Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JUNE 9, 1994 <br />indicated that there would be nothing done with Outlot <br />A. The City's park dedication for this development <br />will be in cash. <br />Keis asked if Outlot A was unbuildable land. <br />Remerowski reported that Outlot A is an easement area. <br />The property owners are concerned about what will be <br />done with this property. Will it be developed into a <br />park or left in its natural state? Remerowski reported <br />that Mr. Pardee has expressed some desire to use part <br />of Outlot A for lake access for a lot he plans to <br />develop for himself which is adjacent, but located in <br />Vadnais Heights. <br />A Twin Lake property owner reported that there is some <br />concern that Outlot A will be used as an extension of <br />the public park that is proposed in Vadnais Heights. <br />The property owner asked if this were a valid use of <br />R -1 property. <br />Keis asked who will own Outlot A. <br />Remerowski replied that it was his understanding that <br />the owners of the 14 single - family lots will form a <br />homeowners association. Outlot A will be deeded over <br />to the association. Remerowski felt that the City <br />could direct what happens with the outlot. Remerowski <br />felt that if the homeowners association had control of <br />Outlot A, the association would not open that land up <br />to public access. Remerowski stated that the property <br />owners do not want to see the Vadnais Heights public <br />park extended into Outlot A. <br />A property owner asked if Outlot A could be turned into <br />a public park just because it was vacant land sitting <br />next to the Vadnais Heights public park. <br />Remerowski felt the development proposal before the <br />Commission was as good a development as the City will <br />get for this property. Again, at the Park & Recreation <br />Commission meeting Mr. Pratt indicated that there were <br />no plans to do anything with Outlot A other than to <br />turn it over to the homeowners association. Remerowski <br />stated that he had no concern with the variance being <br />requested for the cul -de -sac. Remerowski reported that <br />he has heard some discussion that Pratt is proposing a <br />single driveway to accommodate Lots 1 through 4, Block <br />6 <br />