Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />FEBRUARY 25, 2004 <br />space to office space can result in parking problems. Anderson felt that <br />staff s parking review appeared reasonable and consistent with other <br />projects. <br />Fahey indicated that he can understand the need for storage space, and <br />stated that he was satisfied with the parking provided that there are <br />restrictive covenants and deed restrictions placed on the property. <br />Anderson asked if the City would allow an office/warehouse use on this <br />property. The Planner replied that the property is not zoned for <br />office/warehouse. Under the current zoning, an office development would <br />have to have at least 50% office space. Fahey noted that there are no <br />overhead doors being proposed. <br />LaValle felt that Revision #2 was more attractive and more in keeping <br />with the City's vision for the area. LaValle felt the other two proposals <br />had the appearance of strip malls. <br />Clem noted that parking requirements cannot be met under Revision #2. <br />LaValle suggested that the reason is that the density is too great. Clem <br />also pointed out that the site is restricted, as access must come from <br />Middle Street. <br />Fahey felt there was a lack of green area in Revision #3. He agreed that <br />the layout of the buildings had the appeu~a~~ce of a strip mall, and that <br />breaking up the buildings was more in keeping with the City's <br />redevelopment guide. Fahey stated that he realizes that developers want to <br />maximize density, but noted that the City has only one chance to ensure <br />that the land is developed properly. <br />The Planner indicated that The Planning Commission felt Revision #2 was <br />preferable, but given the inadequate parking and the developer's need for <br />14 units, supported Revision #3. <br />M. athern reported that Revision #3 meeting the City's code requirements <br />for parking as well as design. Mathern indicated that 14 units are needed. <br />She also pointed out the direction from the City Engineer to keep access <br />points on M. fiddle Street and not Market Place Drive given the potential for <br />interference with the bus hub. Mathern pointed out that Revision #3 meets <br />the design guidelines as the buildings have been pulled up to Market Place <br />Drive. Mathern pointed out that their first choice is still Revision #1. She <br />also noted that in order to meet parking requirements, the amount of green <br />space suffers. <br />4 <br />