My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-14-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2004
>
06-14-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 11:14:59 AM
Creation date
1/25/2023 8:56:22 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
627
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
r <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />Chair Mabusth asked the applicant if they would reduce the sign width to 10’. <br />Mr. Trautz and Ms. Van Dell agreed the sign width would be reduced to 10’. <br />Gaffron pointed out the new sign ordinance allows a 10’ maximum width and also requires that to be framed. <br />He asked Mr. Trautz how they proposed to design the sign within the 10’ maximum width. <br />Mr. Trautz stated it was important for the sign panel itself to be 10’ x 6’and the sign cabinet itself could be <br />mounted on a base, or framing could be added beyond the 10’ x 6’ area. <br />Gaffron pointed out the new ordinance requires the framing and cap to be incorporated in the maximum sign <br />width. <br />Chair Mabusth asked the Planning Commissioners for their opinion on recommending approval of a sign <br />width variance for the two monument signs, because the StoneBay sign, totally 40 s.f., meets requirements. <br />Rahn stated as long as the sign proposals meet t’ne total aggregate square footage requirements he would rather <br />see something more appealing like the proposed sign. He also stated he preferred the illuminated reader board <br />as it is more modem looking as long as there is an agreement it will not scroll, blink or flash and only be <br />changed once/day. <br />Chair Mabusth asked if there had been an illuminated reader board approved in Orono for a church. <br />Gaffron advised that there was no approval for a church to have an illuminated reader board. He expressed his <br />concerns for allowing an illuminated reader change with capability for changing as an continual enforcement <br />issue, as well as training needs for subsequent Walgreens’ managers, and that other businesses may seek to <br />have this type of reader board, too. Gaffron stated, though, he believes an illuminated reader board does loo’x <br />better than manual reader boards with loose lettering. <br />Bremer asked Mr. Trautz if Walgreens would consider a manual reader board. <br />Mr. Trautz replied that most Walgreens stores have manual reader boards currently. <br />Jurgens conveyed his reservation with manual readers boards relates to vandalism, as the signs arc often low to <br />the ground. <br />Page 19 of 58
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.