Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />July 14, 2004 <br />Page 4 <br />Mr. Pogalz asked if the trees would survive the demolition and/or grading process. Mr. <br />Smyser replied some of them would survive, with others being somewhat marginal. He <br />noted they would have to be careful. <br />Mr. Pogalz expressed concern that they were planning around trees that might not <br />survive. Mr. Smyser replied the City Forester and Environmental Board recommended <br />saving those trees. <br />Chair Rafferty invited the public to make comment. <br />Jim Crawford, 614 Aqua Circle, President of Marshan Lake Condominium Association, <br />stated they had three concerns including the guest parking on the west side of the <br />property, and they might have problems with visitors or residents parking their vehicles <br />in their guest parking spots, giving them a policing problem. He stated they would have <br />no control with another association parking in their parking spots. He expressed concern <br />about vision at the stop sign at Lake Drive. He noted the angle of Lake Drive would <br />create vision problems. He expressed concern about the stub street on the northern edge <br />of the property. He asked if they could attach a condition so half of the stub street could <br />be deeded to his association because they needed to use the stub street. He noted half of <br />the street could be blocked off to their residents, if there was no agreement. <br />Mr. Pogalz asked if option 3 might work better for site lines with respect to traffic. Mr. <br />Crawford replied option 3 was acceptable if they could address guest parking. <br />Ron Fuchs, representative of applicant, Hokanson Family Partnership, 9174 Isanti Street <br />N.E., Blaine, stated they would be receptive to redesigning the guest parking spaces. <br />However, he pointed out the existing Marshan Association could also park in their <br />spaces, giving them policing issues. With respect to trees, they would attempt to save all <br />of the trees noted on the plans. He stated they would like to keep the two color schemes <br />as originally proposed, but they would be receptive to adding a number of different color <br />configurations. He stated the park had been designed to the City's request. He indicated <br />with this new proposal, they should receive some park dedication credit back, but they <br />realized they still needed to pay some park dedication and they were working on this with <br />staff. He summarized various methods of how they could determine the park dedication <br />for the Board. Chair Rafferty said he would need to work with staff on the park <br />dedication. <br />Mr. Tralle stated in all of the scenarios of the options, only one showed additional <br />parking — Option A. He noted the Board had made it clear that they wanted guest parking <br />spaces and they were not shown on the other options. Mr. Fuchs replied that option A <br />was what they were requesting and it complied with the Ordinance. <br />Chair Rafferty stated he believed one of the other alternatives might be a better solution. <br />Mr. Tralle stated the Board had asked for something and they had not come back with <br />what was requested. He noted that not including what they asked for in alternate 1, 2, <br />and 3 was a problem. He asked where they were going to put the additional parking with <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />