Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,August 15,2022 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> McCutcheon noted the issue is coming from the freeway and trying to find the business and agreed it is an <br /> improvement.He appreciates the monument as it looks less temporary and more professional and bold. <br /> This is an opportunity to sharpen it up and get it out of the encroachment. <br /> Kirchner thinks it is worth noting it is still within the utility easement and he would argue the two plastic <br /> posts provide clearance underneath that is easier to worth through if maintenance needs to be done. They <br /> may end up destroying the sign in the event that utility work needs to be done within that easement. <br /> McCutcheon asked what the encroachment agreement would entail. <br /> Oakden replied standard encroachment agreements say something to the effect of one acknowledges they <br /> are putting an improvement in an easement space and it is at their own risk and liability should any <br /> utilities,maintenance,or damage occur through maintenance of that easement. Essentially it would be at <br /> the Applicants' risk. <br /> Erickson asked if they had discussion of a Code amendment regarding digital signs. <br /> Oakden replied they re-wrote the sign Code over the last five years,it was flushed out,amended,and the <br /> City does allow digital displays with a limit to size,brightness,and how fast the signs are. <br /> Mr. Salvador noted the base of the sign is urethane manufactured to look like stone which is super light <br /> and he said rather than putting two posts they could put one post at 6x6 on the left side and one post <br /> closer to the building so it is very removable, lightweight,and closer to the building to create an easier <br /> way for utilities to be serviced. <br /> Kirchner noted they must go with the application in front of them but Mr. Salvador has heard the <br /> feedback and can take that into account when they move the application to the City Council. <br /> McCutcheon summarized the Commissioners are not big fans of the digital display and the Applicant <br /> could consider the maintainability of the sign. Regarding the new situation and bettering the situation the <br /> Commissioners are in favor of that. <br /> Kirchner moved,Peterson seconded,to deny LA22-000037, 1444 Shoreline Drive setback variance. <br /> VOTE: Ayes: 3,Nays 2 (Erickson,Kraemer). <br /> Erickson commented on his vote,noting he tends to favor positive votes when possible and if it had been <br /> vote to approve subject to conditions he would have been in favor of voting for that. <br /> McCutcheon thinks the Applicant received the Commission's feedback and there are some minor <br /> adjustments to be made. <br /> 3. LA22-000039 BILL PETERS, 1950 CONCORDIA STREET,REQUESTS AN AVERAGE <br /> LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO RECONSTRUCT A DECK WITH AN <br /> EXPANDED FOOTPRINT. (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) <br /> William Peters,Applicant,was present. <br /> Page 5 of 9 <br />