Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MEAN Properties/Pope Assoc., Case Ho. 2193 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />Fire Marshal Considerations <br /> <br />The Fire Marshal has reviewed these plans and approves the <br />design as shown. <br /> <br />Buildinq Materials <br /> <br />The exterior building materials on the principal structure <br />are all face brick, which meets City design standards. <br /> <br />3 . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS <br /> <br />This is an appropriate location for the automobile <br />emissions testing facility. We are also pleased that the <br />applicants are now agreeing to plat the property. Given <br />the unique shape of the parcels to be created, it would be <br />cumbersome to identify them with lengthy metes and bounds <br />descriptions. <br /> <br />We are also pleased with the overall quality of the <br />proposal, the face brick exterior, and the fact that the <br />applicants have responded to our requests for more <br />landscaping and other design and construction details. <br />The fact that this facility will be placed at the rear of <br />the property and the frontage will be preserved for future <br />development is also a plus. <br /> <br />For obvious reasons the applicants have a prototypical <br />facility that they are attempting to fit into various <br />communities with as little modification as possible. <br />There are some areas where this proposal fails to meet <br />Roseville's recently adopted design standards. We will <br />bring these issues to the applicants' attention and we <br />have raised them for your consideration. In some of these <br />instances, either the applicants will need to Eake a case <br />to justify a hardship and convince the Planning Commission <br />and City Council to allow a variance, or their plans will <br />need to be changed to conform. Perhaps the best example <br />of this type of issue is the trash handling matter. <br /> <br />There is another instance in which they do not comply with <br />the letter of the new standard where it may well point out <br />a shortcoming in the new design standards. The reference <br />here is to the proposed ground sign setback. They are <br />proposing a very tasteful, understated and modest-sized <br />sign within 10 feet of the right-of-way line. Clearly the <br />intent of the new standard was not to discourage people <br />from using signs that are smaller than the maximum. We <br />should always review signs to make certain that they do <br />not block sight distance or cause any safety concern, and <br />we should review with the applicants whether this sign <br />could be set back further and still work. Our assumption, <br />however, is that it will not. In this case, we would <br />