My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
01/12/1981 Council Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1981
>
01/12/1981 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/20/2014 2:17:23 PM
Creation date
10/20/2014 1:16:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
01/12/1981
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.
/
8
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
1 <br />23: <br />January 12, 1981 <br />with 3.5 persons, per home for an estimated population in the R -1 development of this <br />area of 207 person. Thus the quads would create an excess population of 23 persons <br />over single family residential development. <br />Mr. Short explained to Mr. Julian Hook these are gross density figures. Someone sug- <br />gested that the single family lots that exist should be used as a basis for the R -1 <br />density figure. Mr. Short explained he used what could be platted in that area per <br />existing ordinances. <br />The single family homes would cover approximately 8.5% of the land; the quads would <br />cover approximately 10% of the land. On considering the height of the structures, <br />Mr. Short pointed out that most R -1 homes have an average of 16' to 26' (2 story) - <br />the quads will be 24' from ground level. There would be a green area of 60% of the and <br />with the quads and 86.5% with single family development. <br />Mr. Short, in answering a question, said there would be approximately 26% more trips <br />per day if this area is developed as quads versus R -1. Mr. Short pointed out that the <br />figures he presented relative to trips per are very generous figures. <br />Another major issue is the cosmetics of the buildings. He felt with a Special Use Per- <br />mit, the City Council could have some input. <br />Since there will be no back yards, as such, Mr. Short felt there must be some provisions <br />for passive recreation and for storage. He suggested one or two designated area for <br />recreation and some provisions by the developer for storage of boats, snowmobiles, etc. <br />Mr. Short also suggested some restrictive covenants as to how and who does the main- <br />tenance of the grounds and buildings. Also, in the matter of landscaping provisions <br />in relationship to the adjoining properties, under a conditional special use permit, <br />the City could have input into this facet of the development. The items can be partial- <br />ly controlled by the City under a special use permit but not under rezoning. <br />Mr. Reinert asked Mr. Short if he agreed with the land use as proposed by the Comprehen- <br />sive Plan and Mr. Short said, Yes. <br />Mr. Short pointed out the Comprehensive Plan is to be used as a guide and since the <br />plan had been informally adopted some changes have already taken place. This is the <br />guide used to formulate the zoning districts map which is a separate tool to be used <br />in planning. <br />Mr. Hook asked what this development would do to the plan and Mr. Short said, it is in- <br />consistent but under some conditions it could be consistent. <br />Mr. Short was asked if he felt this plat is a deviation from the Comprehensive Plan and <br />he said he hasn't reviewed the plat - someways, yes - someways - no. <br />Someone asked if he felt this development is inconsistent with the present development <br />of the area and Mr. Short said, Yes, but under certain conditions, quad development can <br />be consistent with R -1 development. <br />Mayor Gourley went back to the statement "that Special Use Permits may be granted in any <br />district" - this would appear to give the Council unlimited power. He pointed out that <br />even though this is possible, it is highly improbable that a Council would consider an <br />1 -2 in a R -1 area. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.