04/13/2005 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Pogalz stated he was not in favor of a continuous wood fe nce along the entire property, and if there were a fence, he woul d like to see it broken up with landscaping or have a maintenance free fence installed. With respect to access to the site on the west, whoever developed that property, he assume d Anoka County would grant some type of access. Mr. Bengtson replied that was corr ect and he believed Anoka County would allow some sort of an access. Mr. Pogalz stated he did not believe they needed to specifically design an additional access, but suggested they add wording that when the property to the west developed, they had to connect. Mr. Smyser gave a summary of the desi gn characteristics of the development. Mr. Hyden asked at what point would they see the actual plans. Mr. Smyser replied they would not see the plans. The site plan revi ews would be approved administratively. This was done as a way to make things more e fficient and as long as all of the City’s Ordinances and standards were met, the approval would be done administratively. Mr. Hyden requested they not end up with just a plain brick bu ilding and asked that something be added to the building to make it attractive and architecturally appealing. Mr. Smyser replied there were design standards that took care of thos e types of issues. Mr. Laden asked why flat roofs were required on buildings over two stories or more. Mr. Smyser replied applicant had suggested that so there was consistency in the development. He noted this would fit into the othe r developments within the City. Vice Chair Tralle requested the parking lot is lands and planters have better landscaping than the Target development. Mr. Smys er replied the Target development was experimental and probably would have worked if the proper maintenance had been done. Mr. Smyser replied the landscaping would be more groomed in this development, but there would be natural landscaping down by the pond. Vice Chair Tralle re-opened th e public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Vice Chair Tralle invited applicant to make comment. Craig Piette, 425 Arrowhead Drive, repres enting Equinox Development, stated with respect to parking, they were not opposed to minimize the parking and what they did to bring in more landscaping was to put the plan ter islands into the parking lot. He noted the parking lots would be built as they were used. Mr. Laden asked because this was a PUD, we re they allowed to reduce the amount of parking. He noted he did not want to see em pty parking lots. Mr. Smyser replied they could do that, but it was difficult to determin e what parking spaces should not be built. He stated they could put the pa rking into the design agreement to indicate if possible, the parking would be reduced.