Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />October 12, 2005 <br />Page 4 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />changed in those guidelines. They had reco mmended approval of an amendment as a use <br />and at the time it was written, it was not ta ken into account where it was located as well <br />as how it would be implemented in a commercia l area. This directly lead to why it was <br />not meeting the exact letter of the guidelines, but it was meeting the intent. It should also <br />be noted that this would keep the streetscap e balanced with the residential project that <br />would be developed across Town Center Parkway. <br /> <br />Mr. Root stated when they did these types of changes, it was precedent setting so they <br />wanted to be clear if they were varying from what the gui delines were saying they had a <br />good reason. He stated it was important to know what the downstream effects were <br />going to be. <br /> <br />Mr. Root inquired about the ar chitectural feature on the one corner of the building and <br />asked what would be appropria te there. Mr. Bengtson responded this was one of the <br />comments at the last P&Z meeting. As staff, we feel that the masonry materials, which <br />drew the attention to the center of the build ing, as well as the porch provided a fairly <br />substantial architectural featur e. He stated that they en couraged the developer to do <br />more, as the board’s comments from the September meeting had asked. He stated this <br />was up to the Board to decide, but as staff they felt the proposal met the standards. <br /> <br />Mr. Tralle asked why they wanted the front facing the freeway and to have the back door <br />into the City. He noted this was the same th ing they did with Ryan where they wanted to <br />put the strip mall in and the entire back of th e building faced the main part of town and he <br />did not like this. He indicated the front of th e building should be faci ng into the City. He <br />believed this was backwards. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden stated it was important to stick to the original inte nt of the project. He asked <br />what was on the east side of the hotel. Mr. Bengtson responded that the property east of <br />this site was within a commercial district and early indications are th at it would be best <br />suited for an office type use. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden asked if the office buildings we re within the build-to portion of the <br />development. Mr. Bengtson responded there was a 50 percent build to line required on <br />the property east of the proposed hotel site. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden stated he believed he could accept the 15-foot mark, but nothing greater than <br />that, but he was concerned that even t hough it was a commercial use, it was a very <br />residential strip in an area that was intende d to be commercial and stated it made sense <br />that the hotel have commercial on the first floor with hotel on the remainder. He stated <br />this proposal fell short. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty stated he appr eciated the developer going back to the drawing board, but <br />he was looking at this as the fi rst phase of a project trying to be approved. He stated the <br />strength in the idea and concept of what the City was proposing and in a hotel going <br />forward was clearly indicated by the Board. It was was something that should be allowed <br />and that was the reason they gave their re commendation that this move forward to <br />Council. He stated he did not like the shingled roof and the trash enclosure. He stated