Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Council Mi nutes <br />May 14, 1985 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Benke noted tha t 11 1 arge homes coul d be bui 1t of the same size, <br />mass, height, design, and appearance (instead of 22 single family <br />homes) and the city and neighbors would still have the same con- <br />cerns and wondered where the city could find the trade-off between <br />the neighborhood's concern for quality and the architect's concern <br />for a marketable development. <br /> <br />Harcus suggested continuing the public hearing to allow the devel- <br />oper time to consider an Association, private streets; Blomquist <br />asked the developer to consider the alternative of single family <br />homes on the north and the splits on the south; restrictions on <br />the location of the three-level homes. Janecek asked to see the <br />footprints for the twinhomes versus footprints for single family <br />houses. <br /> <br />Motion by Harcus, seconded by Janecek, to CONTINUE THE PUBLIC <br />HEARING ON THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVEL- <br />OPMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TWIN- <br />HOME DEVELOPMENT AT 1252 SILVER LAKE ROAD AND ADJOINING VACANT <br />LAND TO JUNE 11, 1985. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Schmidt stated he had no bias against the twinhome concept and <br />suggested that if there had to be a transition, it should be a <br />good one slanting more of the density to the east and the south <br />side of the project. <br /> <br />Blomquist stated he would also like to see a comparison of the <br />height of the buildings, particularly as it relates to Brighton <br />Place to the south and the single family residents to the north, <br />indicating projected elevations. <br /> <br />Benke noted he would be out of town on June 11, 1985; other <br />counci1members indicated they would be present,as four members <br />would be required. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried <br /> <br />Anderson commented that the amendments proposed for the Long <br />Lake Regional Park Master Plan are concerning the physical <br />planning of the park and that operational details (ie, staffing <br />of control points) would be worked on at a later time if the <br />physical planning is approved. Anderson noted that Jan Newham <br />and Gayle Bromander from the Historia1 Society were present to <br />answer any questions, and that Ken Simons was present from <br />Ramsey County's park planning staff to also answer questions. <br /> <br />Harcus asked if the Department of Natural Resources would be <br />stocking the lake; Anderson had no answer, <br /> <br />Harcus agrees with the changes that are taking place; believes <br />there are other ways to deal with the lake concerning over- <br />crowing and safety issues, <br /> <br />Anderson noted the amendment does not increase the size of the <br />boat launch facility, <br /> <br />Page Seven <br /> <br />\ <br /> <br />LLRP Master Plan <br />Amendments <br />Report 85-136 <br />