CCP 09-17-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Attachment B: Planning Commission Meetin!! Excerpt Mr. Cronin explained if the applicant so chose, they may accept the comments of the City Council and make formal application for a Master PUD, followed by a Final PUD before construction occurs on the site. . Mr. Cronin stated special requirements for the Gateway Business District were outlined in Section 5 (M) of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cronin reviewed the allowable use by explaining in the Gateway Business District, "office" was a permitted principal use. Section 5 (M) #3 outlines specific requirements for the District for allowable uses. There was a stipulation by this Section that states that office uses cannot occupy less than 25% or more than 50% of a project's total floor area. The Welsh Developments along Gateway Boulevard were limited in their office component to 20% (warehouse for the remaining area) so that more office use could be accommodated on the prominent corner property (1-694 & 1-35W). A Master PUD for that property, proposing 100% office build-out, was approved earlier this year. This proposal also proposed 100% office, 50% above the maximum permitted in the G- B District. Mr. Cronin stated a 750-foot antenna tower was also proposed as a use on this property. The antenna was not accessory to the office use on the property. It was considered a principal use since it did not support or in any way related to the office use on the property. Section 6 (I) #2 stated that antennas were allowed only, "...on property containing a principal use to which the antenna, dish antenna or tower is accessory". Therefore, the proposed antenna was not a permitted principal use in the G-B District. Mr. Cronin presented the Development Standards, structure height, by explaining the District Requirements Chart of the Zoning Ordinance stated a maximum structure height of 35 feet for the District. However, Section 5 (M) #5 (b) contradicts this by stating that, "multi-story buildings will be encouraged", "the use of stepped buildings in encouraged" and "the location of buildings relative to their heights will consider views" within the Gateway Business District. The intent of the District was to promote high quality, large-scale development and take full advantage of the site's location. The proposed height of the two office buildings was 56 feet each, exceeding the 35-foot maximum for the District. The proposed antenna was 750 feet in height where only a maximum of 75 feet was permitted, if it was accessory to the primary use on the property. . Mr. Cronin presented the structure setbacks by stating the building setback requirements for the District were as follows: 50 feet from streets and exterior property lines; 20 feet from side and rear property lines. The front yard was defined as the part of the lot that abuts a street. The proposed bisects the site although the property lines did not. The proposed office buildings meet the setback requirements from both the proposed street and 1-694, as shown on the plans. The proposed accessory structure below the antenna did not meet the Ordinance requirements since it had been placed in the front yard of the lot. Front yards in this proposal were considered that property which abuts the proposed street (on both the North and South side) and the property abutting 1-694. Any accessory structures on this property would have to be located in the side yard of the office buildings. Mr. Cronin presented the structure exteriors by explaining the Zoning Ordinance required that exterior wall surfaces in the GB District be brick, stone, glass or any combination of these. The exterior materials proposed for the office buildings and accessory structure are pre-finished aluminum, brick and glass. Pre-finished aluminum was not a material permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant had supplied plans and elevations of the proposed office buildings. Although the accessory structure had been described in the narrative, there were no plans showing it in elevation, which have been submitted. Mr. Cronin summarized the traffic study stating the traffic study for the District was completed by BRW in 1998, analyzing potential development and still keeping Highway 96 and Round Lake Road within design capacity. SEH completed another traffic study in 2000, analyzing BRW's study and taking into consideration the potential development by Chesapeake Companies in the .