Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, May 17, 2021 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 3 of 6 <br /> <br />some type of solid fill on the bottom (masonry, stone) and those supported by poles were defined as free <br />standing signs, which they prohibited. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />Gettman clarified Barnhart does not support the 96 square feet. <br /> <br />Barnhart replied that is correct. <br /> <br />Jim Hamilton, Box 148, Rosemount, of Hamilton Signs approached the podium. <br /> <br />Gettman asked Mr. Hamilton if there is any contractual relationship as a Marathon owner that they must <br />have certain signage requirements. <br /> <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 /> <br />Gettman asked the minimum size that the requirement would have? <br /> <br />Mr. Hamilton noted he would have to calculate it because they have different signs and different widths <br />depending upon the location. <br /> <br />Gettman asked for this location?