2000 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

� r Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2000 Page 12 that is would still have to be 500 feet from that property line, however, i�' ��z�y ;.��r:; losing one sign, there should be sufficient room for this. :� i:?%3 C?� : .b Commissioner Stevenson commented that rather than losing � st�n, the City �iov�t� pz�t�b��ly place them closer together. He inquired at what distance frorri tl��^ �p�operty I�rtes'the i�wo'�a��b��:1� on the Sysco property could be placed, and still meet the 1,OOQ��c��a'� s��ci��g requirem�n�. Mr. Seipp stated the frontage of this property was betwee� �,.'>��) �i�r1 1,300 feet, therefore, both signs would have to be within 100 to 150 feet from either Ic�p 1i�ic:, :��c' ��tc�icaied that almost any restriction from the property line would limit Sysco to one �gn. �• Chairperson Peterson stated there might be site li advised that a property line setback restriction wra►�� Ms. Olsen inquired if the Planning Commiss�;pn was the City Council overturn that decision. <:;;� . �:<? <: z` �;`, ' ` ::.: Chairperson Peterson advised that tk�� City Co�nc�t'1 that allows such a thing as this. �� explainec� thai and the Planning Commission cauid' only mal�c �. re the City �t��t��cil would tal�� i�� c�rmal actio� c��z ihi _ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ r��. the �ysc�a �r�p�r`ty as welL He �� -ily �ssist i� r�solving this issue, uest at this time, could is the orz�y'body that can enact an ordinance this is, �. .request for a conditional use permit, :orri.r�i��clation in this regard He advised that Ms. C�is�A� iz�r�t�rk��:�l if tl_�e �;��y �`c�«n�il would make their decision regardless of the Planning Commissio�'� ��;r•�rz�rner�c��tion, '`'i��i�-��-son Peterson stated he could not say what the Council would do, l�o�nr��r��; ��t� Ciiy Counr,i� �,,` �1�� ody that formally makes the decision. He added that the Plannin� �c�z��,'i 3U�c�ca :is recfuir�d �o � eview all of the items, and any additional information available,•��id i�»ke`��f;�z Ai;��r�mendation based upon this. _ _ _ 7lsen inquired if �n� st�ad�c�s �iad been done to support the statement that this proposal would no adverse affect o�. �n� of'the five adjacent property owners. __.. �'��nning Associate Exx�son explained this was a judgement call, and a subjective response to the Uc1�cf that it would k��ve an adverse affect on these properties. He stated staff had not solicited 6atl�rii��,from c�tl�er groups, however, they could probably find some studies that would support �.li�� °��izn, ��r1 citi�ers that would negate it. �o�n�riuriity Y�evelopment Director Jopke stated much of this determination was based upon the distance of these properties from the subject site, and the fact that they are separated from the golf course by the roadway. Commissioner Kaden inquired if there was a light on top of the billboards.