Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,March 20,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Leskinen noted the language reads that conditional use permits shall not be subject to periodic Council <br /> review. Leskinen stated the first sentence allows the City to reserve the right to inspect the premises. <br /> Lemke stated even if that language is left in,the City would still not have that right under state statute. <br /> Landgraver stated the sentence also goes on to say, "...unless such a review is one of the conditions of the <br /> original permit..." Landgraver stated it does not appear the City has the right to conduct periodic <br /> reviews. <br /> Thiesse stated unless they are in violation of their conditional use permit. <br /> Landgraver stated if the City has the right to conduct periodic reviews,the City should retain that right. <br /> Barnhart indicated he will ask the City Attorney to review those two sentences to see whether the City can <br /> retain or clarify any rights the City may have. <br /> Thiesse stated he would like the City Attorney to confirm that. <br /> Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 10:28 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 10:28 p.m. <br /> Thiesse stated he would like the City Attorney to review it one more time but that it does not have to <br /> come back before the Planning Commission. <br /> Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3924,City of <br /> Orono,Text Amendment: Repeal of Conditional Use Permit as draft with the recommendation <br /> that the City Attorney review the language of 78-91. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. <br /> 17. #17-3926 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: EXEMPTIONS FOR PUBLIC <br /> SAFETY SIGNS, 10:30 P.M.—10:36 P.M. <br /> Barnhart stated a strict reading of the City's sign code does not regulate traffic control or public message <br /> signs so therefore they are not permitted. The draft ordinance exempts the placement of traffic control <br /> signs,identification signs placed by a public authority,and signs placed by the city,county, state or U.S. <br /> Government. These signs are usually located in rights-of-way,but also on city, state,or government <br /> property. The ordinance in general codifies current practice. <br /> This request was initiated by Hennepin County through their Sheriffs Department since they desire to <br /> place electronic public service signs on bridges to serve boat traffic. Hennepin County currently places <br /> electronic public service signs on area highways for emergencies and public service initiatives. <br /> Barnhart stated one of the goals of the City Council is to review the entire sign ordinance but that Staff <br /> would like to address this issue first since these signs do exist currently throughout the City. <br /> Thiesse asked if there is a reason why the language cannot just say"signs placed by public authority." <br /> Page 41 of 43 <br />