Laserfiche WebLink
- ' #07-3250 <br /> • . • Jlnunry 11,2007 <br /> Pngc 11 of].2 • <br /> � Sign�ge • � • • <br /> Proposecl pla�is £or sigiiage lilve noi:been suUinitted at t11is iiizze. The subject property is allowed <br /> 190 s.f, of signage,b�seci on t11e Code staiidard of"aggregate square footage of sign space per lot <br /> shall not exceed tlle sutn of oiie square foot for each froiit foot of building, pltils oiie square foot � <br /> for eaeh fi�ont foot of lot �iot occttpiecl by a builcting". The froiit footage of the site is 190 feet <br /> aloilg Highw�.y 12, pernuttilig a total au�ount of iiionunlent and builctiiig sig�iage of 190 sqliare � <br /> feet conibineci. The ai�plicant shoiild be reqLiued to subiuit a sign�.ge pl�ui meeting City <br /> requirements. . <br /> Lightii�g J <br /> A lighting plan lias beeii subiilitted (see Exibit C, Sheet L2-1), showiizg pole and wa11-nlount <br /> locations, fixt�ire details, and foot-caildle ineasurenzents. It appears during our brief review that <br /> all fixt��res are shielded except tlie floodlight spots for the proposed uloiiuineilt signage, The <br /> lightii�.g plaii is based on an older versioti of fihe site plan tliat does iiot include the new road <br /> access across the front, so certain elements of tlle lightuZg plan need to be updated. <br /> Building Quality&Materials , • <br /> The applicants have been asked to submit build'uZg elevations illustratiiig the proposed exterior <br /> fuush materials, and samples of the materials'and colors to be used. All mechanical equipmeiit <br /> 'will be located in the interior rather than oii the roof. While ilo accessory bLUld'uzgs are proposed, ' , <br /> staff has requested that applicants provide a desigii for screeiuug of the dLUnpsters, which should <br /> arclutecfurally match the buildiiigs. <br /> � Zssues for Discussion ' � <br /> Keeping iii nund tllat the Ciiy liad approved the developmeizt of this site by the applicants in <br /> 2005, aild that much of tlle pro�osal has ziot beeil sigiuficantly cllanged, staff believes the <br /> following are tlie key issues for Pla�uung Conuilission discussiou: � <br /> 1. Is the proposed velucular�ccess coiuiection to tlle wesfi acc.eptaUle aiid fiuictional? <br /> 2. Is the laiidscapv.ig plan adequate to provide screeiiulg where necessary? . . <br /> 3, Is Platu�ing Conullissioii satisfied with the site layout and buildiizg desigii? � <br /> ' 4. Are there auy aspects of the prior approv�ls (as docuiZlented i�i Resolutioils 5296 aud <br /> 5387)tliat Plaiuung Conu�.lission believes shoixld be revised? ' <br /> 5. Have eilgineeriilg concerns beeii aclequately �ddressed? <br /> 6. Are tliere auy otl�.er issues with this proposal? <br />