02-25-2004 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUT>JS CITY COUNCIL I+UBRUARY 25, 200A Fahey again stated that Revision #3 has the feel of a strip mall Mathern disagreed and stated that the design is nothing like a strip mall. She noted that each townoffice will have its own entrance, high-quality materials will be used on the exteriors of the two buildings, and the design is stylistically and aesthetically attractive. Anderson pointed out that Revision #3 puts a big parking lot up against another big parking lot. Fahey agreed, and noted that Revision #2 has four separate buildings along each edge of the property and breaks up the straight lines of a strip mall. Mathern indicated that they are not interested in Revision #2 as they would lose density in order to meet parking requirements. Fahey indicated that the question is whether Revision #3 meets the City's design guidelines. The City Administrator asked if allowing access to Market Place Drive would allow for breaking up the buildings while meeting parking requirements. Mathern replied that that maybe helpful, but felt there would still be a parking issue. Fahey asked Metro Transit's position on access to Market Place Drive. The City Administrator was not sure, but noted that the City Engineer recommended restricting airy access to Market Place Drive from a safety standpoint. LaValle asked if the density had to be 14 writs. Mathern replied that it did. Fahey suggested that Revision #3 may meet the design guidelines as it hides the parking from Market Place Drive and from the east. However, Revision #2 breaks up the buildings acid does a better job of hiding the parking. Mathern suggested that if green space is a concern, the amount of parking iu Revision #3 could be reduced as they a~~e proposing 111 spaces while the code requires some where between 93 and 98 spaces. The reduction in pa~~king would allow for an increase in green area. The City Plazmer noted that Revision #3 the parking layout should be reworked since it relies on some dead-end parking areas that should be avoided. "['he Planner estimated that the required parking for Revision #3 is 98 spaces, so reducing the parking from 111 spaces would allow for more green area. Mathern indicated that they were willing to eliminate the dead-end parking and reduce parking while increasing green area. Mathern pointed out that staff reports reconmlended mitigating the exposure of the parking to one street or the other, and that they have made significant efforts to do that. 5