Laserfiche WebLink
•04-2f74 StOMbajr Mariictplact <br />February 13. M04 <br />PagtSofC <br />Staff has suggested to the applicants that the Walgreens signage not include a manual lOKkr board, <br />as they tend to be poorly maintained. Orono codes prohibit the use of illuminated scrollingor <br />flashing reader boards. <br />The cxienor parking lot lighting plan is in Sheet E2.1. Applicant should be requested to describe <br />the intent for lighting at building entrances, etc <br />8. Building Design and Materialt. Planning Commission should carefully review the building design <br />and style exhibits in the January 16 memo. Applicant has provided a board with building extenor <br />material samples for review and approval, this will be available at the meeting. <br />9. T iwidcrapiny Pleasercview the landscaping plans (Exhibits L2.1 and L7.1 fiom 1-16 memo, and <br />new site plan exhibits). Staff has not had a chance to thoitxighly review the latest revisions; the B -6 <br />landscaping standards establish a percentage of the overall project value to define the minimum <br />landscape value required. <br />10. Other topics of concern or interest <br />Preliminary Plat <br />The proposed plat w ould create three building lots, one for each proposed building, w ith each lot fronting <br />on two roads. Access and other site functions will necessarily be shared between the three parcels, <br />requiring shared parking agreements, for instance. This was discussed bnefly at the February 11 w ork <br />session. Staff is confident that cross easements and covenants will be established to ensure ongoing access <br />and maintenance of the site. <br />Plat approval will include (he establishment of drainage and utility easements, payment of park fees and <br />stormwater A drainage trunk fees (both established as part of the previous Stonebay PUD approvals), eic. <br />Preliminary plat approval will be concurrent with site plan approval. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Staff supports the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning to B-6 PLTD. Planning Commission <br />should reach a conclusion on the Comp Plan Amendment before proceeding with its site plan review. <br />The rezoning goes hand in hand w nh the Comp Plan Amendment, and can provide for a greater level of <br />detail than the Plan. For instance, if Planning Commission wishes to define a specific list of allow able or <br />unacceptable uses for the site, that is certainly an option. If you wi*h certain potential uses to be subject <br />.0 conditions, that is an option. The PUD approval for this sue car be defined very specifically to ensure <br />that inappropriate uses d>. not occur.