Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />October 12, 2005 <br />Page 9 <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 remainder of the Board <br />believed staff could work directly with the developer without further review. He noted <br />the plans still had to change before this went to Council. 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 developer to look at they had addressed. <br />Mr. Laden stated personally he preferred to look at this again, but he was willing to move <br />forward on this. However, given what they were presented last month compared to what <br />they have this month, he believed they were working well with staff. <br />Mr. Pogalz asked if they were willing to move the trash enclosure. 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 />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 />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 that 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 />Mr. Hyden stated he liked what he saw overall and it was a strong change over last time. <br />He stated he did not understand 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 integrating the trash <br />enclosure in the building was not specifically written in any ordinance or guidelines. <br />Mr. Hyden stated overall he was not unhappy with the recommendations, but he was not <br />happy with the trash enclosure staying where it was at. <br />Mr. Tralle stated there was no reason they could not put a one story trash area on the east <br />end. He noted with the trash enclosure located at that point, they would only be using <br />two parking stalls. Chair Rafferty noted this was the closest, easiest route; unless they <br />wanted to put it on the other wing. He noted either way they would have to go down a <br />long corridor and he liked this recommendation. <br />Mr. Tralle stated if they met the trash enclosure suggestion, he could approve this project <br />with the recommendations. He noted everyone felt strongly about getting the trash <br />enclosure out of the parking lot, and that they had to meet that recommendation or this <br />would not get approved and they would have to come back to the Board. He thanked <br />