My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
01/31/2001 Env Bd Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Packets
>
2001
>
01/31/2001 Env Bd Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/28/2014 2:41:37 PM
Creation date
10/3/2014 12:45:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Packet
Meeting Date
01/31/2001
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.
/
176
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
Trehus asked how a consideration of townhomes was raised. Mr. <br />Adolph stated more of the upland acreage could be retained and <br />placed in the conservation easement with a higher density such as <br />• <br />townhomes. He reviewed the applicant's conversation from the last <br />meeting indicating they did not want the conservation easement line <br />to run through private homes which this revised site plan addresses. <br />Trehus noted the number of lots also increased from 49 to 63. Mr. <br />Adolph stated that is correct because one large lot does not equal <br />one small lot. <br />Mr. Fairbrother stated they propose 50 -foot buffers from all <br />wetlands. <br />Trehus asked if they are aware of the typical road right -of -way <br />width in Lino Lakes. Mr. Adolph stated they are proposing a 50 -foot <br />right -of -way. Trehus stated the requirement is for 60 feet and <br />asked what the impact would be. Mr. Fairbrother noted this is a PUD <br />so there would be some consideration for flexibility about road <br />width and lot sizes. <br />Mr. Adolph explained that providing a 60 -foot right -of -way would <br />push the homes closer to the roadway. He suggested that a 50 -foot <br />right -of -way is adequate for streets in this development. <br />• <br />Donlin stated she does not necessarily agree that smaller sized <br />cluster lots with a conservation easement are of less value than a <br />larger sized lot. She suggested less value would result in placing <br />an additional 15 homes in this area due to added congestion. Donlin <br />stated the quality of life would be better and the desired value <br />could still be achieved if those additional 15 homes were removed. <br />Mr. Adolph stated in this case, they are not considering a small <br />sized lot to be of equal value to a larger sized lot. <br />Donlin stated she realizes this is a PUD so consideration of higher <br />density, etc. is given but she is not sure this high number of homes <br />is a necessity. <br />Mr. Adolph stated with this development, there will be a homeowners <br />association to address outdoor maintenance. He stated it would <br />provide the benefits of townhomes without having a partywall. <br />Mr. Fairbrother stated the home size would be smaller which meets a <br />market demand and need for those who are downsizing or empty <br />nesters. <br />IlapKQ &fie %pearzovBoap& XzrLoL/lzvo Aaxzi6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.