My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
09-27-2021 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2021
>
Searchable Packets
>
09-27-2021 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/4/2021 11:21:36 AM
Creation date
11/4/2021 11:09:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
09/27/2021
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
124
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
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION <br />DRAFT <br /> 3 <br /> 89 <br />The council directed staff to prepare a resolution (on increasing the benefit) and work on 90 <br />formalizing an allocation plan (on reimbursement), both to be considered for formal 91 <br />council action. 92 <br /> 93 <br />2. Huntson Addition Concept Plan – (Councilmember Ruhland moved to sit in the 94 <br />audience). City Planner Larsen noted that what the council is seeing is strictly a concept 95 <br />plan - a general overview and high level conversation to inform the property owners, 96 <br />Mike Ruhland and his wife. The property in question is located at 6941 Ware Road and 97 <br />is a four acre parcel that the owners wish to divide to develop one six unit townhome 98 <br />building and one two unit building. 99 <br /> 100 <br />Ms. Larsen reviewed a PowerPoint that included information on the following: 101 <br />- Aerial Map; 102 <br />- 2040 Future Land Use Plan (different MDRs); 103 <br />- Density chart – how many units does a four acre parcel have to take on; the 104 <br />proposal includes nine units which puts the proposal within range, with the understanding 105 <br />that wetlands and roadway would have an impact; 106 <br />- Property is currently zoned rural; future zoning changes would be required; 107 <br />- For a PUD, public benefit should be determined; 108 <br />- Split site plan for two parcels; 109 <br />- Oak Hollow Street – one side would be six townhomes and other side a two unit 110 <br />structure; 111 <br />- Square footage base lots are required for both developments and the sites do not 112 <br />meet those requirements; 113 <br />- Wetlands on properties noted; 114 <br />- Staff comments (review of preliminary findings); 115 <br />- Preliminary design standards noted; 116 <br />- Utilities would be required; 117 <br />- Advisory Board comments reviewed. 118 <br /> 119 <br />Ms. Larsen noted that staff is requesting general feedback from the council. 120 <br /> 121 <br />Councilmember Cavegn noted concern about proposed lot size and garage width. He 122 <br />asked if the applicant would consider twin homes rather than townhomes. 123 <br /> 124 <br />Applicant Mike Ruhland noted that he attended the (area) housing association meeting 125 <br />and, considering their feedback, he is feeling now that he may want to make some 126 <br />changes to the proposal. 127 <br /> 128 <br />Councilmember Stoesz asked if there is any concern about storm water drainage; City 129 <br />Planner Larsen remarked that each development is required to have a plan. 130 <br /> 131 <br />Councilmember Lyden asked about the property to the west; Ms. Larsen said there is a 132 <br />single family house there. Councilmember Lyden noted the single family housing that 133
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.