06-14-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 17, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 6 application and find practical difficulty when Staff did not. They can certainly recommend approval based on the Commission’s findings…that is just Staff’s recommendations. Ressler said in regards to the like-kind, if they were not going to increase the sign area of the secondary sign it would not come back to the Commission unless they were looking to increase that? Barnhart replied only if they wanted to increase it or move it. Kirchner echoed the reactions; he does not have strong oppositions to the way this is proposed. He struggles with the lit canopy, especially as they heard Marathon has branding standards that allow for a non-lit canopy. He struggles to approve that if there is another option to meet those standards. Gettman would be in favor of having the lit canopy because of the location and the fact that one cannot see coming from the different angles. What Staff was recommending was just lighting the “Marathon” part of it, but that is not an option, which is why he wanted to clarify the branding standard. It is either no lights or the full lights; those are the only two options and he would support the full light option. Libby agrees in part with Ressler’s statements. He would tend to be in favor of the application as made. He asked Barnhart in his presentation where he referenced sign ordinance changes in 2018: in view of the fact the Commission is currently looking at proposals of changing or modifying the sign ordinance, Hennepin County just spent an extraordinary amount of money in one of the most ambitious infrastructure re-dos and bringing them into the 21st century. When he looks at things like lighted canopies and digital information available as a public service, he thinks about it as moving into the 21st century with infrastructure outside of just roadways. He thinks very modern and is in favor of the proposal as it is, not that he is in contradiction to the ordinance, but he thinks it is currently in flux and they do not know how it will land. The ordinance as applied seems to be 20th century thinking and methodology versus the 21st century – a more progressive and modern way of marketing and serving the community. Erickson has similar thought regarding the new signage proposal, it all looks great to him. He asked if the owner would get rid of one of the old signs as there are two free standing signs here. Do they both go away or do they both stay? Barnhart’s understanding is the sign on the west which is lower will stay with no changes. He showed photos on screen and said one sign will have no changes and the other sign will be removed and a new Marathon sign will be placed. Ressler moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA21-000035 Orono Station West, 2160 W. Wayzata Blvd, Variance as applied. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.