Laserfiche WebLink
<br />:' <br /> <br />" <br />, <br /> <br />Minimum Landscaping Requirements <br /> <br />. Under thc City's landscape plan dcsign rcquiremcnts 17.38 caliper inches of trccs arc <br />rcquircd (the minimum total calipcr inches requircd for trecs can bc arrivcd at by dividing thc <br />gross sqllare footagc of all floors of thc building [5.563 by 320) for this casc. The applicant <br />has proposed 56.00 calipcr inchcs of dcciduous and ornamcntal trccs and 33.30 caliper inchcs <br />of coniferous trces on thc site. The result is 89.30 tota] calipcr inches of ncw trees, which <br />mccts thc rcquircmcnt per the minimum landscaping requirements. In thc 4.5 to 5 Inch <br />Caliper Inch catcgory thc proposcd landscaping does not meet thc requ;red 3.48 calipcr <br />inchcs. Howcver, this is offset by the propos cd landscaping being morc than 4 timcs thc <br />rcquircd total amount. <br /> <br />Caliper Inches of Trees (required / proposed) <br /> <br /> <br />Required for <br />buildings of 1-2 50 % /8.69) 30 % /5.21) 20 % /3.48) <br />Stories <br />Proposed # of (61.30) (28.00) (0.00) <br />Caliper Inches <br /> <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />L'.,~ <br />**Thc coniferous trees arc listcd undcr the 2-3" calipcr catcgory (8' trec hcight /2.4 = 3.33 c-i.) <br /> <br />** *The numbers listed under the "proposed" section are for new trees only; the existing trees on <br />site would not to be preserved. The Landscape Plan section of our Zoning Ordinance <br />Procedural Manual reads "A reasonable attempt shall be made to protect and preserve existing <br />trees and incorporate them into the landscape plan. " <br /> <br />6A. Sigoage - The proposed signage does not meet certain maximum size, height, and area <br />requirements. <br /> <br />Thc area proposcd for dcvclopmcnt is locatcd in thc Gatcway Busincss District (Sign District <br />7) but also is the only propcrty in that zoning district that also has frontagc on Highway 96 <br />(Sign District 6). Thc naturc of this type of dcvelopment is to draw business from the <br />roadways it is adjaccnt to. Thercforc, the proposcd devclopmcnt is morc consistcnt with the <br />signagc requircmcnts of Highway 96, than thc signagc requiremcnts of Sign District 7 which <br />arc primarily destination oriented. Staff has rcvicwcd the signagc as comparcd to the <br />requircmcnts of Sign District 6. <br /> <br />The plans indicate onc monumcnt sign pcrpendicular to Highway 96 at thc northwest portion <br />of the propcrty, and somc signagc on the building and fucling canopy. In addition to thc Sign <br />District I) rcgulations, section 333.12 of thc Sign Ordinance allows anothcr 25 squarc fcct of <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />\\EaTth\J"lanning\Plarming Cases\2005\05-13 Hali,by Station Stores - Round Lake Road and 96 - SUP, PUD, Preliminary Plat (PENDlNG)\06- <br />01-04 PC Report l[oliday 05-13_doc <br /> <br />Page 5 of 13 <br />