pf_01554 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

r: CASE NUMBER: 1554-84 APPLICANT: American Redevelopers, Inc. Page 2 review this plan revision and determine its parking capacity. It would appear, however, that the parking capacity is very close to that originally proposed in the revised plans. 5. Of great importance to the contiguous property owners, particularly the residential owners to the east and the north, is the location and height of the building. The location of the structure relevant to these two sides remains the same. The height of the building, however, is reduced due to the reduction of the number of floor levels from three levels to two levels. We have received large scale drawings of the proposed elevations of the three sides of the structure, but reductions of these drawings were not provided for mailing to the Planning Commission, Council, and other staff members. 6. We had strongly suggested that the applicants meet again with the neighbors so as to inform them of the nature of the revised plans. Such a meeting was held with the neighbors on 15 October. Attached is a copy of a memo submitted to the staff indicating the results of that meeting. In general, it would appear that the neighbors are satisfied with the proposed revisions. Ve have not received revised landscape plans for the required buffer zones contiguous to residential properties on the north and east sides of the project. You will note in Item 5 of the attached memo the reference to a proposed six foot high chain link fence. The memo indicates that the neighbors prefer to reserve the option not to have the fence installed by contacting Dick Dreher prior to project completion." Obviously, it would be helpful to have more detail than that, and we recommend that if the revised project is approved, that the preparation of a final landscape plan including fencing details be a condition to approval pending further meetings with the neighbors and the staff. 7. Another change is the handling of the westerly -most access drive to the access parking lot in the northwesterly area of the site. Here, in cooperation with the developers of the shopping center to the west (now being planned), they have agreed upon a joint access drive to be centered on the property line. We favor this proposal inasmuch as it conserves land, and provides for a more efficient and joint use of an access drive on the north -south property line separating the two shopping center developments. You will recall an extensive study having been done by Jim Benshoof, traffic consultant, relating to the previously approved proposal. Obviously, with the reduction in the shopping center size and parking facilities, the impact of traffic on the street circulation system will be reduced. Thus, we anticipate no significant traffic problems emerging as a result of the revision to the development plans. 8. We note from the information submitted, that the applicants now propose to heat and cool the buildings with units on the roof. We do not have exact details as to how this will be accomplished, but we want to make sure that such units will not be visible from the adjoining grounds or contiguous residential areas.