06-09-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

W3-2889 Rivia Red Esiate June 5,2003 Page 10 In stafTs opinion it is most critical to fill in any gaps in existing vegetative screening between the north parking lot and the Sugarwoods neighborhood. It would seem less necessary to provide such screening along the east side of the NE and SE buildings; a 6 ’ privacy fence along that north-south lot line would probably detract from the view of the building. We would rather see enhanced landscaping along that east-facing slope. The B-6 ordinance has table listing the landscaping value to be required based on a percentage of the project value. The value of the development would need to be determined and then the minimum landscape value is determined. Wally Case of DSU, Inc., the City's landscaping consultant, would complete an estimat e of the landscaping value based on the ordinance. Most of the existing trees on the site will be removed for construction. The plans submitted appear tc have been designed to potentially protect several mature trees that are located along the north boundary, leaving some buffering to the Sugarwoods neighborhood. The revised landscape plan proposes that a substantial amount of trees be planted between the office complex and the adjacent Sugar Woods neighborhood. Screening and buffering between the office complex and the commercial properties to the immediate west was reviewed by the Planning Commission, which concluded that the primary screening should be vegetative methods to soften the views of the retaining walls. The trash enclosure is proposed at the north end of the site, 3-sided brick construction with a south facing access door. It should be finished in materials/colors matching the facade of the buildings. This location would appear to be practical and appropriate in the context of the proposed site layout; however, the Sugarwoods neighbors have requested that it be moved further away from them if possible, and that trash pickup be scheduled for daytime rather than nighttime. H. Signage Proposed plans for signage are attached as Sheet A 1.3. The subject property is allowed 190 s.f of signage, based on the Code standards: “Aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of one square foot for each front foot of building, plus one square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building". The front footage of the site is 190 ’ along Highway 12, so the interpretation is that the site is allowed 190 s.f. of signage. No in'^ividual sign may exceed flfry square feet. The applicants have picvided signage plans for a monument style sign of 10' X 6' to be located along Highway 12. The proposed sign location is not apparent from the site plans, but it must be set back at least 10’ from the right-of-way line. The proposed sign deducted from the total allotment of 190 s.f. leaves 130 s.f. for individual businesses to identify them on the buildings. Atotalof 130 s.f. divided by 11 units = 12 s.f. per unit, leaving approximately a 3 ’ x 4 ’ identification sign for each individual unit. In visiting the Fembrook and Forestview sites it was noted that each unit was provided a standard identification sign of approximately 2 ’ x 2 ’, and a few units had additional individual small signs, but in general signage was minimal and not obtrusive.