Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,August 15,2022 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> not have any comments regarding the placement.The City Engineer replied regarding the encroachment <br /> agreement over the utility easement. <br /> Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:29 p.m. <br /> Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:29 p.m. <br /> McCutcheon stated they are improving the sign by getting closer to the building but the fact remains it <br /> does not meet the five foot setback. He asked if the Commissioners are okay with it due to the fact that <br /> the previous sign was there or whether they want the Applicant to push it back and meet the setback. <br /> Erickson is pleased to see the encroachment into the right-of-way will be eliminated.He also noticed that <br /> it will be above the utility easement but noted the engineer comment and review that the proposed sign <br /> would not interfere with the sewer line and recommends an encroachment agreement.He said any motion <br /> should include the condition on acceptance of Exhibit F. With that,Erickson would not see any problem <br /> with this. <br /> Peterson viewed the site this weekend and noted it is a very hazardous intersection.He missed the number <br /> on the way past and had to turn around to come back noting one needs to pay attention. He encourages <br /> adequate signage that brings the message to people and if the Commission does not like this sign they <br /> should help guide the Applicant to a different sign. <br /> McCutcheon stated that is correct,if one is buying a boat and has never been on this unfamiliar road and <br /> is trying to find the business,they do not need anyone hitting their breaks in that area.He understands <br /> why a more bold and recognizable sign is needed. <br /> Kirchner understands the concept but does not like the digital display for the safety reasons cited as it is <br /> merely adding to the visual clutter as drivers proceed down the roadway. He also understands drawing <br /> more visibility to the business,however given there are opportunities to conform to City Code,he would <br /> like to see an application that conforms to the existing Code. He does not think it meets practical <br /> difficulties in this case and would not be in support of the variance. <br /> McCutcheon asked if there is a con to pushing the sign back. <br /> Mr. Salvador noted they thought about that but the problem is coming west going east, one does not see <br /> the sign until they are in front of the building and are at the point to pull in.He noted they could devise a <br /> pylon going vertically up with the name"River Valley"but the problem is that would be about 20 feet <br /> tall to write"River Valley"vertically. He stated finding an alternative if this does not work is the point. <br /> He thinks there might be a Code saying they cannot put a 20 foot vertical sign.He noted the issue is <br /> finding a place to put a sign that can be seen after one turns because the west side is not visible until one <br /> is in front of the walkway. <br /> Kraemer supports this and thinks it is a big improvement as the current sign is temporary-looking and the <br /> proposed sign is permanent looking. If the Applicant has the ability to do another temporary-looking sign <br /> he would rather see them do the more permanent-looking sign with the added improvement of getting out <br /> of the encroachment.He does not know enough about alternative locations but noted this is an <br /> improvement so he would be for this with the digital display removed. <br /> Page 4 of 9 <br />