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 4 of 4 Kirchner thinks it is worth noting it is still within the utility easement and he would argue the two plastic posts provide clearance underneath that is easier to worth through if maintenance needs to be done. They may end up destroying the sign in the event that utility work needs to be done within that easement. McCutcheon asked what the encroachment agreement would entail. Oakden replied standard encroachment agreements say something to the effect of one acknowledges they are putting an improvement in an easement space and it is at their own risk and liability should any utilities, maintenance, or damage occur through maintenance of that easement. Essentially it would be at the Applicants’ risk. Erickson asked if they had discussion of a Code amendment regarding digital signs. Oakden replied they re-wrote the sign Code over the last five years, it was flushed out, amended, and the City does allow digital displays with a limit to size, brightness, and how fast the signs are. Mr. Salvador noted the base of the sign is urethane manufactured to look like stone which is super light and he said rather than putting two posts they could put one post at 6x6 on the left side and one post closer to the building so it is very removable, lightweight, and closer to the building to create an easier way for utilities to be serviced. Kirchner noted they must go with the application in front of them but Mr. Salvador has heard the feedback and can take that into account when they move the application to the City Council. McCutcheon summarized the Commissioners are not big fans of the digital display and the Applicant could consider the maintainability of the sign. Regarding the new situation and bettering the situation the Commissioners are in favor of that. Kirchner moved, Peterson seconded, to deny LA22-000037, 1444 Shoreline Drive setback variance. VOTE: Ayes: 3, Nays 2 (Erickson, Kraemer). Erickson commented on his vote, noting he tends to favor positive votes when possible and if it had been vote to approve subject to conditions he would have been in favor of voting for that. McCutcheon thinks the Applicant received the Commission’s feedback and there are some minor adjustments to be made.