Laserfiche WebLink
Randy Haisfield, Manager of All Star Investments, represented the Applicant. Mr. Haisfield gave <br />an overview of the project, focusing on the architectural and design changes that were made in <br />accordance with objections to the original plan. <br /> <br />Public Comment: <br /> <br />None. <br /> <br />Commission Questions: <br /> <br />Robert McAllister asked Staff: 1. Will the request for hard walkways in the back effect the <br />overall landscaping percentage? Staff is asking for a 5' sidewalk and does not feel that the <br />percentage of 32.8 would be reduced by any significant amount. 2. Explain the intent of <br />Condition #11. The Staff is requesting walls for screening purposes along the north property line <br />where the parking lot abuts the access easement. The walls could be low, 30", intermittent <br />masonry walls, or a landscape planter. Mr. McAllister comments that there is a traffic flow issue <br />that should be addressed. From the west, the traffic island will encourage pedestrian crossing in <br />front of the property access. He feels a speed limiting device might be necessary, or a cross walk. <br /> Also, the handicapped parking spaces are not close enough to the building per code. <br /> <br />Chris Pritchard asked Staff if there is a shared parking agreement? No. Is there going to be a <br />parking conflict with Outback? Outback met their parking requirements. The Applicant feels that <br />the bank hours and Outback hours would not coincide, so shared parking might work. Regarding <br />the structure: 1. Will the HVAC units be on the roof? Yes. Mr. Pritchard is concerned about <br />visibility coming off of Highway 36. 2. Where will the electrical units be? Please be sensitive to <br />visibility from the back service road. Perhaps landscaping can help hide the meters. Mr. Pritchard <br />asks Staff if there are restrictions regarding antennae? Staff comments that satellite dishes must <br />be approved as part of the final PUD. <br /> <br />Betty Solek feels that the property plays an important role in pedestrian traffic. She likes the <br />building, but she is concerned about the pedestrian access, particularly from the hotel. She asked <br />specifically what type of pedestrian access would exist between McCaslin Boulevard and the <br />building. The Applicant would like to see if they can tie into the sidewalk mentioned, but <br />specifics would show up on the next generation of plans. Betty Solek sees many obstacles for the <br />access because it encounters the bank drive through. She wants to know if it has been considered <br />to remove the access that currently exists across from Ruby Tuesdays. No, that access will be <br />there. The Applicant didn’t know that he could move the curb cut. Ms. Solek asked Staff if the <br />curb cuts could be moved. Changing it would cause some concerns for the north property <br />owners. Ms. Solek re-emphasized her concern for that intersection. <br /> <br />Bill Boulet likes the architectural design and the materials. He agrees with the City Council <br />comments regarding the strip mall look. He wondered if that look was necessary to attract a wide <br />variety of tenants. The Applicant had not given a lot of thought about the different types of <br />tenants. Mr. Boulet is concerned about the back of the building and the entry ways. He would <br /> <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />