1987_0713_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Har Mar, Case No. 1754 additional planting in the existing 40 foot buffer could perhaps be left to later staff review. 4. We understand there were also expressions of concern regarding the level of maintenance of the buffer zone and the parking area over the last 25 years. Perhaps now that the center is (or will be) developed to near holding capacity, it will be realistic and prudent to maintain the buffer zones and the grounds in general in a more careful manner. 5. We have also received a copy of a memo to the design group from John Moriarty, a resident at 1438 Schryer Avenue. A copy of his memo is attached that suggests the insulation of an offset fence at the entrances to the center from the residential area so as to inhibit direct vision into the parking area. This proposal apparently was not discussed at the second meeting though its implementation would appear not to be a significant matter. 6. There is and always has been a question of concern regarding the existence of these pedestrian entrances from the neighborhood to the east when the shopping center was initially constructed. They wanted the neighborhood totally isolated from the center and no access points were provided (through the fence). In a short time, openings had been cut and forced through the fence to allow access. Later gates were installed and then left as convenience openings. Perhaps this point could be discussed further at the Planning Commission hearing., 7. Attached is a copy of our previous report, including the copies of the plans as originally submitted. 8. In summary, the applicant requests: a) Approval of the overall shopping center plan in accordance with the revisions of the Shopping Center District. b) Approval of a Special Use Permit for site plan approval for that portion of the site zoned B-1B. Approval of a variance to the sign regulations to allow one sign to be 375 square feet rather than the 200 square foot maximum allowed, with the condition that a second sign only be 160 square feet and 20 feet high. The 375 square foot sign is requested to be 45 feet high rather than 35 feet. The 375 square foot sign is 87.5 percent greater than that allowed (200 square feet). The 45 foot height is 28.5 percent higher than the 35 feet allowed. d) Variance to parking sign setback as indicated on the development plan (there was some doubt as to the exact -dimension along County Road B which perhaps can be verified prior to final Council action). 9. Conditions could include: a) Curbing of periphery of parking areas, drives, and islands. b) Staff approval of drainage and engineering details. c) Staff approval of final landscape plans to include a neighborhood review meeting.