5/4/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

c" —' E��E7!{ .�0 . F' CE Ji G. Connection to pedestrian system (p. 37): Although one of the express purposes of the adopted plan is to accommodate a corridor -wide pedestrian system, no requirements yet exist that ensure safe pedestrian access from public pedestrian paths (e.g. SR 60 and Thoroughfare Plan road sidewalks) into project sites. The proposed amendment requires such connections, and is based on similar requirements applied countywide in Collier County. H. Compliance certification from project architect or engineer (p. 32): The architectural/building, color, and sign requirements allow flexibility but are complex. Therefore, early and consistent involvement of the project architect or engineer is necessary to ensure a smooth development process for the developer and to help ensure compliance with the regulations. The proposed certification is similar to the site plan compliance engineering certification that has been required for years from site plan project engineers. I. I-95 tall sign allowance (p. 50): The proposed amendments would continue to allow taller signs (50' above the crown of I-95) within 1,000' of an I-95 entrance or exit ramp. Under the proposed amendment, however, such signs would be required to be located and oriented so as to be seen by I-95 motorists, since the justification for allowing the taller signs is based upon the speed and decision-making time of I-95 motorists. It should be noted that staff is proposing such a change to the county's Chapter 956 sign regulations that would apply to all interstate interchanges. Also, the proposed SR 60 corridor plan amendment would require that poles for such signs be treated the same as light poles within the corridor. Such poles -must be painted dark colors to visually blend into the background environment. I Canopy facia (pp. 40 and 52):The treatment of canopies and canopy facia was discussed at length during the February PSAC meetings. The Committee recognized that special restrictions on canopies are logical since canopies are allowed to be located much closer to SR 60 than are buildings (10' setback vs. 75' setback). It was also recommended that the corridor regulations treat SR 60 frontage and Thoroughfare Plan road frontage similarly. The adopted corridor plan requires canopies to have sloped roofs and restricts all metal and plastic facias to a 6" maximum height. Since most canopies are metal, the current plan essentially restricts canopy facia height to 6". May 4,1998 The proposed amendment offers more flexibility and relates allowable facia height to the distance of the structure from SR 60 and Thoroughfare Plan roads and the size of the sloped roof structure. As proposed, canopy structures more than 75' from SR 60 or any other Thoroughfare Plan road would have no facia height restriction. Those canopies located closer to SR 60 would be regulated by a formula pegged to roof slope distance. In addition, the use of canopies as "de facto sign boards" is proposed to be regulated by prohibiting internally illuminated signs from being mounted on canopies and by restricting to 33% the area of canopy facia that can be covered by lettering, logos, and trim .color. The proposed 33% facia area restriction is consistent with common practice for corporate accent stripes and logos on canopies. In keeping with past and current policy, logos and lettering on canopies will count toward a project's allowable facade sign area. In regard to gas pump canopies, it should be noted that any canopy roof, including a true mansard, is required to have a vertical rise of at least 61 . 12