Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />File #2326 <br />February 12,1998 <br />Page 4 <br />6. <br />8. <br />Is the slight reorientation of the trash enclosure acceptable? <br />neighbortiood orientation in this B-5 <br />Ihe hi^ ! - “““sary but visually negative (i.e.the high retaining wall, the trash enclosure, etc.) ? <br />2iZ1.1lf .n'.T’’'" “«* Planning Commission's previous <br />co^en that two entrances appear necessary, does Planning Commission have any further <br />comments regarding access to the site? ^ <br />Noting that one monument sign is deleted and the other monument sign and pylon sign <br />wouU meet the 10' front setback, does Planning Commission have any cone^mratow <br />Signage?Ok <br />additional lighting plans in the recent submittals. Does Planning <br />mmission feel additional site lighting depictions are necessary? ^ <br />"n extensive grading of the site, no existing trees will be <br />pil^ninl r ^ landscape plan provide sufficient replacement trees to meet <br />Planning Commission s goals for this site? e>C4-f"7 /=v(V <br />9. Is the applicant's rationale for the hardcover variance acceptable? s <br />' LtpUWet‘ " P^<>«trian trail adjacent to the parking lot (rather than through it) <br />n. Does Planning Commission have any further general comments regarding the proposal? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />ommission inApplrcarit has done a good job of addressing the concerns reviewed by Planning C <br />January, rn staffs opinion. This is a difficult site. * <br />submittals in comparison with the January <br />16* staff comment^ the January 23rd Wally Case comments, and the January 12th comment^ <br />the follll^^rr^te'es: * "““"“lations regarding <br />1. Site plan and layout <br />2. Building design and facade materials variance