City Council Minutes 1999 12 21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

has added a cornice detail on the top of the taller wall sections that are located in the public zone. The applicant proposes light earth tone shades for the building. This has been modified from two shades of gray proposed to the Commission. Many of the Staff recommendations in the proposed Planning Commission resolution relate to exterior lighting. The applicant has attempted to address most of those items in the revised plans submitted for City Council consideration. Staff does still have some minor recommended modifications to the lighting plan based on the latest submittal. The proposed Industrial Development Design Standards & Guidelines allow for a maximum light pole base of 2 feet. The applicant is proposing a 2.5 or 3-foot base, however, staff requests that this be reduced to 2 feet. The photometric site plan has been revised consistent with Staff recommendations. Based on the new plan, staff requests additional lighting in two areas. The west part of the semi- trailer circulation area is not well lighted. Staff recommends an additional light pole along the west property line, approximately 160 feet from the street property line. Some decorative lights have been eliminated from the front entry. That area is not well lighted, and could have some early evening customer use, which would necessitate a proper lighting level. Staff recommends some low level, 100 watts or less, decorative fixtures, either bollards or fully shielded wall-mounted fixtures, to light properly the front entryway. Previously, both a ground-mounted and wall-mounted cabinet sign were proposed. The applicant has eliminated the request for a ground sign. The wall sign appears to be individual letters, but a specific detail is not provided. The proposed Industrial Development Design Standards & Guidelines do not allow illuminated wall signs. If City COuncil were to approve an illuminated wall sign in lieu of an illuminated ground sign, Staff recommends that the letter be back lighted, not internally illuminated, with a maximum letter height of 18 inches. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 18, 1999. The Commission expressed concern with the number of recommended conditions from staff and also expressed concern with the architectural design of the building. The Commission forwards a recommendation of denial of the application by a vote of six to zero (6 - 0). The Commissioner's concerns with the architectural issues varied from fundamental concerns with the building form to less substantial concerns with the level of detailing in the architectural treatment. The applicant has submitted a response letter to City Council that summarizes their interpretation of the Planning Commission action. Staff agrees with the applicant's comments that the primary concern was with architecture, in particular the number of roll-up doors. However, staff does not believe that the Planning Commission was opposed to this use in general, rather that this type of use simply presented a more difficult architectural challenge to meet the City's design expectations. 11