Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCILMEETING <br /> Monday,September 10,2018 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> 12. LA18-000069—GORDON JAMES CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF JASON PITTS, <br /> 225 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(GRADING) <br /> PUBLIC HEARING—RESOLUTION NO.6898—Continued <br /> Printup moved,Crosby seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO.6898,a Resolution Approving a <br /> Conditional Use Permit Pursuant to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-916 and 78-967,for the <br /> property located at 225 Old Crystal Bay Road. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. <br /> PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S REPORT—REPRESENTATIVE BOB ERICKSON <br /> 13. LA18-000059—CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT,SIGN ORDINANCE <br /> Barnhart noted the Sign Ordinance was the fourth highest priority ordinance amendment identified by the <br /> Council and Planning Commission in the fall of 2017. The issue with the current sign ordinance is that it <br /> is not content neutral. The City Attorney's office drafted the proposed ordinance,which repeals the <br /> existing regulations in favor of regulations that are content neutral,in part in response to a recent Supreme <br /> Court ruling that prohibits regulations that are based on their content as a violation of residents' First <br /> Amendment rights. <br /> Barnhart noted the sign ordinance continues to prohibit pole signs and limits temporary sign permits <br /> annually to four. In addition,the draft ordinance allows up to 35 percent of changeable copy,either <br /> electric or manual,and does not require a permit to change the face or text of a sign. Table 1 on Page 11 <br /> of the ordinance includes five districts. Attempts to incorporate existing signage have been made to avoid <br /> creating a nonconforming situation. <br /> The Planning Commission held two public hearings on the sign ordinance. At the August 20 meeting, <br /> some members of the Planning Commission expressed some concern that a resident could post a sign <br /> advertising a commercial business on their residential property. The Planning Commission was <br /> incorrectly informed that the ordinance needs to be content neutral and that someone could do that. Upon <br /> closer review,which was confirmed by the City Attorney,it was determined a resident cannot post a sign <br /> advertising a business or activity not occurring on the property. <br /> City Attorney Mattick stated the biggest issue with the current ordinance is that it regulates signs to some <br /> extent based on its content and that the draft ordinance cleans that up. <br /> Crosby asked if someone who is not in a commercial area and are advertising a business would be <br /> allowed to erect a sign advertising a business. <br /> Mattick indicated they would not be able to. <br /> Crosby stated he would like to make the permitting process easier for businesses since it has been an issue <br /> in the past. <br /> Barnhart noted Staff did attempt to remove some of those permitting requirements and that limiting <br /> special events to four a year is also an option. <br /> Mayor Walsh asked whether anyone from the audience would like to comment on this item. <br /> Page 6 of 9 <br />