Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,July 16, 2018 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> McCutcheon stated trees is another item that is brought up rather frequently. <br /> Libby asked if the City has a list of accessory structures that have been approved. Libby commented it <br /> would be nice to know how many accessory structures are out there and whether it is a growing trend. <br /> Barnhart stated he is not sure there has been a change in the frequency of requests but in his experience <br /> the City's method of dealing with those requests is very complicated and results in a lot of wasted time <br /> and energy. Barnhart stated he would like to process those applications more efficiently. <br /> Libby stated in his view onsite analysis of visibility,positioning on the lot and shadows, etc.,is also <br /> important to take into consideration and that some guidelines on those items would be very constructive <br /> and helpful. <br /> Barnhart indicated he will look at those. <br /> Lemke stated in his view it is a good template. <br /> Ressler stated it is a good start. <br /> The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. <br /> 7. LA18-000059 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT—SIGNS,7:54 P.M.—8:09 P.M. <br /> Barnhart noted the City Attorney has been working on revising the City's sign ordinance to be consistent <br /> with recent Supreme Court action. The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that cities can administer and <br /> regulate signage as it relates to time,place,and manner but not on their content. In addition,cities cannot <br /> have a separate set of rules for residential real estate signs than a political sign in a residential district. <br /> The draft ordinance takes away the content type of nuance and is more content neutral,which is a pretty <br /> significant change in some respects. <br /> Barnhart recommended the public hearing be opened and the Planning Commission receive any public <br /> comments. Barnhart noted he is not looking for any formal action by the Planning Commission at this <br /> time but that he would like the commissioners to review it prior to their August meeting. <br /> Barnhart noted the draft ordinance divides the City into districts based on use, such as residential zones <br /> and commercial districts. For nonresidential uses in residential districts, such as schools and churches, <br /> those would have a separate set of rules. Barnhart stated in his view the business district should probably <br /> be divided into two separate zones since the current ordinance says the amount of signage allowed is <br /> based on the front footage. At the present time the B-5 zoning district has a ratio of 3:1,but in the draft <br /> ordinance the B-5 district has been grouped with the B4 district,which has a ratio of 2:1. Barnhart <br /> indicated his goal is not to create nonconformities and that he will need to examine that further but in the <br /> meantime the Planning Commission should review the proposed ordinance and provide feedback. <br /> Libby stated he did read over quite a bit of the draft ordinance as well as look at other information and <br /> that there is quite a bit of diversity in signage. Libby stated his intent was to understand where signage is <br /> appropriate and where it might cross over into commercial and residential use. Libby stated currently <br /> there is not much enforcement by the City on its signage and that he also does not see much latitude. <br /> Page 11 of 13 <br />