04-18-2005 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

#05-3080 ' April 18,2005 Page 5 of 7 - whether the plan is sensitive to the residential uses to the north and east, which the concept plan approval resolution required. This landscape plan has been submitted to the City's landscape consultant. Once the City has received these comments they will be forwarded to the applicant for incorporation into the pl�ui. Retaining Walls The concept plan approval resolution required a 5' setback for all retaining walls with the exception of the wall systems abutting the westerly and southerly edges of the parkis fg lot. Retaining wall systems along the westerly and southerly lot lines are proposed on the property line and the applicants have previously submitted an agreement with the adjacent property owner that would permit the use of the adjacent property for construction of these walls. Because the existing walls are located on the line and due to the drastic grade changes going west to east, staff finds the location of these walls to be satisfactory. Retaining walls are also proposed 5' off the northern property boundary and 5' off the eastern property boundary. The height �f these walls range from 2' to 4' per tier and will be screened with the landscaping proposed. Any walls exceeding 4' in height will require an engineered design at the tiilie of building perinit submittal. The total height of the 3 tiered wall along the north boundary is approximately 12' at its highest point. Lighting A lighting plan has been received, however the City Engineer has not reviewed it as of the date of this report. The lighting plail illustrated little or no measurable foot-candle along the northern and eastern property boundaries, adjacent to the residential uses. The plan also illustrated pole locations and fixtures details per the requirement of the concept plan approval resolution. The pole lights will be downward facing aiid located along the peripheries of the parking lot with an additional pole located behind the first building along the handicap access and also at the main access to the site. The wall mounted fixtures appear to also be downward facing and mounted to the walkout sides of the buildings. Staff has some concern regardiug the proposed flood lights illuminating the main sign as the sign plan subinitted indicated the sign will be back-lighted. Staff would recommend that the sign lightiiig be verified prior to approval. Signage The applicants have proposed a 19' x 5' sign totaling 95 square feet, shown on attached Exhibit Z. The proposed sign will consist of brushed metal letters that will be back- liglited mounted on a rock/inetal frame structure. The �urea underneath the sign will consist of 200 s.f. of landscaping. The sign is subject to the monument sign sta.ildards adopted in May of 20041aiown as amendment Ordinance No. 6. Tliose standards require that the base of the sign be at least 50% of the width of the sign. The proposed sign does not meet that requirement and is considered a pylon sign, which is no longer permitted. Staff finds that in order to meet the base requirement, the sign will have to be redesigned so as to ineet the 100 s.f. inaximum that includes the base and stone/rock surrounding the sign face. Prior to final approval a revisecl sign must be submitted.