Laserfiche WebLink
MiNIITES <br />PLANNING COIVID'11SSION <br />JANIIARI' 8, 2004 <br />other developers. Duray suggested that the building layout be redesigned <br />to get the buildings out to the street. He felt the City should not have <br />double standards, and that it would be a disservice to other developers to <br />allow the building placement as proposed. <br />Barraclough again stated that he would like to see more architectural <br />detail Mathern indicated that they could bring in material samples. <br />Knudsen pointed out that the City has a vision for the area and has pushed <br />other developers hard to meet that vision. Knudsen challenged Mathern to <br />look at other options that would bring The buildings to the street. <br />Rheaume stated that the site plan shows him a building that sits right in the <br />middle of the parking lot. Rheaume suggested pulling that building <br />further south. Mathern pointed out that they have been discouraged from <br />utilizing Market Place Drive as the access for this development given the <br />transit hub on that street. Therefore, they are now proposing two curb cuts <br />on Middle Street. <br />Weihe asked how important it was for people driving down Rice Street to <br />see these buildings. Mathern replied that it was very important. <br />Barraclough asked if the developer was planning to have siguage on Rice <br />Street. Mathern replied that they were not; their monument sign would be <br />on the corner of Middle Street and Market Place Drive. <br />Barraclough pointed out that additional development in the ~~ea might <br />provide a visual barrier from Rice Street. Mathern stated that it was <br />important for peo}>le to see the buildings as well as be able to see an easy <br />place to park. <br />Knudsen stated that he would like to see the developer pull the buildings <br />closer to the street. Knudsen asked if the developer wanted the <br />Commission to act on this site plan, or if they wanted an opportunity to <br />revise the site plan. <br />Mathern indicated that she was open to a tabling of the architectural <br />review, but pointed out that they explored many options for building <br />placement, and this is the one they feel worls- <br />The consensus of the Commission was that other building placement <br />options should be explored to see if there was a way to bring the buildings <br />to the street. The City Planner sup=gested that if action is tabled on the <br />fv chitectural Review, the Commission mightjust as well table action on <br />all items at this point. <br />-S- <br />