Laserfiche WebLink
MIHUTBS OF THE PIAmiHG COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 18, 1S88 <br />ZONING AMENDMENT-SIGNAGE - CONTINUED <br />allowed in residential areas and the amount of time "temporary" signs may <br />be displayed. The problem signs are those that are allowed by Conditional <br />Use Permits on public right-of-ways, together with signs in residential <br />areas in locations being utilized commercially. The ultimate purpose of <br />the Ordinancp is to eliminate ongoing temporary signs. Applicants can <br />presently let their permit lapse and then apply to renew again and again. <br />Johnson asked whether this affected garage sale signs. Mabusth stated that <br />it would if those signs were located in a right-of-way. The recommendation <br />is to add language to the existing signage Ordinance, sub-paragraph A <br />stating that no conditional use permit will be issued by the Council if <br />such a permit or temporary permit has been issued in the previous 24 <br />months. <br />Mr. John Hollander asked about enforcing ordinance and whether public <br />right-of-way pertained to County Roads or Orono City Roads. Kelley <br />responded by saying public right-of-way means County, City, State, Federal. <br />Mabusth stated that illegal signs on County Roads would be picked up by the <br />County, etc. <br />The second amendment pertains to sub-paragraph H. It is recommended <br />that additional language be adopted stating that the City will not issue a <br />temporary sign permit if a conditional use permit under sub-paragraph A or <br />a temporary sign permit under this sub-paragraph had been issued in vhe <br />previous 24 months and that no such signs be Allowed in residential zones. <br />Hanson questioned why the City was making unenforceable changes to the <br />Ordinances. Gaffron noted that the only change to the current code <br />provisions is that the specific signs that are regulated under the current <br />permit requirements could not be renewed indefinitely. <br />It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Moos, to recommend adoption of <br />the Ordinance amendment to 10.61 sub-division lA and IH. Motion, Ayes*6, <br />Nays»0, Motion passed. <br />ZONING AMENDMENT - FENCES <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />This pertains to language regarding an ordinance to amend the fence <br />height regulations and clarify the wording of the non-encroachment section <br />of the zoning code. <br />Mabusth explained that the revision to subdivision 15(A) would <br />eliminate overhangs in a substandard side yard or rear yard. If a <br />structure meets the required setback or yard requirement then this would <br />be applicable. Cohen stated chat the proposed ordinance language was not <br />written very clearly. He interpreted this change to say that one can no <br />longer aggravate an existing condition. <br />Gaffron said the next change would involve the off-street parking non­ <br />encroachment which was a separate issue and will now be made into sub- <br />paragraph B. Sub-paragraph C, name-plate signs for one family dwellings <br />was listed along with the ordinance pertaining to lights. Lights should be