Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />October 12, 2005 <br />Page 4 <br />intent. It should also be noted that this would keep the streetscape balanced with the <br />residential project that would be developed across Town Center Parkway. <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 guidelines 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 />Mr. Root inquired about the architectural feature on the one corner of the building and <br />asked what would be appropriate 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 building, as well as the porch provided a fairly <br />substantial architectural feature. He stated that they encouraged 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 />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 thing they did with Ryan where they wanted to <br />put the strip mall in and the entire back of the building faced the main part of town and he <br />did not like this. He indicated the front of the building should be facing into the City. He <br />believed this was backwards. <br />Mr. Laden stated it was important to stick to the original intent 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 that it would be best <br />suited for an office type use. <br />Mr. Laden asked if the office buildings were 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 />Mr. Laden stated he believed he could accept the 1 5-foot mark, but nothing greater than <br />that, but he was concerned that even though it was a commercial use, it was a very <br />residential strip in an area that was intended 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 />Chair Rafferty stated he appreciated the developer going back to the drawing board, but <br />he was looking at this as the first 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 recommendation that this move forward to <br />Council. He stated he did not like the shingled roof and the trash enclosure. He stated <br />there was no strength in the porches at the end of the building. He agreed the building <br />was facing backwards. He stated he was not impressed with this development. <br />Mr. Bengtson responded that the way the staff report was laid out so the board would not <br />have to necessarily look at the design standards as they were going through the report. <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />