Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, September 21,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Curtis stated a flashing sign would be something where, as someone is passing the sign, the message is <br /> changing. Curtis indicated it would be similar to the sign on 394, which is similar to a television screen <br /> signage that has an active aniinated sign. If it is a static inessage, it is Staff's opinion it is not flashing <br /> since it will not be changing in the time it takes someone to drive by. <br /> Gaffron noted Staffls report states that illuminated signs or devices giving off an intermittent, steady or <br /> rotating beam consisting of a collection or concentration of a ray of lights shall not be permitted. Gaffron <br /> stated a flashing sign would be similar to the cherry type light on top of a police car or a strobe light, <br /> which are not permitted. <br /> Barnhart stated the industry standard is generally eight seconds. If the message switches quicker than six <br /> or eight seconds,then it could be considered a flashing sign. <br /> Lemke asked whether that should be clarified. <br /> Gaffron stated in his view a number of standards could be added to the City's sign code, such as where <br /> temporary signage should be allowed. Gaffron stated Staff did review some other cities' sign codes to see <br /> if they actually attempted to place limits on intensity. One example would be Minnetonka. A couple of <br /> years ago Minnetonka went through a big battle about signs along 394. Minnetonka's code does not <br /> include any intensity measurement requirement. Gaffron stated Orono's code should have some intensity <br /> standard but that he is not sure whether it should be a numerical standard. Gaffron indicated it will <br /> require some further discussion and investigation. <br /> Lemke moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3779,Ken <br /> Jenson on behalf of Trinity Church, 260 Sixth Avenue North, granting of a conditional use permit <br /> and variance,with the condition that the message does not change more than eight seconds. <br /> Jenson stated they are agreeable to that condition. <br /> VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. (Thiesse recused himselfl <br /> 8. #15-3780 MICHAEL AND LISA LARSON, 3596 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL <br /> USE PERMIT, 8:16 P.M. - 9:42 P.M. <br /> Michael and Lisa Larson, Applicants, were present. <br /> Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate an indoor dog daycare, <br /> indoor dog boarding, and dog grooming business within an existing building located at 3596 Shoreline <br /> Drive. <br /> The review of the applicant's application to amend the zoning code to allow indoor dog boarding, indoor <br /> dog daycare, and dog grooming as a conditional use permit in the B-1 zoning district is currently <br /> underway. The Council tabled their discussion of the text amendment to September 28 citing the need to <br /> better understand the business. Should the Council decline to amend the zoning ordinance, this <br /> application must either be withdrawn or denied. The Planning Commission should consider this <br /> application as if the amendment is approved. The Planning Commission may table action on the item <br /> until the Council has made a decision on the text amendment. Barnhart stated he anticipates the text <br /> amendment being approved in the near future. <br /> Page 18 of 46 <br />