Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />/I#/JO <br /> <br />7. <br /> <br />The south (revised) and north (revised) elevations of the Phase III building should have <br />the same brick treatment as the west (revised) elevation. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />8. The south (revised) elevation of the Phase III building should contain some glass. <br /> <br />9. The "finished exterior" of the south (revised) and north (revised) elevations of the Phase <br />III building should be wrapped around onto the east (revised) elevation up to the first <br />dock doors. <br /> <br />10. The elevations of the Phase IV buildings are mislabeled (Exhibit A, page 43 of 47 and <br />should be labeled as follows: <br /> <br />Phase IV building <br />Currently labeled as To be labeled as <br />South Elevation East Elevation <br />West Elevation South Elevation <br />East Elevation North Elevation <br />North Elevation West Elevation <br /> <br />II. <br /> <br />The south (revised) and north (revised) elevations of the Phase IV building should have <br />the same brick treatment as the east (revised) elevation. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />12. The south (revised) elevation of the Phase IV building should contain some glass. <br /> <br />13. The "finished exterior" of the south (revised) and north (revised) elevations of the Phase <br />IV building should be wrapped around onto the west (revised) elevation up to the first <br />dock doors. <br /> <br />Findinl;:s - Other Variances #1 (Maximum FAR - Phase In <br />I. The Zoning Ordinance in Section V, K, 5, a, (4), allows for the FAR of individual lots in <br />a mixed use project to vary from the requirement (0.3) as long as the overall FAR is <br />within the requirement. The FAR of the Phase II building is 0.323 which is greater than <br />0.3. However, the overall FAR of the project is 0.263 which is less than the maximum. <br /> <br />Findin~s-Otber Variances #2 (Minimum narking setback - Gateway Court - Phase II) <br />1. The parking setback can be met on the site. However, if the setback is met, then loading <br />docks would have to be eliminated from the westerly one-half of the building which <br />would effect the feasibility of the project. <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />The owners of Phase I of the GBD and the applicant desire to have Gateway Court as part <br />of this project. <br /> <br />. <br />