Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 25, 1995 <br />The Planner noted that it will take four affirmative <br />votes of the Council to approve the PUD. <br />Fahey felt that given the amount of unbuildable land on <br />the site, he felt the proposal was a fair use of the <br />property. Without the easements, the developer could <br />have proposed a qreater density. <br />Bienke pointed out that 12.1% building site coverage is <br />proposed, which is very low. <br />Morelan was concerned about the proximity of the <br />buildings to one another. Morelan suggested that <br />elevation drawings showing the buildings may alleviate <br />his concerns. Morelan stated that it appeared that the <br />buildings were too close together. <br />Bienke stated that he could prepare the elevation <br />drawings which Morelan is requesting. Bienke pointed <br />out that the site has considerable visibility to the <br />freeway, and that the development would create a larger <br />buffer from the freeway interchange to the residential <br />property in the area. Pulling the buildings apart will <br />impact that buffer. Bienke also stated that the <br />project was designed to make the most of the freeway <br />visibility. Bienke pointed out that the Centerville <br />Road/County Road D area is not easy to get to. <br />Therefore, the visibility of the site becomes a major <br />factor of the parcel. <br />Bienke pointed out that the proposal meets the <br />standards of the City's ordinance, which requires a ten <br />foot setback between structures. Bienke indicated that <br />it is actually corners of the buildings which are <br />separated by 10 feet, and not entire sides of buildings <br />being separated by 10 feet. Bienke pointed out the <br />irregular placement pattern of the buildings. <br />Fahey stated that he saw no problem with the lay-out <br />from a fire protection standpoint since there is <br />complete access from both County Road D and the parking <br />lot in the back of the structures. Fahey pointed out <br />that this is an industrial/commercial area, and tighter <br />setbacks are common in such areas. Fahey felt the <br />layout was appropriate given the minimum land usage due <br />to the easement situation, and felt the developer <br />should be allowed to maximize the use of the property <br />within the Code requirements. <br />9 <br />