Laserfiche WebLink
<br />pope Associates, Case No. 2231 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />a) <br /> <br />At the front yard setback, in which case it would <br />encroach on the watermain easement requiring it to be <br />relocated; or <br /> <br />b) <br /> <br />Five feet inside the front yard setback, <br />case it would not encroach on either <br />easements. <br /> <br />in <br />of <br /> <br />which <br />the <br /> <br />We indicated that this would be reasonable, but suggested <br />a third option: that the building be placed parallel to <br />the easements (at an angle to Partridge Road). This <br />solution would require less encroachment to the front <br />setback and would place the overhead doors furth~r from <br />Partridge Road so they would be less visible and could be <br />more easily screened by landscaping and berming. <br /> <br />They returned with a revised site plan, angling the <br />building to get the overhead doors away from the street,. <br />but still encroaching on the watermain easement, <br />requesting to relocate it. This is the site plan <br />illustrated on the applicant's 11" x 17" documents <br />attached, and in the March 8th correspondence from Pope <br />Associates. Because of minor concerns we had about the <br />drive aisle and boulevard in front of the building, that <br />layout has been further refined in the 8-1/2" x 11" site <br />sketch attached and described in the March 19th <br />correspondence from Pope Associates. This site plan still <br />requires a variance to the front yard setback for the <br />driving aisle in front of the building. <br /> <br />Landscapinq <br /> <br />The landscape plan is generally adequate, but there are <br />two concerns. First, the ordinance requires an additional <br />overstory tree in the front yard, for a total of five <br />four are shown on the landscape plan. Second, one of the <br />overstory trees is shown in the right-of-way and needs to <br />be moved slightly, another of the trees is shown on the <br />watermain easement and should be moved slightly, and yet <br />another is shown in the NSP easement. The applicant <br />should verify that this is acceptable to NSP. <br /> <br />Liqhtinq <br /> <br />site lighting appears adequate and acceptable. <br /> <br />Siqninq <br /> <br />Signing is similar to what was previously proposed <br />County Road C site and appears adequate. There <br />entry monument sign with a lighted display to <br />patrons of waiting time at the northeastern corner <br /> <br />on the <br />is an <br />inform <br />of the <br />