Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, August 15, 2022 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 3 of 4 <br /> <br />Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:29 p.m. <br /> <br />Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:29 p.m. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />McCutcheon asked if there is a con to pushing the sign back. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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.