04-19-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f 004-2974 Stonrbiy MarUelplicc April IS. 2004 Page I Shnoee Proposed signage docs not appear on the current plan set. wit>i the exception that the location of^vo monument signs has been shown along Htghw ay 12 • one for the Walgreens and one for the two retail buildings - as well as the comer STONEBAY monument Detailed, dimensioned elcs ations view s for all monument signage should be submitted Since all three buildings have changed in character since earlier re^ icw s. new plans should be submitted for building signage. Staff early on suggested to the applicants that the Walgreens s'gnage not include a manual reader board, as they tend to be poorly maintained. Orono cckIcs prohibit the use of illumina'cd scrolling or Dashing reader boards Lighting. The c.xicnor parking lot lighting plan is in Sheet E2 1. Tire plan indicates 20 "Gardco** 400W luminaires at strategic locations throughout the site, on 20’ high poles The light poles at 20* will likely be lowerthan then peak heights of the buildings Details on the Gardco f.xiures should be provided for rex iew. and thev must be a boxed downcast lighting w nh recessed bulbs Applicant should also provide a plan for building-mounted lighting for rex lew Engineering Matters City EngineerTom Kellogg wxs provided w ith a copy of the rex ised plans onApril ISth.and it is highlyunlikclywcxvill have hiscommentsforthe April 19thmeeting It should be noted that the prex ious comments of the City ’s cnginecnng and planning consultants bjx c been taken into account by the applicant as the plan revision process has moved forxxard Addit ionai Generai Comments. The applicants have been responsive to the City ’s recent requests for incremental revisions to Uie site plan. It maybe fair to say that the current plan is the best proposal provided todate &om staff s perspective. Howex cr. I xx ould also offer the folloxvmg as Items for discussion in considering this proposal: The choractcn/ationon tlie plans of the non-Walgreens bui!duigsb.as cliangcd 6om a 5,000 s.f-BANK”and 10,000s f "OFFICEHETAIL ’to two buildings totaling 13.930 s f shown as "RETAIL”. The potential office cle.nent of this .site muix hax e been subtly lost, and w hilc the Comp Plan amendment does not prohibit the total conversion to retail, it purposefully included language that the amendment". re-guidesOutlot A of Sioncbay to additionally allow for neigliborliood scale letail uses, as an alteniatix c to the office uses for w hich It is currently guided .". The possibility for either retail building to contain office uses still exists. It sliould be further noted that because of the parking limitations imposed by the overall square foouge of retail space on the site, certain elements of the City ’s hopes for this site will not be met While the sue plan will support one or two ’ fast casual' food users (coffee shop, sandw ich shop, etc.) the parking needs for a family sit-dowo restaurant cannot be met. The a^iplicant has proxided infonnation (Exhibit C) suggesting that such a restaurant would not be attracted to the site due to lack of the necessary demographics. It may be