Laserfiche WebLink
LandCor PC Report <br />May 7, 20p3 <br />Page 4 <br />Lan_dscaping <br />A Landscaping Plan has been submitted wiih the plan set, however the pfan lists <br />general�zed planting types {e.g., "Overstory irees, Evergreen Trees), it does not identify <br />which of the listed plantings would be ufilized or in what numbers. The City Forester wiH <br />review the planting schedule and make r�commendations from the lists provided or make <br />alternative recommendaiions. The appiicanfi shall revise the plan based upon the City <br />Forester's comments and to show all species and in what quantities. Furthermore, there <br />should be an atfempt to match the landscaping provided on the theafer site and along <br />Edgewood Drive to whatever extent possible. The City Forester shall approve different <br />plantings only if not considered inconsistent with the existing. Last, the Landsc�pe Plan <br />should idenfifiy the existing landscaping materials on �dgewood Drive. <br />Garbaqe Enclosure <br />The site plan ir�dicates that fihe garbage enclosure wauld be located at the rear of the <br />building. No details were provided regarding the enclosure's construction, however the <br />PUD indicates fihat the enclosure shali be of the same construction as the building with <br />solid, opaque, latching gates. Chain link is not an acceptabfe gafe materiai. <br />Signaqe <br />No sign plan has been submitfied for the site however s�aff has communicated the PUD <br />`� requirements to LandCor representaiives. While not specifically addressed, no pylon sign <br />wilf be allowed, as the intent of the PUD is to establish a consisteni design iheme <br />throughout the devefopment, using simifar construction, color and materials. The Theater <br />sign has a masonry, monument styled base and #he same would be required on this site. <br />At a minimum, the plans should indicate where on the site fihe monument sign is pro�aosed <br />to be located <br />Building Construction <br />The proposed refai[ / resiaurant building would be a single sfory buifding witE� a 7,785 <br />square-faot footprint. The design is very appealing and the materia(s would match the <br />proposed office building. Most of the building woufd be brick; with brick coiumns and an <br />EFIS roof detail. Fabric awnings are shown adding more character to the building. The <br />entryways would have a tall arched design very similar to fihe Abbey Carpef building <br />currently under canstruction. The building is shown partitior�ed forthree users with drive-up <br />windows at either end of the building. There is an autdoor pafio / eating area adjacent to <br />Tenant 3's space, however it appears as though Tenant 2 also l�as access #a the patio <br />area. Since the plans do r�ot indicate a building height, I was unable fo determine <br />compliance with the PUD. The plans should be revise according(y. <br />Ceneral Site Plan Comments <br />As with Outparcel A, the first four Site Pian General Nofes listed on Paga C2-2 do nat <br />relafie to �his developmen� and need to be revised io reflecfi the subject development. The <br />site pfans shaufd indicate snow storage areas. <br />