Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />October 12, 2005 <br />Page 11 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />pushing this building as close to the sidewalk as possible and the slope of the roof might <br />allow some of the snow to slide off of ont o the sidewalks and he was glad this was <br />brought up. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson stated he was willing to change the condition to work with staff to look at the <br />safety issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Pogalz stated they could use another mate rial also and there many options other than <br />metal or shingles, but he di d want an upgraded roof. <br /> <br />Mr. Janes noted the townhomes across this proposal would probably have shingled <br />buildings and he did not want to set a precedent that all of the buildings in this area would <br />be metal. Chair Rafferty stated all of the bu ildings currently in the area were metal and <br />metal roofs were everywhere including places where there were sidewalks. He stated he <br />did not know what other alternatives there were . He stated he was hearing a metal roof <br />should be strongly considered and working w ith staff rather than it being a must. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty stated if this needed to be a sh ingled roof to have it a 50-year roof so there <br />was some depth to it. <br /> <br />Phil Carlson, stated he had 30 years experi ence in commercial roofing on both flat and <br />pitched and there were metal roofs on buildings and there was a lot of materials that are <br />called snow guards which stopped an avalanche from happening. He stated what they <br />were worried about was a 12 inch snow fall and a snow guard would stop any avalanche <br />that might occur. He stated the snow guards were about $5.00 a piece. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty stated the wording as it sta nds would change from must that the Board <br />wanted “strong” consideration to get a me tal, standing seam roof on the building and <br />define the proper components that would give them safeguards in the winter time. <br /> <br />Mr. Bengtson noted they also needed amended condition number 4 in their <br />recommendations to read as follow: All park ing lot lighting fixtures and poles shall be <br />painted to complement the city’s decorative street lighting; shall be mounted to round <br />lighting poles measuring no more than twenty feet in height; shall be mounted to a <br />concrete base no higher than twenty-four in ches above the surroundi ng grade; and shall <br />be located within landscape planter islands. <br /> <br />Mr. Root made a MOTION to recommend Site Plan Review for Legacy Hotel subject to <br />the conditions 1 through 14 as noted in sta ff’s October 12, 2005 report, adding conditions <br />15 through 18, and amending condition 4 a nd was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion <br />carried 6-0. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty recessed the meeting at 8:33 p.m . and reconvened the meeting at 8:41 p.m. <br /> <br />2. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit to <br />allow for outdoor dining, and a Site Plan Review, for Betty’s Pies <br />Restaurant <br />