My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10/25/2000 Env Bd Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Packets
>
2000
>
10/25/2000 Env Bd Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2014 1:06:03 PM
Creation date
7/29/2014 1:24:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Packet
Meeting Date
10/25/2000
Env Bd Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
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
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 <br />Trehus noted the area is zoned R -1 with the southern part being rural but the proposal for <br />townhomes is at a higher density than single family homes. He stated it appears they are <br />trying to increase the density to townhomes by calling it a conservation development. <br />Smyser stated he told the applicant they would need to justify that question. He noted the <br />proposal is for detached townhomes which is really smaller sized single family homes on <br />individual lots. <br />Trehus asked about the distance between the walls of the houses. Mr. Fairbrother <br />estimated ten feet from the building wall to the property line, or 20 feet between the <br />houses. <br />Mr. Hill stated the homes are 1,400 to 1,500 square feet and will sell for about $150,000 <br />with empty nesters and first -time home buyers being their market. <br />Asleson asked if the applicant also owns the southern part and if they will consider <br />developing the southern part when MUSA expands. Mr. '11 stated this is the full 40 <br />acres and they may consider development in several p s to develop the lots within <br />MUSA first. <br />Smyser advised that staff believes the zoning c on t°he draft plan should be <br />moved so this entire parcel is within one zoning di <br />Vice Chair Davidson stated the trade off fo <br />the upland is developed, however <br />concurred and commented on t <br />preservation development. <br />Lion development is that not all of <br />missing from this project. Donlin <br />ects that need to be included in a <br />Asleson noted the Boar dress what is important beyond this 40 acres in terms <br />of how it will be developed ture. He reviewed the alignment of the greenway <br />corridor and explained that su ` a corridor is to be a green area with buffering and <br />provide connections with people, wildlife, and ecosystems while preserving natural <br />features. <br />Smyser stated more buffer beyond the back yards is desired. The Board agreed. <br />Donlin reviewed the conservation development charrette that had been presented and <br />desire for open and visual viewsheds. She stated the proposed site plan does not provide <br />for that aspect since it only provides a view into another home due to the smaller sized <br />lots and higher density. <br />Trehus concurred and stated a trailway plan will also be needed. He reviewed another <br />project that involved the creation of viewsheds and trails. Trehus asked what incentive <br />the City has to consider higher density townhomes. Smyser stated this proposal would <br />require a PUD since it does not fit any of the actual zoning district criteria. He stated the <br />8 <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.