09-26-2022 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 15, 2022 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 4 ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Mark McCutcheon, Commissioners Scott Kirchner, Bob Erickson, and alternates Dave Peterson and Gary Kraemer (arrived at 7:03 p.m.). Commissioners Chris Bollis, Jon Ressler, Dennis Libby, and Matt Gettman were absent. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Laura Oakden, City Planner Melanie Curtis. Chair McCutcheon called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. LA22-000037 612 SIGNS, 1444 SHORELINE DRIVE, REQUESTS A SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW MONUMENT SIGN. (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) William Salvador, on behalf of the Applicant, was present. Ms. Oakden gave a presentation on the item, noting the Applicant is requesting a zero foot street setback for a monument sign. The Applicant is requesting approval of a setback variance to permit construction of a 9’ x 1.4’monument sign that will be 7.3 feet tall. The property currently has an eight foot wide sign installed on two 4”x 4” posts, located between the building and the pavement of County Road 15. The existing sign encroaches into the right-of-way. The existing sign is located over a utility easement and the new monument sign is also proposed to remain within the utility easement. The Applicant is proposing a zero foot setback from the right-of-way. A monument sign is required to have a 5 foot setback from all property lines. The proposed plan would remove the current sign encroaching into the right of way but the new sign would not meet the required 5 foot setback. Staff recommends any new improvements placed within the City utility easement be addressed with an encroachment agreement and an equal amount of hardcover reduced from the property to maintain existing levels. The Applicant has identified the substandard street yard due to the existing location of the business. The Applicant states the monument sign is necessary to increase visibility of the business to aid in reducing traffic hazards. The Applicants have provided supporting documentation regarding practical difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Staff finds that there are some practical difficulties in the lot configuration, with the location of the existing building challenging traffic sightlines. Staff also acknowledges that the proposal will resolve the existing right-of-way encroachment. However, the property has conforming locations for alternative placement of a monument sign. The proposed monument sign an accessory use of the property and the business is considered the primary use. The proposed zero foot setback for the sign is a convenience to the property owner and not a necessity for the primary use of the property. Ms. Oakden noted the engineer provided comments in the packet and no public comment was received. Staff finds there are conforming building locations that would meet the 5 foot setback requirement and finds that the proposed location is out of convenience. Any encroachment in the utility easement would require an encroachment agreement. Planning staff recommends denial of the proposed variance. Kirchner asked which encroachment the proposal eliminates.