My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
04/12/2006 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
2006
>
04/12/2006 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/7/2014 4:15:28 PM
Creation date
4/7/2014 4:15:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
04/12/2006
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.
/
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
Planning&ZoningBoard <br />April12,2006 <br />Page 5 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />Staff recommendedcontinuingthisitem tothenext meetinginorderto include <br />engineeringcomments,afinalplatandrevisionstoaddressarchitecturalcomments . <br />FrankJanes ,HartfordGroup,applicant ,statedthattheyhad r e c eived the memofromstaff <br />withcommentsandsuggestions fromthereviewcommittee .Heexpressedthatthey <br />couldaddress some oftheissues ,buthadconcernswithsome .Henotedthattheyh ave <br />beenwork ingwithstaffforalongtimerevisingtheplanstoachieveaplanthatworksfor <br />thedeveloper,staffandthecity.Hestatedthattheyarea ttempting to accomplisha <br />townhomewithappealingarchitecturethatworksonthesite. <br />Mr.Janes addressedeac h commentinorderof staff’sletter . <br />1 .Theapplicantfelttheyhave met therequired 15f ootset backfrom theRight -of -Way. <br />Headdedthatthey mayadjust these setbacks. <br />2 .Theapplicantfelttheyhavemetthedesignstandardsfor materials ,adding that <br />additionalbrickorstoneisnothighontheirlist. <br />3 .Shawn K not h ,Hartford Group,described the detailsof the buildingside s ,notingthat <br />theycan addresstheissueofincreasing the buildingdepth.Mr.Janesnotedthatthey <br />couldrevisethes eplansbeforethenextmeetinginanattempttoenhancethesideview, <br />withoutaffectingcostandmarketability. <br />4.Theapplicantfeltthatinworkingwithstaff,theyhavemettheguidelinesand didnot <br />feel that baywindowswerenecessary.Theirpropo salincludeddistinctdetailed <br />differentiations,but they addedthattheycouldperhapsaddsome baywindows. <br />5 .Theapplicantstatedthattheybelievetheproposed variationofroofheights add sto <br />the distinctionof the units andisan enhancement. <br />6 .Th eapplicantexplainedthatthecolorrenderingsubmittedisa representation ofthe <br />colorscheme .Theywelcomedsuggestionsfromtheboard,andshowed true samplesof <br />colorandmaterials. <br />Mr.P ogalz commentedthatincreasingthebumpoutonthe b uilding doesincrease <br />m aterialcost ,but pushing the endwall s outisnotincreasing it thatmuch.Mr.Knoth <br />respondedthata neightinchbumpoutontheendwallcouldbeatt ainable. <br />Mr.Knoth statedthattheyhave triedtoaccommodatestaff’scomment s andthinksthey <br />areproposingagreatproduct. <br />Boardmembersexpressedconcernforthelackofgutters ,potentiallycausing <br />accumulatedwateronthepatiosand moisture inwindows .Theyfeltthatbaywindows <br />andextrastonewouldbenicefeatures.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.