05-17-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

•04*2974 SiMicOa; Markctpteca May 13,2004 Pacti dcvclopmenU that holdinglo the 15% limit would undcrutilize the site, ^'ven the limited amount of land zoned for commercial uses in Orono; and that the available commercial land should be developed at a level that will maximize its potential while still conforming with the goals and policies of the Comp Plan. Grtett Space Under the curmit proposal with the elimination of ‘proof-of-paiking ’, green space on the site will be 26%. LooiBnf Berths . The location and detail ofloading berths for the Walgreens and the easterly retail building have been shown on the plans. Trash Enclosures. Details for the trash handling facilities have been provided, including cross sectional views to show how they will be \ievved from the residential parcels and Kelley Parkw ay Sifuafe. Proposed signage appears on the current plan set. Sheets C2.2 (Stonebay monument at comer of 12 and Willow); Sheet A2.1 (Walgreens wall signage); ELI and EL2 (retail buildings wall signage); and Exhibits D (Walgreens monument sign and Retail monument). Please care^lly review the applicant's nanativ e. including their request for flexibility in terms of individual sign size. The two primaiy monument signs air proposed at a dimension of 1 O’ high and l4'-8" wide, exceeding the 10* width recently adopted for mominicni signs (See Exhibit N, Ordinance No. 6. Third Series). The building wall signage appears to be consistent with what would be expected for a Walg-ecns and a small retail center. The Stonebay Monument at the comer of 12A\'illow is acceptable to staff as designed. Staff would suggest that a signage plan/agreement similar to the example attached as Exhibit O be prepared for this PUD. Message Board. Orono codes prohibit the use of illuminated scrolling or flashing reader boards such as that proposed for the Walgreens monument. Staff early on suggested lo the applicants that the Walgreen signage not include a manual reader board, as they tend to be poorly maintained. Since then, it has been suggested that an illuminated message board such as that proposed, but with only one message change per day and no flashing, scrolling, etc. would be more attractive than a manual board. The problem with allow ing the illuminated board as proposed is that it could require ongoing monitoring, and that once it goes up, every other mail business in town will want one, but without the limitations. Approval of this one would set a negative precedent. Despite what the applicants might see as 'waffling' on the part of staff, at this time ttaffiecommends that the illuminated board not be allowed, and that if a message board is proposed that it be a manual board