Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />Mounds V�ew Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />February 16, 2000 <br />Page 20 <br />Commissioner Stevenson stated this could be the responsibility of the C�'r.?�' <br />Planning Commission could leave this open, and simply indicate that their r�c�r <br />consideration be made that Sysco be allowed to have two billbaa�t�s on their ��t �� <br />Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the criteria th�y �nJ�i.�lcl use for t.�e nu <br />allowed on the property. He stated this issue should be r-�:sc���T�:�l, in sQ��'manne <br />and the <br />on is that <br />Chairperson Peterson stated the Planning Commissioa� �z-��v�c�t�sly recommended against <br />billboards, nevertheless, the ordinances now allow them, �i��x�i:����, 'r.���; Commission now must <br />examine this matter from a different perspective. He stated. if t������ s�i� ;��»'�blem with regard to <br />placing the signs, the applicant should have an oppor�unit}� io ��:solvc:� �6kz�s, pr�or to taking any <br />action, otherwise, this matter may proceed too quic;,l�l��. ���: 9ta�Fd in lu� ��i��'ic7��,'Sysco has been <br />unfairly penalized in the past, with regard to the u�ili'ry ��;t,' ��� ��oini�d o��i 1.���7"� Sysco has been a <br />very good corporate citizen, and although he do�s not lil�� billUo%i��r1,s, a.r�d probably would not like <br />the billboards on the Sysco property, all partzes must be irra'r.��� i'ai�-1y, ; <br />Commissioner Johnson stated it goes <br />1,000 feet, because they would not' <br />with this requirement, even if they,;' <br />Commission should make a recoriime <br />Commi5sit�,����� �tevensor� M4�•(��I €�a�; <br />nresent�cE_ �z� a.xt�i�;h a �-ec��x�l�.��.c;�d�t;` <br />made by �y�t:a zc�� ���� billb <br />next <br />nnvssioner Laube <br />ilution that they a; <br />City Council at thf <br />� <br />stec± <br />to the <br />ere 500 <br />�ation iY <br />'estion of th� ininimum spacing requirement of <br />oom to �ut`two billboards on their property, <br />away fr��lii one property line. He stated the <br />��e�,7ard,; and the other points brought forward. <br />two possib}� 'actions would be to table the resolution as <br />>rl i o the resolution indicating that an application has been <br />�i�y�K �roperty, and that the proposed locations be revisited. <br />c� the resolution and take the matter up again at the <br />��a.��y should table this resolution, direct staff to prepare a new <br />�s amended, pursuant to the current discussion, and provide this to <br />meeting. <br />_ <br />�}�a�rperson Peterso;� stated it appeared to be the consensus of the Commission that this item be <br />k�c>;t��a��ec� ��Y�t�l iheir�next meeting, at which time, the two applicants may have determined some <br />�i���.�?.� i� ac�o�r�modate their purposes. He stated they should include a recommendation in the <br />r��c����i��ar�. �i�ai: '+_ndicates that the applicants should retain control over the content of the signs, as <br />per th� Iease agreements. He indicated they should also recommend the Council address the issue <br />of sign construction, to make the monopole signs for the westernmost billboards more compatible <br />to the other billboards. <br />Commissioner Johnson stated there should also be standards that relate to the appearance of the <br />billboards as well, and that the brick design be continued throughout all of the billboards. <br />