Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />March 9, 2005 <br />Page 5 <br />Mr. Root noted it appeared the only item that was not met in the General Business Zone <br />was the multiple lots. Mr. Bengtson replied that was the only standard at this point they <br />were not meeting. <br />Mr. Root asked if there would be additional landscaping added. Mr. Bengtson replied the <br />General Business Zoning did have specific requirement regarding screening. But beyond <br />that, the requirements at this point listed out the types of trees, but it was not specific <br />about the placement of the landscaping materials on the site. With a PUD, the intent was <br />to have the entire site well landscaped and designed and through the design standards <br />they could address a lot of the landscaping issues. But until the applicant came in and <br />designed the building, it would be difficult to design the landscaping next to the building. <br />Mr. Root asked why they couldn't have a landscaping plan because this was in the <br />General Business Zoning. He noted they would want additional landscaping along the <br />residential side. He stated there were many unanswered questions, but he would like to <br />see a more definitive landscaping plan. <br />Mr. Laden asked if they would be working with the standards in the surveying company's <br />letter. Mr. Bengtson replied they had received another submittal today with more <br />specific design standards, but staff had not had the opportunity to review it yet. He stated <br />staff would continue to work on the design standards. <br />Mr. Laden asked if it would be typical to have a staff member and/or P &Z member on the <br />Architectural Control Design Committee. Mr. Smyser replied typically the City would <br />not be a part of the design boards, but it was a possibility. He noted what had been done <br />in the past was to establish what the requirements are and if applicant wanted to have a <br />review board, that was fine, but the City would review and approve things on its own. <br />Mr. Laden inquired about the ULI numbers for the parking. He asked if it was <br />considered that a certain percentage of the restaurant would also be patrons of the hotel <br />and therefore did not need two parking spots. Mr. Laden asked if there were standards <br />that would look at the shared development as a whole, which could reduce parking. Mr. <br />Smyser replied that's the point of the shared parking analysis. Looking at the individual <br />uses, during certain times of the day, it had been determined how much of the maximum <br />parking would be needed. <br />Mr. Laden inquired about the elevation. He asked if it was 55' or 45'. Mr. Bengtson <br />replied the maximum standard was 45 feet and the majority of the building would be <br />conforming to that. They were proposing a 10 foot embellishment on the building, which <br />would need to be approved or denied by the P &Z Board. <br />Vice Chair Tralle opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. <br />• Vice Chair Tralle invited applicant to come forward. <br />Craig Piette, 425 Arrowhead Drive, thanked Mr. Rafferty for excusing himself. He asked <br />if the Board had any questions. <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />