CCP 09-30-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I 5/y I ' , . strict guidelines of the ordinance by virtue of its location within the park. and by ,. virtue of the layout of the parcel upon which it is constructed. Our concern and that of our institutional investor arises primarily in the context of future leasing and occupancy of the project. In the event replacement tenants. I even though in compliance with the District's use restrictions. require less than prescribed office build-out (or even virtually no office space at all) the effect of which would be to oraw office occupancy in the building below prescribed I levels, these "precious" tenants (precious to the building owner and the City) would be prohibited from moving into the project (and perhaps into Arden Hills), In fact, what makes this situation entirely too problematic for the I investors is the possibility that the City would not grant building perm its and occupancy permits for these replacement tenants, paralyzing active leasing and gutting the viability, feasibility and survival of the property, even though the I prospective tenants would comply with the intent of the zoning ordinance for the District as regards use. We would experience functional obsolescence in a relatively new building. I e) Difficultv as Applied to the District. Another aspect of the need for modification of sub-section 3(a) is the obvious undesired outcome which would I result from its strict application to the most southerly parcel in the District. The highest and best use for that parcel would obviously be 100% office in a mid- rise or high-rise configuration. That kind of project would be prohibited under Ie the provision cited, In fact, if the provision were simply applied generally to the entire business district, with a total area of approximately 60 acres (2,613,600 square feet of land, discounted to 85% for the provision of additional roads and I infrastructure, leaving a total developable land area of2,221 ,560 square feet), which would then, in turn, permit a total density under the zoning code of 30%, or 666,468 square feet of buildings, the total office presence in the entire district would be limited to 333,000 square feet. which would virtually prohibit a major I corporate headquarters development in the southerly part of the District, f) The Commencement and Further Development of the District. Most I importantly, and in addition to the policy issues and difficulties noted abo\'e, this is in fact the first major project since the passage of the subject zoning provisions within the Gateway Business District. It is a major project. will I house a significant number of good paying jobs, costs in excess of $7,000.000, and provides, among other things, an appropriate density (given the Traffic Study noted elsewhere) of office and warehouse. First and foremost, it provides I a significant 'jump start" for the entire Gateway Business District. It has been our feeling all along that as the District development parcels lie I c loser and closer to the Highway 694 corridor, the uses become "higher and better", and will demonstrate increased office and commercial presence, We expect and hope to build subsequent phases, and we expect and hope that the- I increased tax revenues made available from this first project \vill assist the City in the upgrading as necessary of3rd Avenue, as well as 14th Street, will permit tt the clearance of such properties as may be deemed appropriate for clearance and I f:\c-r4s\dz\forms\n:qmudi [doc