Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CWM:djm ( 28/90 RD-7/27) <br /> <br />along the railroad tracks does not include design <br /> <br />details to break up a long wall-like facade; (2) <br /> <br />the Old Mill Building would be displaced by the <br /> <br /> <br />project and, (3) the project would substantially <br /> <br />increase on-site lighting. <br /> <br />b. Findings. (1) Adverse impacts on the visual <br /> <br /> <br />quality of the Project Area could be mitigated to <br /> <br />a less than significant level by incorporating <br /> <br />visual amenities to break up the eastern facade of <br /> <br /> <br />the buildings; (2) to attempt mitigation with <br /> <br />respect to the Old Mill Building the developer <br /> <br /> <br />should offer the building free to anyone willing <br /> <br /> <br />to relocate the structure to another site prior to <br /> <br />demoli tion and, (3) regarding concern for light <br /> <br /> <br />and glare the developer should submit a lighting <br /> <br /> <br />plan as part of the Architectural Permit process. <br /> <br />The lighting plan should reduce excessive light <br /> <br />and glare while providing adequate safety in the <br /> <br /> <br />parking lot and around the buildings. <br /> <br />c. Rationale and Facts Supporting Findings. <br /> <br /> <br />Problematic visual impacts such as design details <br /> <br />and lighting plans should be enhanced by designing <br /> <br />or amending plans prior to construction. critical <br /> <br /> <br />analysis is part of the ongoing process of <br /> <br /> <br />redevelopment and should continue during the plan <br /> <br /> <br />review process to reduce this concern. The Old <br /> <br />Mill Building is unlikely to be able to withstand <br /> <br /> <br />a move to another location -due to age and <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />11265 <br />