NO NEWARK POWER PLANT blog posted a link to Max Walton's 11 page report released yesterday in a finding of fact on whether or not the UD/TDC is empowered to "do this as is".
Based upon the plain meaning of the “accessory use” definition in the Newark City Code, and based upon the facts presently assumed, the proposed power plant likely qualifies as a permitted accessory use.Walton's conclusion is no surprise to me. I've expected it since hearing TDC string out its numbers and defenses at the meeting last week to try to establish that they absolutely, unequivocally needed every single Watt of power to be produced:
108 MW necessary to keep the data racks operational,See it for yourself HERE ~
90 MW to keep the lights on and the additional
50 MW as necessary for redundancy - a reliability assurance to its customers. That added up neatly to the requested
248 MW.
Video Now Posted of The Data Centers, LLC Community Information Meeting on September 3For residents not able to attend the community information meeting on Tuesday, September 3, video is posted at www.cityofnewarkde.us/datacenters. Also posted on this page are links to the TDC website where they will post information about the project.Of course, TDC ALSO intends to SELL 30% of the power generated by the plant!
........and despite the Business Bulletin's "Breaking news: Data Centers to post responses to 200 questions on $1. 1B project" there is nothing posted as yet on the company website http://thedatacenters.com/star-campus-project
That is the nature of the redundancy argument: in the off chance that any extra energy is needed, the power plant will run at that full capacity formula and so, why not sell off what energy isn't needed on any given day? Yes, TDC's owners publicly claimed that thirty percent of the energy produced won't be needed and will be sold back to the grid. (TDC will be in competition with the city for energy sales? How is that supposed to work? More on this whole business model to come later. Also see: Data Centers: the New “Wildcat Power Utilities”.)
Doesn't the language for the special zoning category for this property suggest it was written explicitly to provide for this anticipated Data Center-plus-power-plant use? Were Council and the public duped by the UD and then city Mayor Funk and Planning Director Lopata?
Walton's conclusion states that the power plant is a presumed legislative intent. But we know members of Newark City Council will deny this was their intent in approving the new zoning code - no ifs, ands or buts. (By the way, UD-employee Councilman Tuttle has announced his retirement.)
From speaking with people who had met privately with TDC, I gather that the big deal was that for the past year, after spending a lot of money, etc. AND SIGNING A 75 year lease in July 2013 - - - TDC was never told that the zoning may not be OK. That UD President Harker told them he could "get it done". And that TDC wanted to know if the UD was or was not exempt for this power plant (TDC's preferred euphemism is "electrical generating system").
So it appears that our Council has now paid Max Walton god knows how much money for this opinion.....and it doesn't fall in favor of city residents whose homes will be negatively impacted (and happen to live in Doug Tuttle's district).
In the newly created Science and Technology Campus (STC) district (see Lopata's report below), data centers are a permitted use: Newark City Code 32-32.1 (a)(5) permits "technologically dependent or computer based facilities that are dedicated to the processing of data or the analysis of information."
Walton's core justification for a power plant on the campus (page 10) is based on his claim that the city said it cannot provide the data center the power it needs "at this time". And therefore and so on and well now etc. and ergo a power plant was the presumed legislative intent of the zoning code.
But Mayor Funk did seemingly anticipate providing energy to the campus project site.
His big argument to me when I asked him why he was lobbying so hard for the sale of the assembly plant property to the University of Delaware - - - waaaaaaaaaaaaay back before UD started meeting with prospective tenants or the zoning code was created - - - was that Chrysler was never a city utility customer and the UD would be. Funk said while UD would pay no taxes on the property, they would be purchasing our electricity and that would make up for it.
(I wonder if I can FOIA somebody and find out if the zoning code was written AFTER the UD started talking to TDC LLC.)
There is also no surprise that Max Walton has written an opinion establishing code compliance as if it were a brief in preparation for a Court of Chancery law suit a) against the city by the UD or The Data Centers LLC if they fail to move the project forward or b) against the city by the surrounding community of potentially harmed home owners if they do.
Amy Roe and I, seated in the front row of Council Chambers a few month back, looked at each other askance when the motion was raised to get a "second independent opinion" to investigate Council's "rights" on the matter and in the same breath proposed Max Walton as the attorney, though his name never made it into the motion. Max Walton has a reputation as the go to guy to garner supporting opinion for government most recently vs. public interests.
Meanwhile, round and round and round we go again with the lack of transparency for UD under Delaware law.
Amy Roe FOIA'd UD for the 75 year TDC LLC lease agreement (see below) and was DENIED under the age-old pretense that it simply isn't public information because no state funds are tied to the property.
Yet, this is an accounting of how much money UD got from the state last year ~
Amy Roe sent this along yesterday ~In this past year's operating budget (FY14), UD received $115,946,300 in operations plus an additional $1,838,400 for the Geological Survey, $50,000 for DIMER (Delaware Institute of Medical Education and Research), $500,000 for Poultry Disease Research at the Georgetown campus, $21,800 for the state's Wolf Trap Program, and $800,000 for the Master's degree program in Speech-Language Pathology. The total dollar amount from the state comprises about 14% of the University's total operating budget. In the bond bill, UD received $4,000,000 for Laboratories in Southern Delaware plus $100,000 from DEDO for the Center for Composite Materials, and $800,000 matching a federal grant for the ESPCOR program.
But isn't 1743 holdings a 100% wholly owned subsidiary of UD?UD's response to my FOIA request that asked for the lease with The Data Centers LLC. They claim that no state funds were used to buy the Chrysler site, so it is not subject to FOIA. They claim that it is not UD who owns the property, but 1743 Holdings, so it is not subject to FOIA.
Here's the email exchange ~
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Amy Roe <amywroe@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. White,
I am writing to request the following from the University of Delaware
pursuant to Title 29 Delaware Code Chapter 100 Freedom of Information
Act: Documents pertaining to the Data Centers LLC, including emails,
correspondence, and the lease signed by UD for the STAR Campus.
It is my understanding that because this project received state funds,
$7.5 million from the Delaware Economic Development Office, and the
lease for this property was required to secure this DEDO grant, the
documents pertaining to this project are subject to FOIA.
I would appreciate these documents within the next 10 business days.
Thank you so much,
>
> Amy Roe, Ph.D.
> 19 Sunset Road
> Newark, DE 19711
> 302-690-6956
From: Lawrence White
Date: Monday, September 9, 2013
Subject: FOIA Request, The Data Centers LLC
To: Amy Roe <amywroe@gmail.com>
September 9, 2013
Dr. Amy Roe
19 Sunset Road
Newark, DE 19711
Dear Dr. Roe:
It is my privilege to respond on behalf of the University of Delaware
to your request under Delaware's Freedom of Information Act. Your
request (reprinted below) seeks documents pertaining to a construction
project undertaken by The Data Centers LLC on land leased to that
company and located on the University's STAR Campus.
Your request appropriately contains a citation to the Delaware Freedom
of Information Act, 29 Del. Code §§ 10001 et seq. Our State's Freedom
of Information Act exempts the University of Delaware from statutory
coverage except in certain limited respects. The University is covered
by the Freedom of Information Act only to the extent that requests
relate to "the expenditure of public funds . . . ." §10002(d). Public
funds are "those funds derived from the State or any political
subdivision of the State." §10002(f). Because the information you seek
does not relate to the expenditure of public funds, the University
respectfully declines your records request.
Your request refers to $7.5 million in "state funds ... from the
Delaware Economic Development Office." No state funds have been
expended for construction of the project referenced in your request.
The Data Centers applied to the Infrastructure Fund for a grant to
support construction. But no grant has been awarded. There has been no
Infrastructure Fund support for the project to date, nor has there
been support from any other state-related source. Furthermore, any
award from the Infrastructure Fund would be made, not to the
University of Delaware, but to The Data Centers and documents relating
to the award would not be in the University's possession or control.
Your request also refers to "the lease signed by UD for the STAR
Campus." There is no lease for the STAR Campus signed by the
University of Delaware. The STAR Campus is not leased; it is owned.
The owner is 1743 Holdings, an incorporated, wholly-owned subsidiary
of the University. No state funds were involved in the purchase;
accordingly, the Freedom of Information Act does not require the
University to produce documents relating to the purchase or leasing
activities on the site.
With respect to the ground lease between 1743 Holdings and the Data
Centers, that ground lease does not involve the expenditure of state
funds, and is therefore not subject to disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act.
If you have any questions about this response, they can be directed to me.
Thank you for writing.
----
Lawrence White
Vice President and General Counsel
University of Delaware
124 Hullihen Hall
Newark, DE 19716
(302) 831-7361 (Office) - (302) 831-3055 (Fax) - (267) 250-3154 (Cell)
lawwhite@udel.edu
The special UD STC zoning was approved in March 2012 according to the email Amy Roe forwarded to me from a city planner via Councilwoman Hadden (send me an email and I will happily forward these documents along) ~
From: Michael Fortner <MFortner@newark.de.us>
Date: Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:34 AM
Subject: RE: Data Center, zoning?
To: Marge Hadden <haddenmargrit@gmail.com>
Cc: Carol Houck <CHouck@newark.de.us>, Maureen Feeney Roser <mfroser@newark.de.us>
Here's Roy Lopata's Planning Department report ~Hi MargeSorry for the delay. I can try to explain the STC (Science & Technology Campus) zoning. I wasn’t involved with the development of this zoning, but I think I understand it enough to answer most of your questions, and if there is anything I don’t know, I can research it and get back to you with an answer.First, I have included a copy of three documents1) STC district code regulations of Sec 32.23.12) A copy of the report from Roy Lopata to Planning Commission and Council on the development of the zoning classification.3) And finally, report developed by the University of Delaware on their proposal for the Science and Technology Campus (now known as the STAR – Science and Technology Advanced Research - Campus)Basically, I think the STC zoning district was created to provide a legal planning framework to develop the recently acquired Chrysler site in a way outside the confines of the UN (University) zoning district to include private technology and science based firms, as well as a variety of accessory uses such as restaurants and motels and public transit to create a planned area that would be beneficial to the City and the University.Again, I hope the attached documents are useful, and please contact me if you have any questions.Sincerely,Michael Fortner, AICPPrincipal Planner/ Development SupervisorDepartment of Planning and Development, City of Newark220 South Main Street, Newark, DE 19711Phone: (302) 366-7030 Fax: (302) 366-7160
CITY OF NEWARK
DELAWARE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS:
ESTABLISHING A SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAMPUS DISTRICT
ESTABLISHING A SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAMPUS DISTRICT
August 22, 2011
As a result of the University of Delaware’s acquisition of the former Chrysler automobile assembly plant and MOPAR parts facility site and following detailed discussions with University of Delaware officials -- including representatives of 1743 Holdings, LLC, the entity established by the University for development of the site -- the Planning and Development Department has provided below a report that calls for establishing a zoning district that would be appropriate for land in the City of Newark with the special characteristics of the proposed University of Delaware Science and Technology Campus (STC) at the Chrysler location.BackgroundIn establishing a new zoning category for the STC property, the Planning Commission and City Council should take into account the existing zoning and, perhaps more importantly, the Commission and Council will need to consider the relationship between the University’s ownership of the site and the City’s land use regulatory authority for the location. In terms of current zoning, the site is zoned MI (general industrial) – the zoning classification in place since the property was annexed by the City in 1952. MI permits a wide variety of industrial, warehousing and related uses. Regarding the new owner of the site, the University traditionally has taken the position that its Charter (Title 14, Chapter 51 of the Delaware Code) exempts its property from local zoning codes, including Newark’s. And in this regard, the Delaware courts have largely agreed. Thus, at least for those uses that fall within the University’s exemption, the University is probably free to develop the STC according to its own standards. Beyond that, while the City and University might agree on uses that clearly fall within the exemption (classrooms, for example) or outside the exemption (a large shopping mall with no connection or benefit to the University other than financial, for example), it is very likely that there are uses that do not fall easily into either category – the middle ground (or, our favorite category, the “twilight zone”). The University and the Department, as a result, are concerned that the prospect of case-by-case debate and perhaps litigation about middle ground uses would leave us in the twilight zone. Instead, we agree that it would be preferable to establish a set of standards for all agreed upon permitted uses, including those uses that the University might, under current law, pursue without reference to the City’s Zoning Code.The Department, therefore, believes that the following draft proposal should be reviewed with this background in mind; that is, that the City and the University, in a sense, are accepting compromising positions that they might otherwise not take. In the City’s case, we understand that the resultant zoning restrictions may not be those that we might choose if we were free to so. At the same, the University is surrendering its ability, for some projects, to ignore the City’s Zoning Code altogether.Newark Comprehensive Development Plan IVAny proposed new zoning district and category must take into account Newark’s Comprehensive Development Plan IV. In this regard, when the Plan’s was fully revised and revised in 2008, the community knew that the Chrysler site would likely change hands and probably uses – we just did not know to whom or to what use. This was, of course, before we knew that the University would be the ultimate purchaser. As a result, the site was dubbed, the “Chrysler Opportunity Site,’ and envisioned as follows:“The land uses recommended for this site, in addition to the continuation of the current uses at the Chrysler auto assembly plant located at South College Avenue and the Christina Parkway, are described below. These uses derive from the potential unique opportunity presented by the future redevelopment of the property and are based on the following:· The site’s size and central location.· The potential for new high paying and high quality employment.· The potential for the site as a center of excellence for emerging and growing 21stcentury industries.· The potential for the expansion of the City’s tax and utility customer base [the City currently does not sell electricity or water to Chrysler at this time].· The close proximity to a full range of land use types.· The continued redevelopment of Newark as a prime location to live and work.Based on these factors, and subject to the City’s rezoning and development review process, any of the land use categories outlined in this CHAPTER should be permissible at the location, except that a regional or super regional shopping center, defined as a retail shopping area in excess of 30 acres containing at least one major retail store of 75,000 to 100,000 square feet, and related commercial establishments, or so-called “power centers” that could be developed with several large anchor, discount, or free standing big box retail establishments, intended to serve shoppers in a trade area in the region extending from ten to fifteen miles outside the City, would not be acceptable at the Chrysler site.Obviously, changes in use at the Chrysler site would be subject to rigorous federal, state and local environmental review and all of the other applicable City development approval requirements. A mixed use project, for example, could be designed at this site for hi-tech research, development and educational facilities and, with the appropriate site design criteria – perhaps utilizing the City’s “Site Plan Approval,” neo-traditional planning specifications -- could include residential and commercial uses. These uses could, of course, also be considered on an individual basis. Moreover, the City – perhaps with State and County assistance – may also consider special incentive programs targeted for this location. On the other hand, any possible acquisition of portions of the site by the University of Delaware – which might remove the impacted parcels from City tax rolls (depending upon the use involved) -- should be closely scrutinized by the City.In any case, the Chrysler site could be a show-case for a state of the art, sustainable mixed use community of one kind or another, depending upon how creative and progressive Newark’s businesses, institutions, and residents chose to be. At this location, we are only limited by our own imaginations.”Having noted the above, the Department believes that the following proposal is consistent with much of that which was proposed in the Plan.Source MaterialsThe Planning and Development Department, in addition to reviewing the establishment of the Science and Technology Campus District with University of Delaware officials, also consulted the source materials described below. It should be noted that we found, not unexpectedly, that the standards for suburban style university (or non-university) research parks did not always fit the more modern and so-called neo-traditional planning approach for the site that the Department and the University foresee for the STC -- we have developed our proposal accordingly.Angelou Economics, Research District Land Use and Marketing Plan, Report #2, July, 2005.University of California, San Diego, Science Research Park, Development Concept, May, 2002.City of Columbus, Ohio, “University-College Research Park District,” Zoning Code, n.d.John Van Gleason, “The Graduation of Smart Growth: Universities are Partnering with Towns toCreate Vibrant, Campus Town Centers, On Common Ground, Washington, D.C., National Association of Realtors, Summer, 2011.Blake Gumprecht, The American College Town, Amherst, Mass, University of Massachusetts Press, 2008.The University of Missouri, Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Missouri Research Park, St. Charles County, Missouri, April 21, 2005.Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Rensselaer Technology Park – About the Park, 2011.The Research Triangle Park, Summary of Covenants, Zoning and Restrictions, January, 2009.“Special Report: Technology Parks,” City and State, February 11, 1999.Stanford Research Park, Handbook, n.d.Texas A. & M. University, Texas A. & M. University Research Park Covenants and Restrictions, February, 2004.Urban Land Institute, Industrial Development Handbook, Washington, D.C., 1975Urban Land Institute, Research Parks and Other Ventures: The University/Real Estate Connection, 1985.Proposed Zoning Code AmendmentsThe Planning and Development Department has provided below the following suggested Zoning Code amendments that would establish a Science and Technology Campus District. Please note that Amendment One also includes areas to be designated under our MI zoning category that would not be directly incorporated into the Science and Technology Campus but rather would be considered part of the site set aside for Bloom Energy and its suppliers.Amendment One:The zoning map of the City of Newark is amended as follows:The _____________ acres of land zoned MI located at tax parcels ______________, as shown on the attached Exhibit A, dated _____________, owned by the University of Delaware and/or the University of Delaware’s wholly-owned subsidiary 1743 Holdings, LLC are hereby zoned STC (Science and Technology Campus). Any such lands sold by the University to other parties, except wholly-owned UD subsidiaries, shall be rezoned from STC to another district category as established in this chapter.[Please note that because of on-going work to finalize the boundaries between the currently MI zoned site for Bloom Energy and its subsidiaries at the University’s Science and Technology Campus and the balance of the property to be zoned STC, the required Exhibit A will be prepared prior to the review of these Zoning Code amendments by City Council.]Amendment Two:Delete Article VII-B, Use Regulations for Limited Commercial Laboratory Districts, Section 32-23.1. [This is a defunct zoning category that has not been utilized for many decades but is located in the appropriate place in the Code for the new district], and replace it with the following new Section 32-23.1 to be included in Article VII-A, Use and Area Regulations for Manufacturing Office Research Districts as “Uses Permitted in the STC (Science and Technology Campus) District” as follows:“(a) In an STC district, no building or premises shall be used and no building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended, or designed to be used except for one or more of the following uses:(1) Any process involving cleaning, manufacture, processing, production or testing, except for the following:a. Manufacture of corrosive acids, gelatin, paint, oils, fertilizer, linoleum, cork products, alcohol, bleaching compounds or soap; tanning or curing of hides; crude oil refining; rubber treatment or manufacture; ore smelting; blast furnace, garbage of offal reduction or dumping; asphalt manufacture or refining; abattoir; junk storage; automobile wrecking; animal rendering; oil storage; except for the exclusion of distribution or warehouse operations, unless such operations are incidental to and intended primarily to serve uses permitted in this District.(2) Laboratories and related facilities for research, basic and applied.(3) Hospitals and medical clinics.(4) Offices for professional services and administrative activities, including but not limited to such uses as conference and corporate training centers, financial institutions and banks, personal services, and supply and storage facilities.(5) Technologically dependent or computer based facilities that are dedicated to the processing of data or the analysis of information.(6) Daycare centers with the following special requirements:a. At least 100 sq. ft. of outdoor play space per child shall be provided.b. Outdoor play space shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed on all sides and shall not include driveways, parking areas, or lands unsuited by other usage or natural features for children’s active play space, fencing or other enclosures shall be a minimum height of 4 feet.c. 35 sq. ft. of indoor area shall be provided per child, not including toilet rooms, kitchens, offices, storage spaces, hallways, and mechanical rooms, and other areas not used by children for sleep or play on a routine basis; the minimum lot area for such uses shall not be less than 10,000 sq. feet.d. This use shall be primarily intended to serve the uses permitted in this District.(7) Restaurants, including restaurants, cafeteria style and delicatessens; incidental to and intended primarily to serve uses in this District.(8) Recreation facilities, indoor and outdoor, incidental to and intended primarily to serve uses permitted in this District.(9) Hotels and motels, with conference facilities.(10) Utility distribution and transmission lines, substation, electric, gas and telephone central office.(11) Public transportation facilities, including bus or transit stops for the loading and unloading of passengers; stations and depots.(12) Parking, off-street.(13) Accessory uses and accessory buildings.(14) All residential uses, as defined in this chapter, shall be permitted.(15) Retail and retail food stores up to 75,000 square feet in maximum floor area.(b) The following uses require special use permits as provided in Article XX, Section 32-78 of this chapter.(1) Tower, broadcasting and telecommunications, subject to the following special requirements:a. Tower applications shall be accompanied by a professional engineer's report containing the following:1. A technical evaluation of the utilization of existing towers for telecommunications or other equipment intended for the installation on the proposed tower.2. A technical evaluation of the feasibility of attaching the tower or antenna to existing buildings.3. Written certification of compliance with Federal Communications Commission Safety Standards for exposure to nonionizing electromagnetic radiation.4. Copies of all applicable state and federal permits.b. Any principal part of the tower, excluding guy cables, shall be set back from the nearest property line of a church, library, school, nursing home, hospital, or lot zoned residential (RH, RT, RS, RD, RM, RR, AC) not less than three times the height of the tower or 350 feet, whichever is greater. The setback shall be measured from the nearest point of the base of the tower to the nearest point of the property line of the protected use.c. No artificial light shall be installed upon any such tower unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration. If such light is required, it shall be screened so as not to project its light below the horizontal plane in which it is located.d. Towers over 200 feet in height shall be guyed and not self-supporting nor consisting of lattice type structures, unless the applicant demonstrates that a guyed tower shall have a greater negative visual impact than a self-supporting tower.e. Towers located on existing buildings or structures shall not extend beyond 22 feet above the highest point of the building or structure. Accessory buildings or facilities for towers located on existing buildings or structures shall be located either in or on top of such buildings or structures.f. Landscaping shall be provided around the base of the tower and adjacent to a required security fence that shall be at least 10 feet high. The landscaping shall consist of a minimum 25 foot wide planting strip with ground cover and/or grass, including at least one row of six foot high evergreen trees providing a solid screen adjacent or proximate to the fence, and 15 foot high, two inch caliper deciduous trees, interspersed within the buffer area and no more than 20 feet apart. Applicants may substitute alternative landscape plans that meet the purposes of this subsection to limit the visual impact of the lower portion of the tower and adjoining accessory facilities. Camouflaged towers designed to look like trees may be exempt from this subsection, subject to Council approval. Towers located on top of buildings three stories or more in height and telecommunication antennas located on existing buildings shall be exempt from this subsection, except that a six foot high solid evergreen screen shall be required between any telecommunications antenna or tower accessory building and adjoining properties. A ten foot high security fence and an adjoining six foot high solid evergreen screen adjacent or proximate to the fence shall be provided around the anchoring facilities for guy wires for guyed towers.g. No outdoor storage shall be permitted at the tower site.h. Unless otherwise required by the Federal Communications Commission or the Federal Aviation Administration, towers shall be light gray in color. Camouflaged towers designed to look like trees may be exempt from this subsection, subject to council approval. Telecommunication antennas with colors designed to match buildings or structures to which they are attached shall be exempt from this subsection.i. A tower shall be located so as not to encroach into any established public or private airport approach as established by the Federal Aviation Administration.j. Towers higher than 100 feet must be a minimum of 500 feet from the nearest similar tower, measured from the base of the towers.k. New telecommunication facilities may be attached to an approved tower without applying for an additional special use permit so long as the new facility is in compliance with the requirements and standards of this section.l. No interference with existing television, cable television, radio signals, or other electronic devices shall be permitted from the tower. If interference occurs, it shall be immediately remedied by the operators of the tower.m. If a tower is abandoned, unused for two years, or no longer operable, it shall be removed within six months of its abandonment. If a tower is not dismantled as specified in this subsection, the city shall arrange to have the facility dismantled and will assess the landowner all costs associated with the removal of the tower. If the full amount due the city is not paid by the owner, or person in control of the property, or his or her agent, within 90 days of receipt of a bill from the city, the city finance director shall cause a special assessment to be recorded in the municipal lien docket. The recordation of such special assessment shall constitute a lien on the property and shall remain in full force and effect for the amount due in principal and interest until final payment has been made.n. That the owner of such tower shall provide proof to the city that the tower has undergone a triennial inspection for structural integrity. Said inspection is to be performed by a certified engineer, or other qualified professional, at the expense of the owner of the tower. If structural deterioration is found to be present, and such deterioration affects the physical stability or aesthetic integrity of the tower, the owner shall be required to correct such deterioration within a time limit to be established by the building department.In addition, the operator of such tower shall provide annual proof to the city that the tower has undergone field measurements to ensure compliance with all applicable Federal Communication Commission safety standards for exposure to nonionizing electromagnetic radiation. Such field measurements, and submission of the results to the city, shall be conducted upon start up of the facility and annually thereafter; except that every third year, such proof of compliance shall be submitted on behalf of the operator by an independent nonionizing electromagnetic radiation evaluator. All such field measurements, and submission of the results, are to be performed by a certified engineer, or other qualified professional, at the expense of the operator. If such field measurements demonstrate noncompliance with Federal Communication Commission safety standards specified in this section, transmission at the facility shall be suspended until such time as full Federal Communication Commission safety standards compliance is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the city.o. The owner of such tower shall give proof to the city that any damages which may occur to surrounding properties or injury which may occur to persons, which damages or injuries are caused by a failure of the tower and/or its associated structural supports, regardless of whether such failure is a result of human error or an act of God, shall be paid by the owner of the tower and/or insurers of the tower.(2) Restaurant with alcoholic beverages, incidental to and intended primarily to serve uses permitted in this District, except such uses, including accessory parking, shall not be permitted within 100 feet of perimeter streets as defined in subsection 2 above.(3) Fast food restaurants, incidental to and intended primarily to serve uses permitted in this District, subject to the following special requirements:a. Minimum lot size shall be one acre.b. Minimum lot width shall be 200 feet.c. Minimum depth of lot on one side shall be 218 feet.d. Minimum setback from all perimeter street lines shall be 75 feet.e. Minimum distance from all property lines other than perimeter street lines shall be 50 feet.f. Parking requirements shall be subject to the requirements listed in Article XIV.g. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so that it is deflected away from adjacent properties and from passing motorists.h. A solid fence or wall and/or a landscape screen of a minimum of six feet in height shall be erected along all property lines separating the site from lots zoned residential or any lot developed or approved for development for residential use, in accordance with Article XXV of this chapter.(4) Commercial indoor recreation and indoor theaters.(c) Area regulations and other special requirements.(1) Height of buildings. In no case shall building height exceed 10 stories or 150 feet.(2) Building setback lines. Except as otherwise specified herein, each story or part of a building, exclusive of cornices and uncovered steps and uncovered porches, shall be set back from the line of perimeter streets on which the building fronts a minimum distance of 50 feet. Perimeter streets for purposes of this subsection shall be defined as South College Avenue between the Northeast Corridor Railroad right of way and the Christina Parkway (Route 4).(3) Parking. Off-street parking spaces shall be provided at locations and the number of spaces to be determined by the University.(4) Building Design. Regarding building design, the following standards shall apply:a. Detailed elevation drawings of all proposed buildings shall be submitted including all signage; building materials; building height; the location, height and material of landscaping and screening walls and fences; outdoor trash and recyclable material storage areas; and electrical, mechanical and gas metering equipment.b. To maintain a high standard of construction and appearance and to provide architectural unified and interesting design, the exterior walls of each building are to be constructed of durable, permanent materials, (including appropriately selected brick, treated concrete, glass, and other architectural panels). Buildings should complement and harmonize with the overall design of the STC District.c. Signage, intended to guide motorists and pedestrians from perimeter streets, shall correspond to the overall design, color and finishing of the buildings upon which they are displayed; that is, signage shall be designed as integral architectural elements of proposed architecture.(5) Site Design. Regarding site design, except as otherwise specified herein, the following special regulations shall apply:a. Sidewalk and pathways shall be installed and designed to enhance the pedestrian experience; off road bicycle circulation paths shall be designed to complement pedestrian ways.b. Building sites and roadways shall be designed to facilitate way finding through the District.c. Exterior and interior lighting features shall be integrated to help provide visual understanding of the building’s composition and function based on the following guidelines:1. Use lighting fixtures primarily for important building elements such as entries.2. Favor the use of defused lighting system over those generating a strong point source of lighting.3. Enhance the visibility of interior building lighting to the exterior giving a sense of light emanating from the building.4. Avoid dramatic changes of illumination levels which can produce glare and disorientation.5. Enhance the illumination, where appropriate, of landscape features.6. Lighting shall be designed to limit impact on adjacent properties.d. Landscaping or screening shall be installed to screen parking areas, mechanical equipment, refuse storage areas and related appurtenances and to enhance the visual appeal of the buildings and facilities in the district.(6) Review of plans to determine compliance with the provisions of subsection (c) herein shall be performed by the Planning and Development Department, which shall issue approvals upon satisfaction that all such provisions have been met. Applications for Administrative Subdivisions for the purposes of establishing lot and/or lease lines for real estate taxation and related purposes shall be subject to the procedural requirements of Chapter 27, Subdivision and development Regulations of this Code. Otherwise, all permitted uses in the District shall be subject to all other applicable Municipal Code requirements, standards and procedural requirements, except as modified herein.
~*~
0 comments:
Post a Comment