Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (5. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,LLP, Continued) <br /> as it is more modern looking as long as there is an agreement it will not scroll,blink or flash and only be <br /> changed once/day. <br /> Chair Mabusth asked if there had been an illuminated reader board approved in Orono for a church. <br /> Gaffron advised that there was no approval for a church to have an illuminated reader board. He expressed his <br /> concerns for allowing an illuminated reader change with capability for changing as a continual enforcement <br /> issue, as well as training needs for subsequent Walgreens' managers, and that other businesses may seek to <br /> have this type of reader board, too. Gaffron stated,though, he believes an illuminated reader board does look <br /> better than manual reader boards with loose lettering. <br /> Bremer asked Mr. Trautz if Walgreens would consider a manual reader board. <br /> Mr. Trautz replied that most Walgreens stores have manual reader boards currently. <br /> Jurgens conveyed his reservation with manual reader boards in relation to vandalism, as the signs are often low <br /> to the ground. <br /> Gaffron and Curtis indicated in their concurrent review of the new sign ordinance requirements that the 14' <br /> width will be fine with expected revisions in the way it will be framed,the total of 10' maximum height to the <br /> top of it should be maintained, and the sign copy face can not be greater than 75%of sign square footage. <br /> They clarified that the previous reference to max width was incorrect. The maximum height is 10',there is no <br /> maximum width. He asked for direction on whether to permit the illuminated reader board and what <br /> conditions may be appropriate. <br /> Chair Mabusth invited public comments and acknowledged there were some audience members nodding in <br /> agreement with the illuminated reader board discussion. <br /> Rahn agreed with allowing an illuminated reader board with a message change once/day and does not move, <br /> scroll,blink or flash. <br /> Chair Mabusth suggested a condition to add to limit its frequency of change or limits of lines of text. <br /> Fritzler questioned Gaffron if there is any problem to set a condition that permits an illuminated reader board <br /> in relationship to the square footage of the lot, such that a property may be too small to permit such a sign. <br /> Curtis confirmed that sign square footage per site is determined by each foot of frontage now by Code,but the <br /> prohibition is for flashing illuminated signs. <br /> Gaffron added that in Navarre there are large sites with multiple tenant buildings. He suggested that the <br /> condition of sign changes restricted to only one time/day could be added to subsequent sign approvals. He <br /> emphasized it would be a difficult enforcement issue if allowed. Gaffron mentioned the issue of visual impact, <br /> pointing out that currently in the Hwy 12 Orono/Long Lake area there is only one illuminated reader board and <br /> about 8-10 manual reader boards. <br /> Leslie observed that he saw a Walgreens store in Eden Prairie that had an electronic,illuminated reader board <br /> that seemed not to be changing so frequently as to unsafely divert drivers' attention. He stated he would <br /> support an illuminated reader board sign but it should meet the new sign code. <br /> Mr. Trautz stated the 10' x 6' dimension was important and asked if it could be 4' off of the ground. <br /> Page 14 of 40 <br />