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 2 of 4 Libby asked if there is concern about having external lighting that would be lighting toward the canopy or is it backlit as a structure. Barnhart replied in this application they are allowed up to 50 square feet of signage on the canopy. That signage may be lit, either externally, internally, or backlit, but nothing else may be illuminated on the canopy. This only applies to the surface area canopy. Libby clarified it is the face of the canopy which is like the fascia on a house facing outward. He asked where does that determination come from - from a ruling and ordinance standpoint - how was the decision made that it is detrimental to have that permitted? Barnhart stated it was written in to the existing Code and they put it in there because of the situation many years ago with the Holiday station. The goal was to avoid those situations and that is where the prohibition came from. Libby noted if they have this ordinance and it is applied, then it is global and the Commission cannot look 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 other adjoining properties, will they not have the latitude then? Barnhart noted they just did, as a half hour ago the Commission approved lighting of the canopy. He clarified the only changes they are making are struck through/underlined in red in the document. Kirchner said an applicant could always apply for a variance as they just saw. Bollis noted he lived 1,000 feet away from a Holiday Station that had the wrap all the way around not facing the street and it did put blue light into his house. He thinks “facing the street” is to protect residents as there is no need to brand the back side of their canopy that is facing a residential neighborhood. In the previous application it made sense they could light the sides not facing these street; but he thinks there needs to be some protection for residents. Barnhart’s proposal is to re-strike that limitation if the Commission would prefer. He hears Bollis say he would not permit signage facing residential areas. Libby agrees with that premise as many of these are zoned densely commercial and there are not adjoining residential properties. If they could add language that would be more specific as to where it would be intrusive to other businesses and/or residential so they do not have people coming back and asking for variances if there is not that sort of intrusion by that type of lighting. McCutcheon said language is tough and what if there is a house across the street…there is gray area. Barnhart stated to keep in mind they would already be next door to a gas station which has some inherent impacts. Ressler agreed there is not a lot of purpose in lighting the back and they can apply for a variance. He likes the change to 50 square feet for service area as that is doubling what they currently have and they can continue to monitor it.