06-14-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 17, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 6 a sign that exceeds even what is being proposed here. His client was trying to come up with something reasonable; they would prefer that the canopy not be considered signage and be lit. Erickson said the concept of a lit sign is a way to deal with the fact that it is on a curved piece of road that does not have long sight lines like other locations do. Mr. Rosha noted they are very mindful that it faces south to the direction of an industrial area rather than lighting up a neighborhood. Bollis thought this monument sign proposed (20 foot) was replacing the Orono Shopping Center sign that is similar in size. He clarified that is not the case and the Orono sign is staying; he asked if there been any consideration of replacing that one with this one that can give each individual business billing there and then create a smaller monument sign where Marathon was proposing this one. Mr. Rosha said the current Orono Shopping Center sign tenants were under 10 square feet per unit. His concern about making that switch and going with something smaller for the gas station is – that is the one catching the eyes and if it is too small it does create a safety hazard for people being able to see prices. Mr. Rosha said there are no plans for the Orono Shopping Center sign right now. Bollis noted there is one existing sign and the property is only allowed one to begin with. He is pro- business and pro-signage but they also have to look at the Code to see what is reasonable. He would like to see a proposal that includes all signage for the site so they know what to expect for the future. When McCutcheon sees the two per property, the practical difficulty there is the building, such a narrow lot, and it is deep. He can see where the property needs two signs. Mr. Rosha thinks it bears a mention that they are two different entities. The Orono Station is a tenant of the mall itself; in the Code, they are treated differently than other businesses are. He noted as a tenant, the current Orono Shopping Center sign did not attract them to the location. He said that would be opening up another conversation that has not been part of this dialogue so far. Ressler shared his comments on this application. Bollis makes a good point, they have to look at the entire lot. Because it would be triggering a variance, if the applicant wanted to then modify the second sign, it would trigger another variance which would go before the Commission for feedback. The timing of the application is curious because they are having an agenda item to talk about getting more favorable for signage in the area in trying to be more encouraging and accommodating for businesses. Personally, when he goes to the gas station off Shadywood and Shoreline Drive, Ressler does not think that sign is too big. The Speedway (although not in Orono) is comparable and worth noting as guidance for the City as they talk about perhaps changing their guidelines. As it is applied, he does not see changeable copy being egregious and they have noted that particular plot of commercial space has had difficulty drawing attention. For that reason he has support for the application as submitted, he does not know if Staff does not recommend it because it does not meet practical difficulties or if it does not meet the opinion of Staff. Barnhart stated Ressler raised a number of good questions. Regarding the existing sign on the west side of the property, the owner can tear that down and replace it in-kind and they do not need to come back from a variance standpoint. Part of the reason they are here today is because they want to relocate the gas station sign to a more favorable location. The comment about practical difficulty and Staff not finding out – it is not uncommon for the Commission to identify practical difficulty through the analysis of the