Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/2020 P&Z Minutes APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WORK SESSION MINUTES I. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Lyngblomsten at Lino Lakes – Presentation by Wold Architects and Engineers Brian Prunty, from Wold Architects and Engineers, delivered the presentation. Board Comments Mr. Root questioned why the building design changed from the October submittal to the May submittal. Mr. Prunty explained the October submittal simply displayed the concept for the development, but it did not include the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, and civil elements. Therefore, once those components were added to the design plan, the floor plan and roof components changed. Mr. Root expressed his appreciation for the original design from October. He further clarified, the aesthetics of the design were appealing and it seemed to mimic the design of the City Center. He acknowledged the design changes that had been made since the May submittal, but was concerned the design appears to look like a large hotel or corporate headquarters. Mr. Root also remarked on Lyngblomsten’s signage on the exterior of the building. He stated the monument sign would be sufficient for informing passersby what the building is and therefore, the signage on the exterior of the building is not necessary. Ms. Peacock liked the three color schemes for the townhomes. She said the main building’s windows in this submittal were boxy and reminiscent of an institution whereas the windows in the plan from October were more narrow, longer, and gave more differentiation to the building’s design. Mr. Reinert said the design changes made since May’s presentation were much improved. He clarified this presentation had more depth and he remarked the Wold team is moving in the right direction. DATE : July 15, 2020 TIME STARTED : 3:01 P.M. TIME ENDED : 3:50 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Paul Tralle (Chair), Neil Evenson, Michael Root Perry Laden, Sue Peacock, Jeff Reinert, Nathan Vojtech STAFF PRESENT : Michael Grochala, Katie Larsen, Janele Waterman Planning & Zoning Board July 15, 2020 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Laden stated the design has improved greatly from the previous design, but he was concerned about the Hodgson elevation since the building is a four story building and it will be close to the sidewalk. He specified the cap gives an impression the building is top heavy on the side of the building facing Hodgson. He suggested Lyngblomsten add a cornice at the top of the first story to make the building appear less grandiose in height. Mr. Laden asked Ms. Larsen, the City Planner, what the purpose of a cornice is. Ms. Larsen explained cornices are architectural decorative features and are not necessarily functional. Mr. Evenson said the plans presented were a big improvement from the last design. He remarked he is not opposed to the exterior signage on the building. He said he did not like the color scheme of the building particularly the blue color. He wondered if Lyngblomsten had addressed the board’s concern with utilizing the artic white color on the building’s exterior. Mr. Vojtech commented on the signage and explained since elderly citizens will be visiting the building often, it may be beneficial to have the exterior signage on the building to assist those who are trying to find it on a busy road. He also remarked it is hard to know where the monument sign will be placed and how visible it will be when traveling in either direction on Hodgson. Chair Tralle liked the color schemes for the townhomes and the overall design changes. He appreciated the removal of one of the signs from the building’s exterior and said one sign is adequate as opposed to two. Tu-Ahn Bui Johnson, from Wold Architects and Engineers, informed the board it was a conscious decision from the owners’ to bring the mechanical outward instead of inside the units. She explained by moving the mechanical outward it makes the units bigger and more pleasant. However, she clarified, by doing so, this creates the vertical elements on the exterior and that played a major role in the changes of the exterior design of the building. Mr. Reinert stated the windows appear to be all the same shape and size. He acknowledged the expense of custom windows, but suggested if the windows could be altered, it would be an improvement to the overall design of the building. Mr. Laden asked if there is a way to set the windows or get a product that sets the windows in deeper so there is more of a shadow line. Mr. Prunty explained there are a few options for setting the windows. If the board would like to see the windows set in a couple of inches only detailing around the windows would be required. If the board would like to box in or recess the windows, the floorplan will be impacted. He assured the board, if they would like to recess the windows, he and his team would explore a few options. He also stated the Planning & Zoning Board July 15, 2020 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES windows may appear small in comparison to the grand scale of the building, but the windows are a good size. Mr. Reinert inquired what the rough measurements of the windows were. Ms. Bui Johnson specified the windows are 3 ft. by 6 ft. separately, but together 6 ft. by 6 ft. or 5 ft. by 6 ft. Rick Moore, from Wold Architects and Engineers, explained in order to recess the windows, they would have to recess the framing around the window, then sheath, and side all the way back in. He furthered clarified, this creates a lot of pockets that could potentially leak and it would be a very expensive process to recess all of the windows. Another option, he shared, would utilize a non-nailing flange which would set the windows back and they would have to caulk and seal the windows. He acknowledged, however, the team at Wold decided not to pursue this option because they felt the seal was not as good for the building in the long term. Mr. Evenson agreed with Mr. Reinert the original design had variation in window size and the differentiation improved the aesthetics of the building. Ms. Peacock concurred. She expressed concern with the normal, square window design and suggested the windows be differentiated in order to create a more impressive exterior. Judd Fenlon, from Grand Real Estate Advisors, informed the board the window sizes are comparable to what is used in other multi-family projects. He further noted the board would see differentiation in window size in the community room, the restaurant, the pool, and the multi-purpose room. He also clarified the courtyard will be unique in design with a balcony hanging over the courtyard and, in the summer months, it will be full of tables, umbrellas, and a stage for music. He said he would continue to talk to the design team regarding the board’s feedback. Mr. Fenlon addressed Lyngblomsten’s budget and stated the underwriters have been giving Lyngblomsten grief because of the project’s per square foot and per unit cost. He explained Lyngblomsten’s construction costs are $208 per square foot and Northland Securities is comparing them to three other projects whose construction costs are $191, $170, and $168 per square foot. Furthermore, Lyngblomsten’s cost per unit is $335,000 and those comparable to Lyngblomsten cost $247,000, $264,000, and $259,000 per unit. Because of these comparables, he stated Lyngblomsten does not believe they are being stingy with the budget. Lastly, he assured the board the amenities package offered and the building in its entirety will be very attractive. Mr. Reinert asked what the year is of the comparables. Mr. Fenlon explained two of the projects are under construction and Lyngblomsten received the comparables 60 days ago. The third project had not yet closed. Planning & Zoning Board July 15, 2020 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Moore remarked the renderings for the project are generated by a computer at a distance, but once construction begins, the detail and texture of the exterior products will be noticeable, especially when walking along Hodgson. Chair Tralle asked what kind of siding will be used on the exterior, how good is the product’s quality, and if it is prone to leaking. Mr. Prunty expounded the siding is a hardie siding that Wold has used on other projects very successfully. He clarified, when products leak, it is usually due to the poor installation of the weather barrier, the scratch coat, and the flashing, but it is not a fault of the siding product. Ms. Larsen questioned if the board was okay with the height variations of the roof. Mr. Evenson said it is difficult to tell what 1 or 2 feet of height differentiation will do for the overall design, but the renderings look good. Mr. Grochala, Community Development Director, remarked the height variation provides visual interest and breaks up the building lengths. Chair Tralle asked Mike Witham, 211 Woodridge Lane, if he had any questions. Mr. Witham wondered if the outside trash area would be addressed. Chair Tralle clarified the outside trash area was addressed at the previous meeting and it was decided the outside trash area would be permitted since it will be enclosed with fencing and screened by trees. Mr. Laden suggested cornices be added around the whole building wherever the stone meets the siding. He clarified, with the addition of the cornices, he would be willing to move forward with the Lyngblomsten project. He also asked if more detail regarding the recess of the windows could be provided at the next Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Prunty assured Mr. Laden the window detail would be provided at the next meeting. II. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Reinert made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 3:50 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 6-0. Chair Tralle abstained. Respectfully submitted, Janele Waterman, Administrative Assistant