lake. <br />Page 4 <br />