Tuesday’s meeting of City Council saw approval of the proposed apartments at 617 and 619 Mendota Ct.

The project will go before the city’s Urban Design Commission today to gain final approval for the apartments’ designs and aesthetics.

Developer Patrick Corcoran laid out a brief synopsis of the project’s history for the council.

Purchasing the property at 619 two years ago, he began to formulate plans for constructing a new, more accessible apartment complex in the area. After contacting the city’s Preservation Planner in fall 2008, it was determined that the houses, though advanced in age, possessed no substantial historic value, Corcoran said.

He then went on to address one of the major concerns that has arisen with the development of designs for the apartments.

“I think I’d be remiss if I didn’t speak to the parking situation down there,” Corcoran said.

The project has come under scrutiny by those who claim the project simply isn’t viable with the absence of vehicular parking. Corcoran, on the other hand, claimed parking was simply not appropriate for the project.

He added the project has been praised by many area representatives who claim the area is too congested already and the addition of parking to service complex would only add to that.

“We intentionally went with a design that promoted bicycle, moped and pedestrian traffic,” Corcoran said.

Harvey Temkin, attorney with Reinhart Law, was strongly opposed to the apartments’ design, specifically in the way parking and surrounding properties were addressed.

“We’re talking here about building a very large building — a hundred bedrooms without any parking,” Temkin said.

Another of his concerns was the shared alley with the adjacent property. Temkin feared the already limited parking in the area reserved for delivery and maintenance would be claimed by the student population.

The solution proposed was placing a gate at the ends of the alley, enabling only those who required use of the parking to have access to it. Representatives from Patrick Properties did not reach an agreement with Temkin.

Construction was another major point of contention in the evening’s discussion.

Temkin said the original plan to begin construction of the apartments in September of this year was acceptable, adding that Corcoran had put forward the idea of beginning construction in June which he viewed as unacceptable.

“I don’t think there’s a chance for agreement on this,” Bill White, an associate of Corcoran, said of the construction timeline. “It made perfect sense to get as much done in the summer — the construction season.”

White added that by beginning construction early, the project would inconvenience fewer students and would allow the project to hopefully be completed by the time students began new leases for 2010.

Ald. Bryon Eagon, District 8, who represents the area of development and lives across the street from the proposed apartments, was supportive of the project as a whole.

“I can’t say that I will continue to be living in the area, I haven’t signed a lease yet, but I’m willing to be inconvenienced this summer because of the construction,” Eagon said.