Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Attachment B: Planninl! Commission Meetinl! Excerpt <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />northeast quadrant of 1-35W and 1.694. The applicant obtained another traffic analysis from Biko <br />and Associates, analyzing the traffic impact of the proposed development of the tower site. <br /> <br />Mr. Cronin explained the conclusions of the traffic study stated that the 96/W. Round Lake Road <br />intersection would operate at acceptable levels with the implementation of both the Chesapeake <br />and Arden Towers projects. There would aiso be less than desirable operations at the 96/1~35W <br />ramps and it was suggested that signalization should be reviewed for these areas. Biko <br />suggested that improvements be made to the 96/1-35W bridge and improvements be made at the <br />96/10 intersection. Both of these areas are under review with Ramsey County and the State <br />although they may not be scheduled for quite some time. <br /> <br />Mr. Cronin summarized the parking requirements by explaining by the Zoning Ordinance, the <br />parking requirement for an office development was 1 parking space for every 250 square feet. <br />There was 265,514 square feet of office space, requiring 1,062 parking spaces which was <br />satisfied by the proposal. <br /> <br />Mr. Cronin stated the parking area includes surface parking and two, two levei parking ramps. <br />There must be a 50-foot landscape setback from all public streets and 20 feet from other property <br />lines to surface parking areas. The parking ramps were not considered to be principal structures <br />so they were subject to the accessory structure or parking setback requirements, since the <br />Zoning Ordinance was unclear on this issue. The parking setbacks were more stringent and, <br />therefore, the ramps were evaluated accordingly. The setbacks were not met when measured <br />from the proposed street at 21 feet when 50 was required. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Cronin presented the site access information stating there was currently a 66' wide utility <br />easement that ran east to west across the middle of this property. This easement could not be <br />built upon by a structure so a road was being proposed over iL The City would need to maintain <br />access to this easement and it should be, therefore, a public street with a right of way of no less <br />than 60', as required for local streets. The proposed street was a width of 24 feet. The only public <br />street that could serve this site, Gateway Boulevard, does not connect to the west property line of <br />this property. <br /> <br />Mr. Cronin explained there was currently an unimproved road serving the tower site, for <br />maintenance of the tower. Staff was unaware if the applicant had an easement agreement with <br />other property owners to access the site as no easement was shown on the submitted plans. The <br />improved portion of the road stops on the west side of the pond for Apache. The land between <br />existing Gateway Boulevard and the applicant's property was previously owned by Morris <br />Communications and just recently acquired by Chesapeake Companies. Therefore, this site did <br />not currently have a connection to a public street, as was required for development. <br /> <br />Mr. Cronin summarized the public safety for this Planning Case by explaining the proposal <br />discusses the construction of a 750-foot antenna tower (although 700-feet was shown in the <br />plans). Due to the fact that the current antenna had been found unsafe, the applicant needed to <br />build another tower, although zoning prohibited it. The Building Official had stated that numerous <br />additional antennas had been added to the tower without building permits or staff approval, <br />creating this unsafe condition. <br /> <br />Mr. Cronin stated the new proposed tower would replace the existing tower. It would be <br />constructed along side of the existing tower, approximately 20 feet from the base. When fuily <br />constructed, the antennas would be transferred from the old tower to the new tower and the <br />existing tower would be taken down. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Cronin explained Ailied Tower had provided documentation in the submitted booklet on the <br />fail radius of guyed towers, including ice fail. The report stated that there have been a total of 14 <br />incidents in the USA of tower coilapses from weather conditions. From the information obtained <br />by these fails, it's presumed that a tower of 750 feet in height would have a fail radius of 199 feet. <br />Towers do not fail over but coilapse on themselves. As for ice failing, the memorandum from <br />