Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 25, 1995 <br />Morelan pointed out that a PUD allows the City to place <br />additional restrictions on a development over and above <br />what would normally be required. <br />The Planner replied that that was correct. <br />Morelan suggested that preliminary approvals could be <br />qranted now and the density issue addressed during <br />final plat discussions. <br />The City Planner pointed out that development stage <br />approvals do not guarantee final plat approvals. <br />Fahey asked if downsizinq the buildings would result in <br />more distance between them. <br />Bienke reported that the floor sizes of the existing <br />buildings have been adjusted to fit the professional <br />type of business that this product would attract. The <br />building areas quoted earlier in the meeting are gross <br />areas, including lobbies, bathrooms, etc. If the floor <br />size of the buildings are reduced, the floor plans will <br />be too small to sell or lease. <br />Morelan pointed out that another option would be to <br />eliminate one building. <br />Scalze pointed out that the buildings are not lined up <br />in a row, but staggered, which provides for more green <br />area between the buildings. <br />Newpower pointed out that an alternative development <br />could be a 21,000 square foot office-warehouse <br />building, which Newpower felt would be less attractive <br />than the proposal before the Council. <br />Scalze felt the development as proposed was <br />aesthetically appealing and had lots of landscaping. <br />Scalze felt it was head and shoulders above some of the <br />other uses in the area, and she did not want to see one <br />long building developed on the site. <br />Fahey pointed out that the property is adjacent to the <br />freeway, and the use proposed is permitted and meets <br />the density limitations of the ordinance. <br />Morelan asked if the developers had considered a down- <br />scale development. <br />10 <br />