06-14-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. Gaffron and Curtis indicated in their concurrent review of the new sign ordinance requirements that the 14* width will be fine with expected revisions in the way it will be framed, the total of 10’ maximum to the top of it should be maintained, and the sign copy face can not be greater than 75% of sign square footage. He asked for direction on whether to permit the illuminated reader board and what conditions may be appropriate. Chair Mabusth invited public comments and acknowledged there were some audience members nodding in agreement with the illuminated reader board discussion. Rahn agreed with allowing an illuminated reader board with a message change once/day and not move, scroll, blink or flash. Chair Mabusth suggested a condition to add to limit its frequency of change or limits of lines of text. Fritzler questioned Gaffron if there is any problem to set a condition that permits an illuminated reader board in relationship to the square footage of the lot, such that a property may be too small to permit such a sign. Curtis confirmed that is how sign square footage per site is determined now by Code, but the prohibition is for changeable reader boards. Gaffron added that in Navarre there are large sites with multiple tenant buildings. He suggested that the condition of sign changes restneted to only one time/day could be added to subsequent sign approvals. He emphasized it would be a difficult cnforcem.ent issue if allowed. Gaffron mentioned the issue of visual impact, pointing ou: that currently in the Hwy 12 Orono/Long Lake area there is only one illuminated reader board and about 8>10 manual reader boards. Leslie observed that he saw a Walgreens store in Eden Prairie that had an electronic, illuminated reader board that seemed not to be changing so frequently as to unsafely divert drivers’ attention. He stated he would support an illuminated reader board sign but it should meet the new sign code. Mr. Trautz stated the 10’ x 6’ dimension was important and asked if it could be 4’ off of the ground. Gaffron responded that he thought it would be possible but asked the Planning Commission for direction if sign variances became necessary. Staff stated that witn a PUD application, flexibility could therefore be addressed. Chair Mabusth asked for information about plans for temporary signage and how this will be controlled. Page 20 of 58