My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
11/29/2000 Env Bd Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Packets
>
2000
>
11/29/2000 Env Bd Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2014 12:55:40 PM
Creation date
7/30/2014 8:42:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Packet
Meeting Date
11/29/2000
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.
/
38
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 />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 mark <br />Asleson asked if the applicant also owns the southern part 1 consider <br />developing the southern part when MUSA expands. ih. tats s is the full 40 <br />acres and they may consider development in several o � e ` op the lots within <br />MUSA first. <br />Smyser advised that staff believes the zonin• distr on the draft plan should be <br />moved so this entire parcel is within one oni istrict. <br />Vice Chair Davidson stated the tra! •f ,, .re vation development is that not all of <br />the upland is developed, howev aspec is missing from this project. Donlin <br />concurred and commented o aspects that need to be included in a <br />preservation developmen <br />Asleson noted the B <br />of how it will be dev <br />corridor and a .; s ained <br />provide connec <br />features. <br />ddress what is important beyond this 40 acres in terms <br />in t e future. He reviewed the alignment of the greenway <br />ch a corridor is to be a green area with buffering and <br />eople, wildlife, and ecosystems while preserving natural <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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.