Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,May 17,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Ressler said in regards to the like-kind, if they were not going to increase the sign area of the secondary <br /> sign it would not come back to the Commission unless they were looking to increase that? <br /> Barnhart replied only if they wanted to increase it or move it. <br /> Kirchner echoed the reactions; he does not have strong oppositions to the way this is proposed. He <br /> struggles with the lit canopy,especially as they heard Marathon has branding standards that allow for a <br /> non-lit canopy. He struggles to approve that if there is another option to meet those standards. <br /> Gettman would be in favor of having the lit canopy because of the location and the fact that one cannot <br /> see coming from the different angles. What Staff was recommending was just lighting the"Marathon" <br /> part of it,but that is not an option,which is why he wanted to clarify the branding standard. It is either no <br /> lights or the full lights;those are the only two options and he would support the full light option. <br /> Libby agrees in part with Ressler's statements. He would tend to be in favor of the application as made. <br /> He asked Barnhart in his presentation where he referenced sign ordinance changes in 2018: in view of the <br /> fact the Commission is currently looking at proposals of changing or modifying the sign ordinance, <br /> Hennepin County just spent an extraordinary amount of money in one of the most ambitious <br /> infrastructure re-dos and bringing them into the 21'century. When he looks at things like lighted <br /> canopies and digital information available as a public service,he thinks about it as moving into the 21st <br /> century with infrastructure outside of just roadways. He thinks very modern and is in favor of the <br /> proposal as it is,not that he is in contradiction to the ordinance, but he thinks it is currently in flux and <br /> they do not know how it will land.The ordinance as applied seems to be 20th century thinking and <br /> methodology versus the 21"century—a more progressive and modern way of marketing and serving the <br /> community. <br /> Erickson has similar thought regarding the new signage proposal,it all looks great to him. He asked if the <br /> owner would get rid of one of the old signs as there are two free standing signs here. Do they both go <br /> away or do they both stay? <br /> Barnhart's understanding is the sign on the west which is lower will stay with no changes. He showed <br /> photos on screen and said one sign will have no changes and the other sign will be removed and a new <br /> Marathon sign will be placed. <br /> Ressler moved, Gettman seconded,to approve LA21-000035 Orono Station West,2160 W.Wayzata <br /> Blvd,Variance as applied.VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. <br /> 6. LA21-000028 TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO SIGN REGULATIONS <br /> Staff gave a high-level overview of the summary packet of information(Item 6 on the Agenda under <br /> Public Hearings). He noted they do not do a lot of sign permits as they do not have a huge commercial <br /> area,but when they do they take notice to make sure they are meeting the goals of the ordinances. This <br /> project and a couple others identified some areas where the City needs to look at the sign Code. Staff has <br /> received authorization from the Council to examine it and make sure things are clear and meet the goals <br /> of the community. Staff has drafted an ordinance amendment they think accomplishes a number of goals, <br /> the mains ones relate to the definition of incidental signs(line 97). The sign ordinance is a standalone <br /> document and provides all the regulations for signs in the City;when it was drafted in 2018 the goal was <br /> that it would be content-neutral as they did not want to regulate signs based on what they said. Sometimes <br /> Page 15 of 21 <br />