Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Keany stated that the use of S-3 for detention, the amount of landscaping that would be or the <br />amount of money contributed for that landscaping would have to be justified, compared to the <br />additional retail space available for leasing and/or the savings that the City was providing the <br />landowner by not requiring them to do the underground detention. If $12,500 is all the City would <br />be getting out of this, he felt the City would be getting the short end of the deal. If detention were <br />provided on the open space, he wanted an agreement drawn up that they provide all maintenance of <br />the drainage and flow patterns in that area. He was concerned about the way the parking is laid out <br />that they are trying to obscure the parking from the theatre so that the theatre goers are discouraged <br />fi.om parking in there because of the placement of the buildings and landscaping, as opposed to being <br />a cross parking agreement. As far as the Commercial Design Guidelines, he thought it was 30% <br />greenspace, not 30% greenspace and hardscape. <br /> <br />Levihn proposed Council take a vote on the land exchange at this meeting. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that the land exchange was based upon a series of conditions, which 1007 <br />Corporation was supposed to follow through on: the removal of the asphalt and execution of the land <br />exchange agreement, neither of which had happened. He did not feel the City was bound by that <br />since there was no follow through. He was not in favor of the land exchange. He was reluctant to <br />pass this on with the 18 unresolved conditions. <br /> <br />Lathrop stated that he would support the land exchange given the trade-offs that were talked about: <br />the landscaping, the removal of the asphalt, and a good quality development. <br /> <br />Howard wanted the view corridor issue resolved. <br /> <br />Keany agreed with Howard. <br /> <br />Mayer felt the land swap would have to be an item of negotiation. He preferred the underground <br />detention. <br /> <br />Davidson called for the applicant's summary. <br /> <br />Mr. O'Leary wanted to see approval on the land exchange. He stated that they could resolve 14 of <br />the issues very quickly. On the view corridor, they had made concessions and they referenced the <br />staff recommendation which says, "We also do not believe that the Comfort Inn is entitled." Dispite <br />all of of this he was prepared to increase the view corridor 15'. Consequently, they will be forced to <br />revise their plan, move two buildings, subject to getting approval on the land exchange. Secondly, <br />he would change to a 5.0 parking ratio and lift a restriction on a full service restaurant of 6,000 s.f. <br /> <br />Blankenship stated that the Gateway Design Guidelines are 25% soft landscape and one of the <br />primary features of their development is the pedestrian amenities. On the 18 unresolved conditions, <br />he had not seen them. On the open space and the cost of detaining out there, they are not getting a <br />benefit there. They are buying the right to detain there and putting in a cost to improve that. They <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br /> <br />