My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-13-2002 Additions
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
03-13-2002 Additions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/22/2012 3:01:39 PM
Creation date
5/22/2012 3:00:50 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Hanson, Joe[ <br />From: NAC [planners @nacplanning.com] <br />Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:21 PM <br />To: joel .hanson @ci.little- canada.mn.us <br />Subject: Palmen Overlook <br />Joel - <br />I took the drawing with the wetland edge shown, and "grafted" it onto the <br />half- section map. I will fax the drawings over to you. <br />Drawing #1 is a sketch of an R -1, Single Family subdivision with 75 foot <br />wide Tots (all are more than 10,000 square feet) and a 500 foot long <br />cul -de -sac. This subdivision could include 10 lots, with about half of the <br />property to the east remaining undeveloped. The only lot that is <br />significantly constricted by the wetland is Lot 3, although there is <br />adequate buildable area for a typical single family home, assuming only a <br />minimal setback from the edge of the wetland - I do not know what setback <br />the Watershed District may want to impose, if any. <br />Drawing #2 presumes that a second access could be gained to limit the <br />cul -de -sac length to 500 feet. Such an access would have to be found east <br />of 459 Viking Drive. In this scenario, 21 lots would be possible, although <br />again Lot 3 and Lot 19 would have some issues related to wetland setback. <br />In both drawings, I have presumed that the street would be in the same <br />location as the developer's proposal, and I don't know enough about the <br />topography to ensure that this location is feasible. <br />If the area were rezoned to R -2 to accommodate twin homes, the R -2 ordinance <br />permits lot widths for twin homes to be as narrow as 75 feet, so each of the <br />single family scenarios in Drawings 1 and 2 would allow for the doubling of <br />the number of units, all other factors remaining the same. Masterpiece <br />Homes showed much wider twin home parcels than the 75 foot minimum - <br />approximately 100 feet, resulting in their proposed development density of <br />28 units over the full length of the parcel. <br />I hope this is helpful for tonight's meeting. <br />-Steve Grittman <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.