|
Mounds View Planning Commission
<br />Regular Meeting
<br />February 16, 2000
<br />Page 10
<br />Planning Associate Ericson added that when this matter was initially bro
<br />Commission, the question before them was with regard to thei� opinion
<br />course, and their overwhelming response was that they were o�pr�5ec� to
<br />City Council approved an ordinance, which amended tf�e :,City Cod�
<br />billboards, under certain conditions, in the overlay district, nct�-ih of Hig�
<br />role of the Planning Commission at this time, was to �xarruz�� the City �
<br />application before them complies with the Code. "
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stated there are some issues,
<br />Planning Commission has the ability to make a judgeme
<br />City Code must be examined, and there is always th� �o
<br />that the Commission might not like an item they ar� �u�
<br />City Code, oftentimes, they do not have the luxt_+.r`�y c��'
<br />positions the Planning Commission faces. ...
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stated Page 8 t�f Eller
<br />proposed billboards on the golf cours�. He stati
<br />minimum requirement, and in fact, tEa� �ast billbtl'
<br />proximity to the Sysco property lin�. II� stFji6;� i
<br />Sysco and DeLite Outdoor Adv�z�ising hav�� dr�a
<br />Plannin� �`qnr�mission at the�r �!1ar�h 15 mee�in�.
<br />re Planning
<br />a.t the golf
<br />,�r� �h�t the
<br />„�5�`;,��Ilows
<br />118:
<br />and c
<br />wta��� ;��e� �ab�t �;�:r.��ve in nature, that the
<br />nt=�al1 on, ��r��t�i��,i;i, �;ompliance with the
<br />ssibilii:y oi �? .�:�t��;����`: uote. He explained
<br />zi�a� Qn, hoivev�AS a�C�=i� as��allowed by the
<br />��r��yi��g, it, which i�> �!�'ne of the dif�icult
<br />_.
<br />'s ����e��j;��5a� ��tdicates the location of the
<br />spaci�a�; s1i�r�ily exceeds the 1,000-foot
<br />�ra proposed on this property is in very close
<br />{iis billbo��'c� would impact the application that
<br />de with'`the City, which would be before the
<br />Planni�xfu .A,s,U��,�,�a, �ricsor� stai�:d iltat if the sign locations are approved as proposed, Sysco
<br />would b� li,rz�i�;�,�� �c� �r�e billbo�r<� �r� �l��ir, property. He stated it appears there could be room to
<br />shift the sig��� �rt r1ic� �;�lr cours� �.���t���t�y; to allow for a second sign on the Sysco property,
<br />however, this;;�ossa���io�r �:i�5 noi y�f, b��m fully researched. He stated this was something that
<br />could be,e��:trrit�ed. '
<br />;.< .
<br />Commi�ssioner Hegland irxc�r�i�-�:r� if there was any language in the new ordinance that limits the
<br />d��tance a billboard can �e �l�t;cd, with respect to a property line. He stated this appeared to be
<br />�1��` issue with regard to ��sco, in terms of a conflict with the property line.
<br />ir�g Associate;;�:�'icson stated he was not aware of any provision that specifically addresses
<br />s'r�nc� Crc�m � property line. He noted there may be language in the Sign Code that indicates
<br />.��`?,r r��r�ir�ment, however, this would be no greater than 30 feet, if there was any reference,
<br />Commissioner Hegland stated it would appear language of this nature should be added, to prevent
<br />a conflict such as this.
<br />Commissioner Johnson agreed. He stated that if there was a restriction within 500 feet of an
<br />adjacent property line, they would not have this problem, however, this would probably result in
<br />
|