06-21-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONTDAY, MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (5. #04-2974 REUANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, CoatUmcd) Ms. Van Dell explained that are some smaller shrubs wth smaller deciduous bushes wth spacings of evergreens, and also some smaller shrubs with deciduous trees proposed. She acknow Icdgcd there would be a few- spaces to see through but not in the areas of the trash enclosures. Chair Mabusth inquired what will be the finished ele\-ation and how many feet will it be raised, commenting that the site is so level now. Ms. Van Dell explained that the ditch will be filled in and sodded, and building's final elevation w ill be about 24' w ith a final elevation of about 19' at Hwy 12. This w ill result in some gradual rise in elevation On the west side behind Retail Building A there is a drastic drop, down and around the curve and there will also be some reuining walls on the southwest comer. Chair Mabusth asked if there was still standing water in the ditch Ms Van Dell slated there was and explained that the development proposal includes a storm water pipe to move the sionn water faster to the pond. Chair Mabusth invited further questions, comments or requests from the Planning Commissioners. There were none on this issue. 5. Address the signage issues and llcxibility request Chair .Mabusth asked the applicant to explain their request for flexibility. Ms. Van Dell explained the request is for 62 s.f sign face area compared lo the 50 s.f maximum requirement in a typical B*I District. It will allow their sign face to be 10' wide and adequate space for up to three tenants on the retail sign and an illuminated message board on the pharmacy sign. Chair Mabusth confirmed that 62 s.f area request is the same for the Walgreen's sign w nh the reader board Mr. Trautz stated their signage request is substantially below the total signage allowed. Chair Mabusth concurred. Chair Mabusth asked the iqjplicant if they would reduce the sign width to 10'. Mr. Trautz and Ms. Van Dell agreed the sign width would be reduced to 10*. Gaffron pointed out the new sign ordinance allow s a 10' maximum w idth and also requires it to be framed. He asked Mr. Trautz how they proposed to design the sign wit...n the 10* maximum w idih Mr. Trautz stated it was important for the sign panel itself to be 10' x 6'and the sign cabinet itself could be mounted on a base, or framing could be added beyond the 10' x 6' area. Gafiron pointed out the new ordinance requires the framing and cap to be incorporated in the maximum sign width. Chair Mabusth asked the Planning Commissioners for their opinion on recommending approval of a sign width variance for the two monument signs, because the StoncBay sign, toully 40 s f. meets requiremcnu. Rahn staled as long as the sign proposaU meet the total aggregate square foouge requirements he would rather see something more appealing like the proposed sign. He also stated he preferred the illuminated reader board Page 13 of 40