Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />August 13, 2003 <br />Page 6 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />Paul Bruggeman, 3565 Willabye Drive, White Bear Lake, stated they were a for profit <br />business and have been around since 1959. He stated they had a product that residents <br />wanted in their communities. He stated there was a need in this area for a variety of price <br />ranges. He stated if they brought this down to 3-4 acres pe r unit, it would bring up the <br />price of the unit, which would leave out a large market. He stated they have met every <br />City expectation he knew about. He poin ted out they had more green space than <br />originally proposed. He stated a townhome was a great product and they needed it in the <br />City. He stated they were investing a lot of money into this project and were being <br />required by the City to invest a lot of money into the roads and trails. <br />Chair Schaps asked them if they could lower the density on the northw est side. He asked <br />what was the price range of the units. Mr . Bruggeman replied they would be sold for <br />$165,000.00 to $200,000.00. <br />Mr. Rafferty stated he had seen Mr. Brugge man’s developments and knew they could <br />have a more innovate development. He stated he liked green space and he wanted to see <br />more open space. He indicated this would be a successful development with more green <br />space. Mr. Bruggeman respectfully disagreed with Mr. Rafferty’s opinion. <br />Mr. Tralle stated he was not in agreement with Mr. Rafferty’s opinion. He indicated he <br />wanted to see his children live in the co mmunity and with the home prices going up, they <br />could not afford to live here. He asked where would the kids in the area live. He <br />indicated if the City had noth ing to offer the kids that th ey could afford, why would they <br />want to stay here. <br />Mr. Rafferty stated he was con cerned about the density. Mr. Tralle stated he wanted to <br />go on record with disagreeing with Mr. Rafferty. <br />Ms. Lane stated she liked the development and this was the kind of home that belonged <br />in that area. She stated this was a good tr ansition into the othe r neighborhoods and she <br />also disagreed with Mr. Rafferty and Mr. Lyden. <br />Mr. Corson stated it was important to creat e a good image for the City and asked for <br />more architectural innovation. He stated he was satisfied with the development if they <br />could address the concerns with the exterior and the park. He believed this was a good <br />development for the area. <br />Mr. Smyser stated he was not uncomfortable with this proposal. He stated they could <br />work out the exterior buildi ng materials prior to City Council. Park dedication was an <br />issue and ultimately Council would need to make this decision. He stated regardless of <br />whether they tabled it or voted on it, th e Council would make the final decision. He <br />stated he did not see any a dvantage to tabling this and staff would be comfortable <br />approving this with conditions. <br />The Board agreed they wanted the park to be public and not private. <br />Mr. Rafferty suggested a proposal for satisfying his concerns.