Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board agrees to rooftop mechanical and floor‑plate changes, narrows proposed view‑corridor cantilever and ties bonus height to fee schedule
Summary
On a privately initiated text amendment to Chapter 15 (T6/30), the board approved increasing rooftop mechanical coverage and equipment height, approved excluding balconies from floor‑plate calculations, deferred final structure of a 10% bonus height pending fee schedule alignment, and rejected the proposed cantilever while allowing applicants to shift the 20% view corridor between east/west within set bounds.
The Planning and Zoning Board considered a privately initiated code amendment by MG Prosper that proposed four changes to T6/30 transit regulations: (1) a bonus up to 10% additional building height subject to community contribution fees, (2) expanded rooftop mechanical allowances (coverage from 20% to 40% of roof and equipment height from 10 ft to 25 ft above maximum building height), (3) change the floor‑plate definition to exclude balconies, and (4) permit a limited cantilever over the required 20% view corridor in exchange for an equal open corridor on the opposite side.
Sylvia, the village planner, explained staff's position: staff can "get behind" increased rooftop mechanical allowances and supported a floor‑plate definition change but recommended caution or amendment to the cantilever proposal because of the risk of creating tunneled corridors. The MG Prosper representative argued the changes would improve architectural flexibility for smaller sites and allow mechanical and amenity spaces needed for high‑rise buildings. "We think that '25 gives the flexibility, to property owners that they need here," the applicant team said during the presentation.
The board split the proposal into four separate votes. It approved increasing rooftop mechanical coverage to 40% and raising allowable mechanical height to 25 feet. It approved changing the floor‑plate definition to exclude balconies. It approved—by motion—that any proposed 10% bonus height be subject to the village's community‑contribution fee schedule (the board added language referencing the existing bonus program), effectively deferring final fee amounts to the fee‑study process. The board rejected the cantilever allowance as written but adopted an alternative approach that retains a 20% view corridor requirement while allowing applicants to reallocate up to 8% of that width between the west and east sides (with a minimum of 12% remaining on the west side and up to 8% on the east), and disallowed an above‑grade cantilever through the code change (developers may propose site‑specific designs under site‑plan review).
