Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />October 12, 2005 <br />Page 3 <br />5. A revised lighting plan indicating the above required fixture changes, and the relocation <br />of the luminaire near the south entrance drive further west must be submitted prior to the <br />issuance of building permits for the site. <br />6. The final plat for the project (Village No. 4) must be approved prior to City Council <br />approval of this building. <br />7. The developer must work with staff to identify the most appropriate location for bicycle <br />parking within this block of the development. <br />8. A minimum 2 inch deep window trim must be provided in accordance with the <br />development standards for the site. <br />9. All hotel room windows are required to be supplied with uniform internal window <br />treatments that will complement the architecture of the building. <br />10. The first floor windows shall be accentuated with additional trim features. <br />11. The brick base shall be raised to lessen the gap between the cap and the second story <br />windows. <br />12. The hotel building shall be moved closer to the Town Center Parkway right -of -way, <br />meeting a maximum setback of 15 feet. <br />13. The developer is encouraged to add an additional architectural element to the central <br />portion of the building to further strengthen the presence of the corner. <br />14. The landscape plan shall be revised to indicate four shrubs per tree within the north <br />planter island (adjacent to the Interstate 35W right -of -way). <br />Mr. Hyden inquired about the trash enclosure. He asked if cars were parked in the <br />parking lot, how would the garbage trucks get to the trash. Mr. Bengtson responded the <br />service vehicle would come in either direction and would need to pull the dumpster out <br />into the drive area and load the dumpster there. <br />Mr. Hyden asked if the trash could be kept inside the building. Mr. Bengtson responded <br />they could ask the developer. <br />Mr. Hyden noted the location seemed out of place where it was at. <br />Mr. Root asked why the five -foot maximum setback was there and should something be <br />changed. Mr. Bengtson responded that the reason the build -to line was in place was to <br />bring the buildings up to the street to create the downtown, main street feel. What was <br />being proposed is almost a residential use of the property and therefore having windows <br />directly on the sidewalk was not an advantageous situation. He noted this met the intent <br />and they had worked with the developer to address this issue. <br />Mr. Rafferty noted this was a Planned Unit Development that was recommended by the <br />Planning & Zoning Board in 2005 and asked why where they looking at the spirit of it <br />instead of looking at what the guidelines were. He stated it appeared they were jumping <br />ship and this was the first thing. He noted two months ago, there was no hotel and now <br />they had a hotel and they were being asked to look at the spirit. Mr. Bengtson responded <br />that these guidelines were approved in 2004, which was a long time ago and a lot of <br />things had changed in those guidelines. They had recommended approval of an <br />amendment as a use and at the time it was written, it was not taken into account where it <br />was located as well as how it would be implemented in a commercial area. This directly <br />lead to why it was not meeting the exact letter of the guidelines, but it was meeting the <br />