Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,May 17,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> in writing a content-neutral ordinance the clarity goes away and now they are trying to rebalance the <br /> confusion level while not ignoring the content-neutral aspects. In clarifying, Staff tried to provide <br /> examples so a lay person can understand what the sign ordinance is telling them they can do(lines 95 and <br /> 97). Barnhart walked the Commissioners through the suggested changes in his memo with examples. <br /> Gettman asked regarding number 3, is there any research data that led him to 50 arbitrary feet being an <br /> appropriate amount?What he heard earlier is that Marathon has a 70 to 144 square foot norm for the big <br /> sign.He asked Barnhart if he did any analysis on some of the big companies that franchise? <br /> Barnhart replied no.He has been in the Planning Department for 20 years and has heard examples such as <br /> the Dodge dealership requires this,Marathon requires this, Speedway requires this;most cities do not care <br /> and say"these are our standards and this is what you can do in our community."He did look at source in <br /> that respect,but used the application from earlier for the amount of signs—he felt the amount of signs <br /> proposed was reasonable given the size of the building and lot.This is even more than what they would <br /> be asking for.They did some analysis on what the other canopies were. <br /> Gettman said going back to the branding,they cannot underestimate the value that these companies,and <br /> corporations have spent millions doing the analysis on how much is that minimum square footage. If the <br /> City wants to be friendly to the businesses,they have to understand what the branding necessity is for a <br /> franchisee to come in. <br /> Barnhart said that is a fair comment; if they ask any advertiser they will want the biggest sign they can <br /> possibly get. Barnhart does not propose changing what part of a canopy cannot be illuminated because 7- <br /> 8 years ago Holiday went through a rebranding and wrapped their building in blue neons and they <br /> received a lot of complaints from people that now their living room or office was blue because of the light <br /> shining.Many cities did not consider neon to be signage;he does not want to write an ordinance that says <br /> one cannot have neon as it is not a defendable ordinance. However,they can define where the lighting <br /> occurs and that is how they arrived at the canopy not being lit. <br /> Libby is aware of the fact there are very deep pockets in corporate research for signage, advertising, and <br /> marketing—they have metrics and statistical data to draw from and make decisions on. He is still not sure <br /> where the last line under number 3 (page 8 of 14)is coming from. <br /> Barnhart read the line:Such signage may be illuminated externally, internally, or backlit, but no other <br /> part of the face of the canopy shall be illuminated. <br /> Libby asked if there is concern about having external lighting that would be lighting toward the canopy or <br /> is it backlit as a structure. <br /> Barnhart replied in this application they are allowed up to 50 square feet of signage on the canopy. That <br /> signage may be lit, either externally,internally,or backlit, but nothing else may be illuminated on the <br /> canopy. This only applies to the surface area canopy. <br /> Libby clarified it is the face of the canopy which is like the fascia on a house facing outward. He asked <br /> where does that determination come from-from a ruling and ordinance standpoint-how was the decision <br /> made that it is detrimental to have that permitted? <br /> Page 16 of 21 <br />