09-10-2018 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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