Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,May 17,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Barnhart stated all signs not attached to a building are defined as free standing in Orono.They frequently <br /> see support posts or panels/shrouds in front of that to screen that post. He would anticipate some type of <br /> planter and if not,it would be something Staff would carry to the Council as a comment. <br /> Bollis asked for Staff clarification,when they say the Staff does not support the sign,area proposed, and <br /> the lighting of the canopy,they are speaking just to the canopy on that. Or are they talking about the <br /> overall sign area? <br /> Barnhart supports the number of free standing signs,the number of canopy signs,and the areas proposed. <br /> Staff does not support the area of that free standing sign,nor the lighting of the canopy that is not signage. <br /> Gettman asked to clarify the area referred to of the free standing sign that Barnhart is not recommending <br /> approval for—he asked to see a picture of that sign so everyone is on the same page. <br /> Barnhart showed the sign on screen(95.79 square feet)and said it is too big. He also showed the lighting <br /> of the blue/red lines around the canopy. <br /> McCutcheon asked to see the existing sign. His first thought in making it bigger is that they would hit the <br /> power lines but then Barnhart noted they would move it back. He noted they want two gas stations in <br /> town—they want competition—so he likes Orono Station and noted there is a great point about the <br /> building being perpendicular to the road.He kind of feels sorry for the other businesses trying to get <br /> signage,too,because they have to go back. McCutcheon wants to be pro-business but noted this seems <br /> pretty big.He asked if this area is the limit or if they will go a bit bigger than this. <br /> Barnhart stated this is 64 square feet and he can support 64 square feet,which is in excess of what the <br /> ordinance allows,but it is consistent with the variance approved 20-or-so years ago. <br /> Gettman clarified Barnhart does not support the 96 square feet. <br /> Barnhart replied that is correct. <br /> Jim Hamilton,Box 148,Rosemount,of Hamilton Signs approached the podium. <br /> Gettman asked Mr.Hamilton if there is any contractual relationship as a Marathon owner that they must <br /> have certain signage requirements. <br /> Mr. Hamilton replied there are requirements—there are certain orders on the sign:they must have the top <br /> three signs: "Marathon,""Regular"and a"pricer".That is basically all they must have from Marathon. <br /> Gettman asked the minimum size that the requirement would have? <br /> Mr. Hamilton noted he would have to calculate it because they have different signs and different widths <br /> depending upon the location. <br /> Gettman asked for this location? <br /> Mr.Hamilton said they could reduce the height of this sign by eliminating the height of the two signs. <br /> The expectation from Marathon is that they would like to see a minimum of 7-foot sign at this location <br /> Page 12 of 21 <br />