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 1 of 4 6. LA21-000028 TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO SIGN REGULATIONS Staff gave a high-level overview of the summary packet of information (Item 6 on the Agenda under Public Hearings). He noted they do not do a lot of sign permits as they do not have a huge commercial area, but when they do they take notice to make sure they are meeting the goals of the ordinances. This project and a couple others identified some areas where the City needs to look at the sign Code. Staff has received authorization from the Council to examine it and make sure things are clear and meet the goals of the community. Staff has drafted an ordinance amendment they think accomplishes a number of goals, the mains ones relate to the definition of incidental signs (line 97). The sign ordinance is a standalone document and provides all the regulations for signs in the City; when it was drafted in 2018 the goal was that it would be content-neutral as they did not want to regulate signs based on what they said. Sometimes in writing a content-neutral ordinance the clarity goes away and now they are trying to rebalance the confusion level while not ignoring the content-neutral aspects. In clarifying, Staff tried to provide examples so a lay person can understand what the sign ordinance is telling them they can do (lines 95 and 97). Barnhart walked the Commissioners through the suggested changes in his memo with examples. Gettman asked regarding number 3, is there any research data that led him to 50 arbitrary feet being an appropriate amount? What he heard earlier is that Marathon has a 70 to 144 square foot norm for the big sign. He asked Barnhart if he did any analysis on some of the big companies that franchise? Barnhart replied no. He has been in the Planning Department for 20 years and has heard examples such as the Dodge dealership requires this, Marathon requires this, Speedway requires this; most cities do not care and say “these are our standards and this is what you can do in our community.” He did look at source in that respect, but used the application from earlier for the amount of signs – he felt the amount of signs proposed was reasonable given the size of the building and lot. This is even more than what they would be asking for. They did some analysis on what the other canopies were. Gettman said going back to the branding, they cannot underestimate the value that these companies, and corporations have spent millions doing the analysis on how much is that minimum square footage. If the City wants to be friendly to the businesses, they have to understand what the branding necessity is for a franchisee to come in. Barnhart said that is a fair comment; if they ask any advertiser they will want the biggest sign they can possibly get. Barnhart does not propose changing what part of a canopy cannot be illuminated because 7- 8 years ago Holiday went through a rebranding and wrapped their building in blue neons and they received a lot of complaints from people that now their living room or office was blue because of the light shining. Many cities did not consider neon to be signage; he does not want to write an ordinance that says one cannot have neon as it is not a defendable ordinance. However, they can define where the lighting occurs and that is how they arrived at the canopy not being lit. Libby is aware of the fact there are very deep pockets in corporate research for signage, advertising, and marketing – they have metrics and statistical data to draw from and make decisions on. He is still not sure where the last line under number 3 (page 8 of 14) is coming from. Barnhart read the line: Such signage may be illuminated externally, internally, or backlit, but no other part of the face of the canopy shall be illuminated. Council Exhibit C LA21-28