Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />February 16, 2000 <br />Page 24 <br />disruption to the wetlands. He stated he was not familiar with the additioYi�� ;��r�z�� s4�i�� this area, <br />f;;. <br />however, he would hope that the City would maintain a strong c�onc�rn for �t�E; �;°v�,�t��zc%s. <br />;:: <br />Chairperson Peterson inquired if in terms of the constructic3� �t�he Planni�g C��r���ii ;:�ic�r� should <br />take up the applicant's offer to make all of the signs of similar construction. '' <br />Commissioner Johnson pointed out that this requirement sl���€�.1�; �l,sa include any future �ig�s �y <br />- <br />other applicants. ;,, <br />Chairperson Peterson stated the sign locations were prr�bably +:i���, , <br />accessible sites on this property are limited. He stated he would no�: �r <br />course were to be expanded for another nine holes, i:l��; �i�;���� �x� i:his area w <br />because he did not know that there would be tha� 7�a�z��y �r}9�;��iial locatio <br />there was great concern about preserving v�rhat is tli����� a.��c� �Pc�r� hau <br />�;�:v.r <br />closely, he was not certain there was suffic���i�` area to ��parac�, �� <br />Chairperson Peterson stated they l <br />items in the staff report, pertaining <br />which it is proposed, and she beli <br />subjective opinions on th� p�rt o� <br />basis foi- ��tas without a �7i���»a�ty <br />subjec'r.iv��: �1�r,i,ion on tkt�;�3:�g°k p�°;; <br />them ��Y, cox�sxd�x��iion. <br />Commissio��ei� �c�hrrst�n inquire <br />new Hi�hwav 1t7. <br />hat the number of <br />7a�e that if the golf <br />� ���ve to be moved, <br />�r them. He stated <br />examined this very <br />l i:�;c;+�ived testu�ony from � resident who felt that one of the <br />� vr��d{;ther o�f`��t this use would tend to depreciate the area in <br />�c� i i�ati it ��uld affect=�;�ier property. He stated these were <br />af�', as vu�;ll a�, �h� �rs�perty owner, and they have no formal <br />alysis c���' .j�:,,fc;��r; �3C�' explained that there would likely be a <br />; City �t'����r��,ii, t�;hen the tabled resolution is brought before <br />nt's property was located on the opposite side of <br />i�sioner Kad�� ;�r��t�;ti 't}� believed all five residential properties were located on the <br />te side of the k�i���way .:°�Ie stated that in his opinion, the proposed signs are not as <br />ctive as a monopc��e s�gri, however, his main concern would be in terms of the lighting. He <br />i out that he has<�la-iven by the new theater, and these lights are on all night. He stated he <br />s:�;; <br />not want to liv,�;;t�'ext to this. <br />;;> <br />iss�oner �pl�nson stated the lights are not supposed to be directed onto the neighboring <br />ti�;� ��atrperson Peterson stated the light was visible as it reflects off of the atmosphere, <br />:�TF.n� there is fog, however, there should be no direct light leaving the site. <br />Commissioner Johnson stated he would be more concerned regarding the golf balls being hit into <br />the backyard, than the billboards. <br />Commissioner Stevenson inquired if this was a legitimate concern, in relationship to billboards. <br />