Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Attachment B: Planninl! Commission Meetinl! Excerpt <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman asked if Mr. Vaughn wanted feedback on the whole concept, or on <br />individual parts of the concept. Mr. Habiger replied before they went ahead with the office <br />development, they wanted to have the new tower constructed with the existing tower removed. He <br />stated they were looking for feedback on the overall concept to reconstruct the tower and the office <br />development proposal. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Acting Chair Sand asked for clarification on the March 20, 2001 ietter addressed to HKS from Allied <br />Tower regarding the "SO-foof' communications tower. Mr. Habiger replied he believed that was a <br />misprint. He stated it had always been proposed that the tower wouid be 700-feet. <br /> <br />Acting Chair Sand stated in terms of the Planning Commission's obligations, the tower seemed to <br />be non-conforming and therefore if a new tower was put in place of the oid tower, the Commission <br />would be approving a non-conforming structure and he indicated he had a concern about that. He <br />expressed concern that more than 50% of a project's totai floor area might be office space. He also <br />expressed concern regarding the building height. With respect to the traffic study, the facts would <br />be changing in the new few years, so the traffic study wouid be moot. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman expressed concern about the current traffic congestion and he believed <br />it was important the Planning Commission look at the traffic patterns and congestion. <br /> <br />Commissioner Gaiatowitsch asked if it was possible to have a traffic access off of Interstate 694 <br />instead of off Highway 96. Mr. Habiger stated it was not permitted for a private development to <br />have access onto an Interstate. <br /> <br />Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if they had looked at working with the Federal authorities for the <br />possibility of adding some type of a frontage/service road aiong Interstate 694 and adding an <br />access to interstate 694 to the east. Mr. Habiger stated this would be the most desirable solution, <br />except the developments to the east were residential developments and most residents would . <br />object to this type of an access. <br /> <br />Mr. Habiger stated while there was no concern that the tower would fail at any time in the near <br />future, the tower did not meet today's safety standards. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pakulski expressed concern about the density of the office building. He stated he <br />did not have a specific opinion with the tower, and he did not believe he had any authority to make <br />a decision regarding the tower. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman also expressed concern about the office density. With respect to the <br />tower, he believed it would be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and whether he agreed with it or <br />not, that was what the current Ordinances were. He suggested Mr. Vaughn prepare an economic <br />cost analysis. <br /> <br />Commissioner Galatowltsch stated she was empathetic to Mr. Vaughn's concerns about the tower <br />and believed the tower was an asset to the City. However, having the two uses on the property <br />was a concern for her. She also expressed concern about ice falling from the tower and asked for <br />further safety anaiysis regarding this. <br /> <br />Commissioner Duchene stated safety was a huge concern for her. The tower issue was beyond <br />her power to deal with. She expressed concerns with the proximity of the parking ramps to the <br />tower. <br /> <br />e <br />