Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />April 13, 2005 <br />Page 4 <br />Mr. Pogalz stated he was not in favor of a continuous wood fence along the entire <br />property, and if there were a fence, he would like to see it broken up with landscaping or <br />have a maintenance free fence installed. With respect to access to the site on the west, <br />whoever developed that property, he assumed Anoka County would grant some type of <br />access. Mr. Bengtson replied that was correct and he believed Anoka County would <br />allow some sort of an access. <br />Mr. Pogalz stated he did not believe they needed to specifically design an additional <br />access, but suggested they add wording that when the property to the west developed, <br />they had to connect. <br />Mr. Smyser gave a summary of the design characteristics of the development. <br />Mr. Hyden asked at what point would they see the actual plans. Mr. Smyser replied they <br />would not see the plans. The site plan reviews would be approved administratively. This <br />was done as a way to make things more efficient and as long as all of the City's <br />Ordinances and standards were met, the approval would be done administratively. <br />Mr. Hyden requested they not end up with just a plain brick building and asked that <br />something be added to the building to make it attractive and architecturally appealing. <br />Mr. Smyser replied there were design standards that took care of those types of issues. <br />Mr. Laden asked why flat roofs were required on buildings over two stories or more. Mr. <br />Smyser replied applicant had suggested that so there was consistency in the development. <br />He noted this would fit into the other developments within the City. <br />Vice Chair Tralle requested the parking lot islands and planters have better landscaping <br />than the Target development. Mr. Smyser replied the Target development was <br />experimental and probably would have worked if the proper maintenance had been done. <br />Mr. Smyser replied the landscaping would be more groomed in this development, but <br />there would be natural landscaping down by the pond. <br />Vice Chair Tralle re- opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. <br />Vice Chair Tralle invited applicant to make comment. <br />Craig Piette, 425 Arrowhead Drive, representing Equinox Development, stated with <br />respect to parking, they were not opposed to minimize the parking and what they did to <br />bring in more landscaping was to put the planter islands into the parking lot. He noted <br />the parking lots would be built as they were used. <br />• <br />• <br />Mr. Laden asked because this was a PUD, were they allowed to reduce the amount of <br />parking. He noted he did not want to see empty parking lots. Mr. Smyser replied they <br />could do that, but it was difficult to determine what parking spaces should not be built. <br />• <br />He stated they could put the parking into the design agreement to indicate if possible, the <br />parking would be reduced. <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />