CCP 09-17-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Attachment B: Planning Commission Meetinl! Excer{lt 12. Consideration should be made for improvements to the Hwy 96/10 and 96/1-35W intersections as per the traffic study; 13. Reconstruction of the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Round Lake Road should be considered to accommodate development; and 14. The applicant must obtain all necessary reviews and permits from Rice Creek Watershed District. Chuck Habiger, HKS Associates, stated applicant's tower was no longer in compliance with State guidelines and that was the reason they were requesting this proposal. Mr. Habiger summarized applicant's proposal and presented site plans for the area. Mr. Habiger clarified that all of the panels on the building would be glass with the pre-finished aluminum being around the giass. William Smith, Transportation Planner with Biko Associates, summarized the traffic study and the development of Chesapeake Companies. He indicated two traffic studies had been prepared on the site, one before the Chesapeake office development was developed and the other one prepared in 2000. The results from the first study indicated the intersection could accept an additional 1 , 1 00 cars during peak hours. He stated while the intersection could handle the additional cars, there was concern regarding the ramp terminals on and off of 135W. He indicated traffic signals would probably fix any problems with those ramp terminals. However, any improvements with the ramps would probably not be made until 2003. Commissioner Pakulski inquired about the lane width. Mr. Smith replied the lane width was chosen for traffic calming purposes and there would be no parking allowed on the street. Tom Stella, United Properties, summarized the market conditions for office space versus office/warehouse space. Mr. Habiger addressed the concerns regarding the tower including safety issues raised by staff. Mr. Habiger stated applicant had a contractual obligation for the tower for the next 17 years and it wouid be a financial hardship for applicant to take the tower down and redevelop the site. Mr. Habiger restated that the current design of the tower did not meet the Code requirements. Dan Vaughn, Arden Towers, stated the existing tower had been there for 20 years and the tower they were talking about replacing it with would be a tower almost identical in appearance to the one that was there now. The new tower would have solid steel legs, instead of tubular steel legs, which would make it a stronger tower and therefore, it would hoid more antennas. He indicated the tower served a large part of the community and it was a very important structure in the communication industry in the City. He stated it would be very difficult to take it down and find a replacement. Commissioner Zimmerman asked what dictated the height of the tower. Mr. Vaughn stated 700 feet was what the tower was now, and that was what the new tower would be. There was a misprint in the application. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if Mr. Vaughn had prepared a cost analysis as to building versus not building the new tower. Mr. Vaughn replied he would have to buyout his contractual obligations, and while he had not specifically looked at the financial end of this, he believed the tower was an asset to the City. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if Mr. Vaughn was under a contractual obligation to provide a safe tower. Mr. Vaughn replied that was correct. Commissioner Galatowitsch stated by adding buildings to the property, the tower would be an accessory use and the Code only allowed for a 75-foot tower under an accessory use. Mr. Vaughn replied it was always intended there Would eventually be buildings on the property. However, the PUD did not reflect this.