Laserfiche WebLink
File #2326 <br />February 12, 1998 <br />Pages <br />e.The overall landscape plan appears to be much more in concert with the <br />landscape architect's suggestions. <br />4. Gradin^^ Plan (Exhibit F): <br />a.The building has been raised approximately 1.5' in order to reduce some of <br />the steepness in the parking lot and at the slope at the north end of the site. <br />b. The steepest slopes in the parking lot appear to be near 4% as recommended <br />by the City Engineer. <br />c.The slope at the north end of the site adjacent to the residential property has <br />been decreased from 1:1.5 to 1:2. <br />d.The retaining wall behind the building will range from 12' to 14' in height, <br />lower at both ends. Prior to its construction, an engineered design will need <br />to be submitted. <br />e.Additional grading is shoNvn in the portion of Navarre Lane to be vacated to <br />make that area more maintainable. <br />f.See City Engineer Comments, Exhibit J. A few minor engineering details are <br />needed. <br />5. Utility Plan (Exhibit G): <br />a. Minor revisions have been made to the site storm sewer system. <br />b.Additional information and minor changes to the NURP pond are shown. <br />This also needs to be reviewed by the MCWD. <br />Issues for Discussion <br />1.Has applicant provided sufficient hardships and justification for the variance for front yard <br />parking setback of 5' rather than 20' as required by code? Do the additional trees proposed <br />along Shadywood Road resolve the concerns about lack of a green buffer within the front <br />yard of this site? <br />2.Are the revised building elevations acceptable? Does Planning Commission feel the <br />variance to allow the cedar shake over brick facade is justified? Are there any other design <br />features of the building Planning Commission feels should be revised? <br />m