Laserfiche WebLink
over. Then move on to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a"yea" or "nay" on the variances then <br />return to Planning Commission for a lot more detailed work. For a number of years, the City has <br />worked directly with the property owners. The city has invited property owners and their developer <br />to Planning Commission to participate in the rezoning that was required to work out the details of <br />the rezoning classification. Planning Commission worked for months on preliminary plan and the <br />work continues. With every reasonable effort on the part of the City to bring some productive use <br />for this property. Therefore, as the architectural style of the Target building, does it succeed in <br />disguising the building massing. The zoning code prohibits this mass and rather than comply with <br />the code the applicant is trying to cover it up or mask it. If the concern of the code is the scale of <br />the buildings then he is trying to de-emphasize that scale to address that concern. <br />Further comments from the board members: <br />Mr. Yager voiced that his understanding is then, that the applicant is asking Planning Commission <br />to make a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals to vote one way or the other. The <br />issues that Planning Commission is addressing is the site plan at this point, or are they evaluating <br />more than a site plan or are they evaluating the renderings from the previous one as that was <br />suggested, but are they relative to the current site plan. Before there were rectal-lineal at the entry <br />components and those are now gone, he is unclear as to what he is to decipher and make <br />recommendations on. Therefore if it is those things addressed with the site plan that is very <br />different then those things addressed with the general esthetics. The site plan clearly shows the <br />applicant followed some of the recommendations and tried to address things whether it is right or <br />not at least he tried. He hopes that the applicant will continue to try and put more effort if they <br />know the project will proceed. 1VIr. Berryhill suggested that they would return to Planning <br />Commission and will address all the items pointed out in the lifestyle book that were asked for by <br />the chairman. Mr. Spalding commented that in the Architectural Review Board minutes Mr. <br />Zergott indicated he like the architectural design that was first presented but he did not like the <br />massing of the current plan they reviewed. Mr. Berryhill suggested that the architect was <br />concerned about height limitations. However, Mr. Conway advised us that height should not be an <br />issue. Mr. Yager felt that height was not as big of an issue as style, which should include gables, <br />mansards, peaks, and towers, which can make the site elegant. Mr. Berryhill showed the board <br />members documents he suggested the Architectural Review Board reviewed and commented on. <br />Note: said documents were never submitted for the record. He then showed the board members a <br />new document, which he suggested had new changes that were requested by the Architectural <br />Review Board. Note: again, both of the documents being shown to the Planning Commissioners <br />were not submitted for the record. Mr. Yager questioned if the applicant was saying that if the <br />commission moved them forward to get their variances then the applicants would solve the <br />designing issues. Mr. Berryhill answered "exactly" he again suggested that the process was still <br />evolving. <br />City Planners Comments: <br />Ms. Wenger indicated that she would like to address the variances and suggested that she attended <br />the Architectural Review Board were the concepts were presented. The first variance they request <br />is the height variance. As Mr. Berryhill suggested the Architectural Review Board felt that in order <br />to include some of the architectural significant features they would like the height variance granted <br />to accommodate the roof lines and towers. They felt the rooflines and towers were important to the <br />design. Ms. Wenger held up the September 5, 2003 color rendering and indicated that the <br />Architectural Review Board liked the height features in the rendering and on those basis thought the <br />variance was appropriate. The two variances regarding the underground parking garage are front <br />yard setback and as the garage is underground and at street level the setback will be met it is not a <br />significant impediment. The building massing of the underground parking garage will not be seen <br />4