Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,August 15,2022 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:09 p.m. <br /> Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:09 p.m. <br /> Chair McCutcheon noted this area of Orono comes up a lot with narrow lots and second story additions <br /> are pretty typical. <br /> Kirchner agreed with the no net increase or decrease in hardcover and thinks practical difficulties are <br /> established by the 13 foot deep building path on the lot based on setbacks and the 75 foot lakeyard <br /> setback. <br /> Kraemer agrees with Kirchner. <br /> Kirchner moved,Kraemer seconded,to approve LA22-000032, 3349 Crystal Bay Road,Variances. <br /> VOTE: Ayes: 5,Nays 0. <br /> 2. LA22-000037 612 SIGNS,1444 SHORELINE DRIVE,REQUESTS A SETBACK <br /> VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW MONUMENT SIGN.(STAFF: LAURA <br /> OAKDEN) <br /> William Salvador,on behalf of the Applicant,was present. <br /> Ms. Oakden gave a presentation on the item,noting the Applicant is requesting a zero foot street setback <br /> for a monument sign.The Applicant is requesting approval of a setback variance to permit construction of <br /> a 9' x 1.4'monument sign that will be 7.3 feet tall. The property currently has an eight foot wide sign <br /> installed on two 4"x 4"posts, located between the building and the pavement of County Road 15.The <br /> existing sign encroaches into the right-of-way.The existing sign is located over a utility easement and the <br /> new monument sign is also proposed to remain within the utility easement.The Applicant is proposing a <br /> zero foot setback from the right-of-way.A monument sign is required to have a 5 foot setback from all <br /> property lines.The proposed plan would remove the current sign encroaching into the right of way but the <br /> new sign would not meet the required 5 foot setback. Staff recommends any new improvements placed <br /> within the City utility easement be addressed with an encroachment agreement and an equal amount of <br /> hardcover reduced from the property to maintain existing levels.The Applicant has identified the <br /> substandard street yard due to the existing location of the business. The Applicant states the monument <br /> sign is necessary to increase visibility of the business to aid in reducing traffic hazards.The Applicants <br /> have provided supporting documentation regarding practical difficulties attached as Exhibit B,and should <br /> be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Staff finds that there are some practical <br /> difficulties in the lot configuration,with the location of the existing building challenging traffic sightlines. <br /> Staff also acknowledges that the proposal will resolve the existing right-of-way encroachment.However, <br /> the property has conforming locations for alternative placement of a monument sign. The proposed <br /> monument sign an accessory use of the property and the business is considered the primary use.The <br /> proposed zero foot setback for the sign is a convenience to the property owner and not a necessity for the <br /> primary use of the property.Ms. Oakden noted the engineer provided comments in the packet and no <br /> public comment was received. Staff finds there are conforming building locations that would meet the 5 <br /> foot setback requirement and finds that the proposed location is out of convenience.Any encroachment in <br /> the utility easement would require an encroachment agreement.Planning staff recommends denial of the <br /> proposed variance. <br /> Page 2 of 9 <br />