Laserfiche WebLink
#07-3250 . <br /> January 11,2007 <br /> _ Page 11 of 12 <br /> Sign�ge <br /> Proposed plans £or signage liave not been submitted at this tiine. The sttbject property is allowed <br /> 190 s.f. of signage, based oii tlie Code standard of"aggregate square footage of sign space per lot <br /> shall not exceed the sum of one square foot for each front foot of building, plus one square foot <br /> for each froiit foot of lot not occupied by a building". The front footage of the site is 190 feet <br /> along Highway 12, permitting a total amount of monument and building signage of 190 square <br /> feet combined. The applicant should be requixed to subinit a signage plan meetiiig City <br /> requirenlents. <br /> Lighting <br /> A lighting plan has been submitted (see Exibit C, Sheet L2-1), showing pole and wall-mount <br /> locations, fixture details, and foot-candle measurements. It appears during our brief review that <br /> all fixtures are shielded except the floodlight spots for the proposed moiiument signage. The <br /> lighting plan is based on an older version of the site plan tliat does not include the new road <br /> access across the front, so certain elements of the ligliting plan need to be updated. <br /> Building Quality& Materials <br /> The applicants have been asked to submit building elevations illustratuig the proposed exterior <br /> fuush materials, and samples of the materials and colors to be used. All mechanical equipment <br /> will be located in the interior rather than on the roof. While no accessory buildings are proposed, <br /> staff has requested that applicants provide a design for screeniiig of the dumpsters, which should <br /> architecturally match the buildings. <br /> Issues for Discussion <br /> Keeping in mind that �lie City had approved the development of this site by the applicants in <br /> 2005, and that much of the proposal lias not beeii significantly changed, staff believes the <br /> following are the key issues for Planning Commission discussion: <br /> , 1. Is the proposed velucular access coimection to tlie west acceptable and fiinctional? <br /> 2. Is the laiidscapuig pla.n adequate to provide screening where necessa.ry? <br /> 3. Is Planning Coiiimission satisfied with the site layout and building design? <br /> 4. Are there aiiy aspects of tlie prior approvals (as docutilented�in Resolutions 5296 and <br /> 5387)that Planniiig Coirunissiozi believes sliould be revised? <br /> 5. Have engineering concerns been adequately addressed? <br /> 6. Are there any otller issues with this proposal? <br />