Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,May 17,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Barnhart stated it was written in to the existing Code and they put it in there because of the situation many <br /> years ago with the Holiday station. The goal was to avoid those situations and that is where the <br /> prohibition came from. <br /> Libby noted if they have this ordinance and it is applied,then it is global and the Commission cannot look <br /> at this on a case-by-case basis. If it is not a Holiday type of situation where it is not intrusive to offices or <br /> other adjoining properties,will they not have the latitude then? <br /> Barnhart noted they just did,as a half hour ago the Commission approved lighting of the canopy.He <br /> clarified the only changes they are making are struck through/underlined in red in the document. <br /> Kirchner said an applicant could always apply for a variance as they just saw. <br /> Bollis noted he lived 1,000 feet away from a Holiday Station that had the wrap all the way around not <br /> facing the street and it did put blue light into his house. He thinks"facing the street" is to protect residents <br /> as there is no need to brand the back side of their canopy that is facing a residential neighborhood. In the <br /> previous application it made sense they could light the sides not facing these street; but he thinks there <br /> needs to be some protection for residents. <br /> Barnhart's proposal is to re-strike that limitation if the Commission would prefer. He hears Bollis say he <br /> would not permit signage facing residential areas. <br /> Libby agrees with that premise as many of these are zoned densely commercial and there are not <br /> adjoining residential properties. If they could add language that would be more specific as to where it <br /> would be intrusive to other businesses and/or residential so they do not have people coming back and <br /> asking for variances if there is not that sort of intrusion by that type of lighting. <br /> McCutcheon said language is tough and what if there is a house across the street...there is gray area. <br /> Barnhart stated to keep in mind they would already be next door to a gas station which has some inherent <br /> impacts. <br /> Ressler agreed there is not a lot of purpose in lighting the back and they can apply for a variance. He likes <br /> the change to 50 square feet for service area as that is doubling what they currently have and they can <br /> continue to monitor it. <br /> Erickson asked regarding line 229,free standing pole signs,perhaps it could be a bit expanded. He noted <br /> a definition on line 86 that is somewhat similar. <br /> Barnhart noted the pole sign definition prohibits two poles,basically the monument sign is the sign that <br /> has a base mounted.He clarified there is a free standing sign definition, a pole sign definition, and a <br /> monument sign definition. <br /> Erickson said on Table 1 it comes up again in looking at free standing and"type B" do they want to <br /> scratch pole out of there? <br /> Barnhart replied they want to be as clear as possible. On Table 1 he is proposing an increase in the max <br /> height for free standing signs in sign district 3 which is most of the commercial. <br /> Page 17 of 21 <br />