My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-17-2004 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
05-17-2004 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2023 11:43:20 AM
Creation date
1/26/2023 11:35:29 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
435
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
term owner of retail properties, I can attest to the fact that this parking <br />ratio works very well. If we use a parking ratio of 1 space per 200 of floor <br />area, the required parking would be 144 spaces. Again, this is less than <br />the 150 the development provides. <br />c) If a sit-down restaurant use wanted to go into the retail building, they <br />would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit with the City. The <br />parking situation can then be re-evaluated. Therefore, the City isn't <br />putting themselves at peril for a lack of parking spaces due to a future <br />use. <br />These lines of reasoning lead us to the conclusion that the parking we are <br />providing is adequate for the type of development we are proposing. Previously <br />we had shown proof of parking on our plan to get us closer to the City's <br />requirement of 1 stall per 150 square feet. We did not believe we would ever <br />need the proof of parking stalls, but felt we could show them in an effort to more <br />closely match the City's requirement. Since that time we have obtained more <br />compelling information regarding Walgreen's parking demands (see attached <br />research study). This has prompted us to remove the proof of parking on the <br />site. There are some developments that have the 1 stall per 200 square feet <br />such as Peony Promenade at the Northwest comer of Highway 55 and Highway <br />101 and also in Champlain at tho northeast comer of 114^ and Highway 169. <br />Signage <br />We have prepared a master sign plan and are requesting PUD flexibility for the <br />proposed signage. During our early discussions with Planning Director Gaffron. <br />we noted that the there were no sign standards for the new B-6 district. Director <br />Gaffron indicated that we should use the B-1 standards as a starting place, <br />which we havo done. <br />The B-1 district standards would allow a total of 1.454 square feet of sig'iage for <br />this development. Our proposal would havo a total of only 952 square feet of <br />signage, which is 502 square feet less than allowed by ordinance. While we are <br />not proposing to maximize the signage on site, we are requesting PUD flexibility <br />to allow some signage in excess of the 50 square foot maximum Individual sign <br />area allowed by ordinance. Specifically, we are requesting approval of wail <br />signage on the pharmacy with individual signs up to 66.6 square feet and two <br />freestanding monument signs totaling 62 square feet each. <br />We are requesting individual monument signs with tenant space on each of the <br />two lots. These signs would also be internally illuminated signs with brick and <br />block base to match the building materials. These monument signs are <br />proposed at 62 square feet in area to allow adequate space for up to three <br />tenants on the retail sign and an illuminated message board on the pharmacy <br />6S0 BUTLER NORTH eulLOlNO S10 RRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 <br />OFFICE: 61E252J070 FAX: 612.252.9077 wwwlMtoim.nM
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.