01/11/2006 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 5 He indicated it was not the intention of staff to calling out deficiencies, but rather verbally explain what was what was shown graphically in the plan. Chair Rafferty stated the report and information by staff was excellent and he realized they were not pointing out a deficiency, but there were no strengths in the project and in what was being proposed. Mr. Nelson stated he had a concern regarding the back of the hotel facing the front of the project and the trash enclosure also. Chair Rafferty invited the developer to make comments. Patrick Sarver, Hartford Development Group, stated they felt strongly that the architectural feature that they had on the building effectively focused attention on the corner of the building. He noted the evolution of the building has come a long way in where it was at and what it has to offer the site currently. He noted there was a significant difference in the architectural feature and in order to have it provide a strong architectural feature in the center of the building, it needed some articulation in the face of the building which provided some jut out and have it move forward. What they have done was to add additional architectural features along the top of the feature. In his opinion there was a good job in articulating the building and in having the opportunity to move the building closer to the street and adding the porches added to the articulation of the building. He indicated there was a serious traffic circulation issue as they came to the round- about. He noted if the front door was at the location of the round - about, traffic would be complicated because they would not be able to do a U -turn, or they would be required to have a sign at the round about to indicate all hotel guests would need to turn right in order not to complicate the traffic pattern. Chair Rafferty suggested they put the drive up canopy on the side instead. Chair Rafferty asked why could not have the driver's side facing the hotel instead of the passenger side. Mr. Sarver responded they would need to cross traffic if they did that. He noted the site was also of a narrow configuration and the building would need to be moved back far enough that parking be allowed in the front of the building. He noted if the building would be turned around, the parking area would also need to go with it. He noted people going to the hotel were coming by car and they hoped they could get the people out of their car to walking into the development to other commercial uses. Mr. Root asked if there were some features that could be added to the back so it would look more like the front of the building to make it look more impressive. Mr. Sarver stated they needed a strong architectural feature to the center of the building and he believed this was a fantastic corner. Mr. Root stated his question was for the Board and clearly there was a concern from the Board that this was not as strong of a feature as what was facing the freeway. Mr. Tralle stated he would like to see some brick to the right to "dress" it up a bit more and maybe add some brick detail in other areas a well. He noted this was going to face the downtown and just the center brick face wasn't enough. He stated if they could put some brick on the other end this would help. He noted he was not impressed with the