04/13/2005 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Nelson noted their property was quite a wa ys away from the hotel. Mr. Partridge agreed it was going to be under 700 feet, but ex pressed concern about the lighting and the removal of trees. Mr. Nelson asked if the tallest building was the hotel and if there were any security lights on the building. Mr. Root asked if Mr. Partridge had any opi nion regarding the fenc ing. Mr. Partridge replied he would prefer a continuous fen ce so people could not easily access the residential area. Vice Chair Tralle stated he believed the fen ce behind and on the sides of the hotel should probably be a continuous fence for security as well as containing the pedestrian traffic to the site and not into the residential area. Vice Chair Tralle suggested the association documents should define how the fence would be maintained. Vice Chair Tralle stated the li ghting standards were that th ey could not encroach on the residential area. Ms. Partridge expressed concern about ope n spaces on the fence and she wanted a continuous solid fence. She expressed concer n about lighting. She stated she could see the stake from her kitchen window, which ta ke was approximately 30 feet away. She expressed concern a bout the noise. Mr. Piette stated he understood Mr. and Mrs. Partridge’s concern and they would meet all City standards with respect to lighting and the lighting would not encroach upon their property. He noted there would be 20 feet from the property line before the building began and there would be no parking along their side. Mr. Root made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Laden asked what the timeline was for act ing on this. Mr. Bengtson replied this had a preliminary plat attached, so it was 120 days from submission, but he was not certain of the exact date of completion, but he would guess it would be 120 days from January 10. He indicated some action needed to be ta ken on this at tonigh t’s meeting, unless the applicant agreed to a continuation. Mr. Pogalz asked if staff wa s comfortable going forward with this. Mr. Bengtson replied staff has worked well with the developer and th e developer has been willing to work with staff. He recommended they add the followi ng conditions: 9. Examine the potential for future access to the property to the southwes t along Lilac Street and if possible, include provision for access between the two properties. 10. City is willing to allow for a reduction in the number of parking stalls wi th the goal being to having the appropriate amount of parking. 11. Pedestrian access in addition to the sidewalk depicted along the entry drive would be added to the site. 12. The fence must be maintained by the