02-25-2004 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 25, 2004 LaValle felt that Revisions #1 and #3 were too dense and did not meet the City's vision for the area. The development as proposed is all parking and building. LaValle felt that the site was being overdeveloped. Fahey asked if there was a green area ratio in the development guide. The City Pla~mer replied that neither the development guide nor the zoning ordinance provide for a percentage of green area. The development guide provides for a pretty urban design and is not focused on large expanses of open space. Anderson asked if the development could be redesigned to create two L- shaped buildings facing one another so that there is building area on all four sides of the property. Mathern stated that there are multitudes of ways to design the site and provide for parking iu the middle. She noted, however, that L-shaped buildings result in the loss of space at the "L". She also pointed out the recommendation that there be no access to M:a~~ket Place Drive and the difficulty of placing two L-shaped buildings on the site without access to both Middle Street and Market Place Drive. Mathern also questioned whether the L-shaped buildings would any better meet design guidelines as there will still be holes allowing for views of the parking lot from Market Place Drive. The City Administrator noted the Public Works Director's recommendation for dedication of additional right-of--way for Middle Street to allow for realigmnent as part of the road reconstruction. Mathern indicated that they were agreeable to the right-ot=way dedication. There was no one else from the general public present wishing to comment on this matter. Upon motion by Fahey, seconded by LaValle, the public hearing was closed. Fahey stated that he prefers Revision #2, but was not sure that it hid the parking area any better than does Revision #3. Fahey stated that he would like to see more effort in reducing the amount of blacktop and increasing the amount of green area. Fahey stated that he would support Revision #3 with more design Features on the rear elevation of the building as recommended by the Planning Commission as well as deed restrictions and covenants on the property restricting the basement space to storage. 6