Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />August 13, 2003 <br />Page 5 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />would need to be set up differently. He noted this park did not fit into the Park Board <br />plan. <br />Mr. Grochala stated staff w ould explore the option of a publ ic park with design changes. <br />He stated they would bring this back to the Park Board for their thoughts. <br />Mr. Lyden stated this development needed a pl ace for kids to play. He noted this type of <br />a development was an unhealthy development for kids. He strongly recommended the <br />park be made public. <br />Mr. Corson asked if there were issues with drainage because of all of the bituminous in <br />the area. Mr. Studenski replied they woul d install reverse grade pipes, which would <br />handle any runoff. <br />Peter Hillger, Portfolio Design Services, reviewed the commercial site. <br />Mr. Rafferty stated he unders tood there was a certain degr ee of give and take and he <br />believed the developers tried to do a good job at giving for this development. He stated <br />he believed the developer had come a tr emendous way since their first proposal. He <br />indicated he liked all of th e trails through the development and the sidewalk around the <br />development. However, he expressed concer n about all of the r ooftops, bituminous, and <br />driveways. He stated he did not be lieve there was anything innovative in the <br />development itself. He stated they had maximi zed this land to the best of their ability to <br />put as many units as possible. He noted he was not in favor of going forward on this <br />development at this time based on its architectu ral standards. He stated he would like 3-4 <br />units per acre instead of the proposed 6 units per acre. He indicated he did not want to <br />see Lino Lakes look like Woodbury. He tha nked the developer for addressing some of <br />the Board’s issues, but he was not in favor of this development at this time. He suggested <br />110 to 120 maximum units. He stated he di d not want to see the 8 units along Hodgson <br />Road. He suggested 4 units along Hodgson Roa d. He stated he did not like the colors <br />they were proposing for the exterior. He asked for more variety and innovative design. <br />Mr. Lyden stated he would like to see a plan without a PUD and he supported Mr. <br />Rafferty’s suggestions. <br />Chair Schaps expressed concern about the size of the garages. He noted cars were getting <br />larger and the City wanted to encourage resident s to keep their vehicles in their garages. <br />Mr. Schlink stated the development they were proposing was a successful development <br />from past experience, but they would look at the elevations and more variety in the <br />colors. However, he noted they would have an issue with decreasi ng the number of units. <br />He noted they were within the City requirements. <br />Mr. Rafferty stated he believed they were attempting to maximize this development and <br />he still wanted to see 3-4 units per acre and not 6 units. He indicated if he had his way, <br />they would not have more than 3 units per acre.