06-14-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

W04-2974 Stonebiy Maikclplacc April IS, 2004 PagtS Signage. Proposed signage docs not appear on the cun ent plan set, with the exception that the location of two monument signs has been shown along H i ghway 12 - one for the Walgreens and one for the two retail buildings - as well as the comer STOKEDAY monument. Detailed, dimensioned elevations views for all monument signage should be submitted. Since all three buildings have changed in character since earlier reviews, new plans should be submitted for building signage. Staff early on suggested to the applicants that the Walgreens signage not include a manual reader board, as they tend to be poorly maintained. Orono codes proliibit the use of illuminated scrolling or flashing reader boards. I.if’htine. The exterior parking lot lighting plan is in Sheet E2.1. The plan indicates 20 ‘‘Gardco’’ 400W luminaires at strategic locations throughout the site, on 20 ’ high poles. The light poles at 20' will likely be lower than then peak heights of the buildings. Details on the Gardco fixtures should be provided for review, and they must be a boxed downcast lighting with recessed bulb.s Applicant should also provide a plan for building-mounted lighting for review . EnfimcvrUtii Matters City Engineer Tom Kellogg was provided with acopyofthc revised plans on April 15 th, and it is highly unlikely we will have his comments for the April 19th meeting. It should be noted that the previous conunents of the City ’s engineering and planning consultants have been taken into account by the applicant as the plan revision process has moved forward. AdiHtional Gcttcral Commcitts . The applicants have been responsive to the City ’s recent requests for incremental revisions to the site plan. It maybe fair to say that the current plan is the best proposal provided to date from start’s pcr.spcctive. 1 lovvever, I would al.so offer the following as items for discussion in considering this proposal; « The chai actcii/alion on the pUuis of the non-Walgieens buildings has changed from a 5,000 s.f. ’’BANK" and 10,000 s.f "OFFICH/RHTAIL’’ to two buildings totaling 13,930 s.f. shown as “RETAIL". The potential office element oftltis site may have been subtly lost, and while the Comp Plan amendment does not prohibit the total conversion to retail, it put jHiscfully included language that the iunendment “...re-guides Outlot A of Stonebay to 3d.ditjbnaUy allow' for ncigltborhood scale retail uses, as an alternative to the office uses for w'hich it is currently guided...’’. The possibility for either retail building to contain office uses still exists. It should be further noted that because of the parking limitations imposed by the overall square footage of retail space on the site, certain elements ofthc City ’.s hopes for this site will not be met. While the .site plan will support one or hvo ‘fastcasual’ food users (coffee shop, sandw ich shop, etc.) the parking needs for a family sit-dow-n restaurant cannot be met The applicant has providctl information (Exhibit C) sugj’csi ing that such a restaurant wouldnotbc attracted to Uie site due to lack ofthc ncccssaiy demographies. It maybe K