Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />October 12, 2005 <br />Page 9 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />Mr. Pogalz asked if they were looking to send them away with a list of recommendation <br />tonight, or to bring this b ack at the next meeting. Mr . Bengtson responded staff had <br />worked well with the developer and he did not see any problem with conditions requiring <br />that staff work with the developer prior to this being brought to the City Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Pogalz stated in the past the Board had wanted to see things and he asked if they <br />wanted staff to work directly with the deve loper on this without se eing this again, or did <br />they want this brought back for another review. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson stated he wanted a condition for the roof and the trash, and that would be <br />enough for him. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty stated he was a firm believer that he wanted to see things before they were <br />approved, but he had no problem with this going forward if the re mainder of the Board <br />believed staff could work directly with the developer without furthe r review. He noted <br />the plans still had to change before this went to C ouncil. Mr. Bengtson responded staff <br />was comfortable working with the developer with recommendations given by the Board. <br />He noted everything they had asked the deve loper to look at they had addressed. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden stated personally he preferred to l ook at this again, but he was willing to move <br />forward on this. However, given what they we re presented last month compared to what <br />they have this month, he believed th ey were working well with staff. <br /> <br />Mr. Pogalz asked if they were willing to move the trash enclos ure. Mr. Janes stated they <br />could not make a promise on this at tonight’s meeting, but they would work with staff on <br />this to see if that recommendation could be implemented. He noted the architect and <br />owner needed to look at this to determine how it would change the design of the building <br />and the cost as well. <br /> <br />Mr. Pogalz stated that concerned him because if they determined that this was not going <br />to work, the trash enclosure would be left in the parking lot. Mr. Nelson asked if this was <br />a condition, didn’t it have to be met. <br /> <br />Mr. Pogalz stated the first time the board would find out it wouldn’t work was when it <br />was built in the parking lot. Mr. Janes noted the City Council would also have to take <br />this into consideration and th at was the process they had to work under. He noted they <br />wanted to work well with the City because of future developments being proposed. <br /> <br />Mr. Hyden stated he liked what he saw overa ll and it was a strong change over last time. <br />He stated he did not understa nd why the pool was located where it was at, but he realized <br />he was not the expert and if the hotel deemed this was a good location, he agreed with it. <br />However, he did not like their response to the trash enclosure. He stated in order to get <br />what they wanted, they were required to say no and he did not want to say no to this, but <br />he wanted to know where it would go. Mr . Bengtson stated in tegrating the trash <br />enclosure in the building was not specifically written in any ordinance or guidelines. <br /> <br />Mr. Hyden stated overall he was not unhappy with the reco mmendations, but he was not <br />happy with the trash enclosure staying where it was at.