My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
11/08/2000 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
2000
>
11/08/2000 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2014 12:05:42 PM
Creation date
7/15/2014 11:03:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
11/08/2000
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
• <br />• <br />• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />November 8, 2000 <br />Page 6 <br />Mr. Corson asked if a lift station would be possible for the proposed development. Staff <br />indicated this would be a possibility but noted the lift station would require additional <br />maintenance on the part of the City. <br />Mr. Johnson noted Old Birch Street may require maintenance before this development <br />could be completed. Chair Schaps concurred. <br />John Hill, Heritage Development, reviewed his concept plan with the Commission for the <br />Saddle Club property. He noted out of the 40 acres on this site approximately 26 acres <br />would be built on. <br />Mr. Hill indicated he felt a trail through this development would be difficult if sought <br />around the exterior of the development. He stated trails could be placed on this site but <br />not at the rear lot lines. <br />Chair Schaps asked for the trade offs provided by the devel <br />development status. Mr. Hill indicated there would be <br />and common space for all residents within the devel <br />City for a PUD <br />ount of open space <br />Chair Schaps indicated concern for the impact on ld Birch Street. He stated he <br />would be in favor of this development if de � • � � % in density. Mr. Johnson <br />concurred with the impact to traffic. <br />Mr. Hill stated by decreasing the d <br />may be risky due to the fact the <br />area. Mr. Hill indicated as p <br />rice would be increased. He noted this <br />of warrant lot prices over $80,000 in this <br />is should draw roughly $40,000 per lot. <br />Mr. Rafferty stated co r ,•ensity at this time. Mr. Hill noted he feels the PUD <br />common space was the ay to address this lot with the large number of wetlands. <br />Chair Schaps state <br />City needs to see so <br />developer come up <br />decreasing the density to roughly 50 lots. <br />ncerned with the price level at this time. Staff added that the <br />flexibility with the density and trail options. He asked that the <br />th a more fair trade off by either preserving more open space or by <br />Chair Schaps concurred and asked if the developer would be flexible in reducing the <br />density of this development. Mr. Johnson noted he doesn't want to see the prices <br />increased too greatly. He indicated this would be the case if the density were to be <br />decreased. <br />Mr. Rafferty raised concern for the lack of a park in this development for children. Mr. <br />Hill noted a change could be made to lots 33 and 35 to allow for a tot lot. <br />Mr. Corson indicated he was not in favor of the development as proposed due to the <br />density and lack of trade offs. Mr. Rafferty concurred. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.