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 />