Laserfiche WebLink
MEAM Properties /Pope Assoc., Case No. 2193 Page 3 <br />vehicles on the property. It is simply a testing <br />facility. As such, this use is considerably less <br />intensive than many permitted uses in the I -2 district. <br />In short, we feel that this is a very appropriate location <br />for this use. <br />Landscaping <br />The applicants received a copy of the planning report that <br />was prepared last month. They have made the changes to <br />their landscape plan that were requested in that report. <br />Most notably they have added a row of overstory trees all <br />along the western boundary of the site and the spacing <br />shown complies with the new landscape standards. <br />Lighting <br />The Electrical Site Plan includes the locations for site <br />lighting fixtures. This exhibit also shows a detail of <br />the proposed fixtures (which we requested in the previous <br />site plan). As the detail illustrates, they propose to <br />utilize 250 watt high pressure sodium luminaires within <br />cut -off box -type fixtures, mounted on 25- foot -tall steel <br />poles. This system will meet Roseville's standards and <br />work well on the property. <br />Signing <br />The only sign requested is a 5- foot -tall by 7.3- foot -wide <br />monument sign. It is located along County Road C and <br />includes a digital readout that illustrates the waiting <br />time for testing. In the I -2 District they could have a <br />pylon sign 100 square feet in area, that is 25 feet tall. <br />The setback to structures is 40 feet. <br />The sign that they are proposing meets the definition of a <br />ground sign as recently adopted in the Code. The entire <br />structure is only about 37 square feet in area and the <br />actual sign face is only 16.25 square feet. The new <br />standard would allow them to locate this sign at one -half <br />of the front yard setback (20 feet). It is currently <br />shown at 10 feet from the right -of -way line. We should <br />discuss whether this sign could be set back without losing <br />its effectiveness. If not, we would favor a variance <br />rather than causing them to require a larger sign farther <br />back. <br />Screening <br />There is no screening required on the site plan. The <br />building plans appear to utilize the mansard roof to <br />screen rooftop utilities. Any action on this item should <br />