Laserfiche WebLink
CWM:djm 03/28/90 RD-7/27) <br /> <br /> along the railroad tracks does not include design <br />_ details to break up a long wall-like facade; (2) <br /> the Old Mill Building would be displaced by the <br /> project and, (3) the project would substantially <br /> increase on-site lighting. <br /> b. Findings. (1) Adverse impacts on the visual <br /> quality of the Project Area could be mitigated to <br /> a less than significant level by incorporating <br /> visual amenities to break up the eastern facade of <br /> the buildings; (2) to attempt mitigation with <br /> respect to the Old Mill Building the developer <br /> should offer the building free to anyone willing <br /> to relocate the structure to another site prior to <br /> demolition and, (3) regarding concern for light <br />~- and glare the developer should submit a lighting <br /> plan as part of the Architectural Permit process. <br /> The lighting plan should reduce excessive light <br /> and glare while providing adequate safety in the <br /> parking lot and around the buildings. <br /> c. Rationale and Facts Supportin~ Findings. <br /> Problematic visual impacts such as design details <br /> and lighting plans should be enhanced by designing <br /> or amending plans prior to construction. Critical <br /> analysis is part of the ongoing process of <br /> redevelopment and should continue during the plan <br /> review process to reduce this concern. The Old <br /> Mill Building is unlikely to be able to withstand <br /> <br /> a move to another location due to age and <br /> 5 <br /> <br /> P-,b <br /> <br /> <br />