|
_ µ _ �`
<br />!:— ;i ,:
<br />�
<br />------ . -- -- • =-- - .. - __�. _ ^ �
<br />- -- ---- - ---Y=
<br />, -- - - -- =--� "
<br />I
<br />Mounds View Planning Commission
<br />Regular Meeting
<br />March 1, 2000
<br />Page 4
<br />sign location because the overpass would block any view from the north. He'�xplain�
<br />could move approximately 40 to 50 feet from the property line, whicla `��rc�ui.t�.
<br />acceptable location for a two way sign, however, there would only'be 500 tc� �f?C� f��� i
<br />�
<br />signs. He pointed out that with the 1,000-foot spacing requi�`emeii'£; one o�i:h� ���,�Ii;
<br />have to either obtain a variance, or lose a sign. He advise�" i�a� State Codc; ca1l� i�i��
<br />minimum spacing between signs, therefore, Sysco coulc�; ��tali a sigr� xri this lac';�a.
<br />obtained a variance, for which they would have to show a k������t-i�p, g�r�i'ich may ��:.i ;i
<br />their internal traffic circulation.
<br />Superintendent Hammerschmidt indicated another factor th�� "��;� �,��x��
<br />the initial consideration of the signs, one of the pnmary�; �nfk,�a� 4,�4;���s �
<br />of%ring something unique. He stated they were pa-oposzn� thi�� ��� �}�e; �;c
<br />they would like to obtain some agreement for s�m�i�•;i r��..;��;��,;,na� �i�c tw�
<br />Sysco property. However, it would be very di����l.; '��� rF �t �;�,d !:� ��-o��id
<br />facing. He explained that the monument styl� �fg7i` ii1�y� ���>�:; ��������c�ui,��,� fa
<br />cut approximately 50 feet into the property; �nd thi� ���,LS�r�. ���. ����lxi���tii
<br />would have to be constructed within the e�,i�tin� parl�� ar�a.
<br />Chairperson Peterson inquired
<br />westernmost site proposed on th�
<br />Superint�ttc��za� riamme
<br />He expl�in�� s��at this
<br />excavat�, , <�r�;b � ����;-�, c
<br />converu�nt. �,�-� ka������� �ac;�
<br />Peter Co�le, x��r•���;��__<
<br />has been. s��irrutted �rc ���
<br />l:: '�':`
<br />Sysco property. k ��
<br />H�a�xrierschmidt elude�
<br />tla�;'<'sign and to allow ��
<br />��€;� �ome before the Pla
<br />,;.
<br />��� � rnit process is pe.t�t�i
<br />,� ' � i�'
<br />ativ'm i�z C�ISCUSS10T1 �:;-�%'
<br />�I�''�„�i�
<br />�t they
<br />ide an
<br />;en the
<br />would
<br />��£oot
<br />nto play is that during
<br />�� �lesigrn, in terms of
<br />(i` r;���.�,:,� property, and
<br />�gi��d��s ��� oposed for the
<br />; +l�c-: s�rne type of sign
<br />tiie golf course would
<br />� for Sysco, if the sign
<br />ibility � and ground conditions of the
<br />z cours�;. •,.�
<br />,���.- .
<br />,%,
<br />;ated th��.A;� ��J������ �O'e hydrological studies of the entire area.
<br />upland, F����� �y��� bermed up at the time the drainage was
<br />be fairly easy. He noted that it would be much more
<br />�y��,ca,property, and this might be worked out at some point.
<br />�� x ����i�� ��atdoor Advertising and Sysco Foods stated a set of plans
<br />�,� x��t reflect ihe monopole structures that would be proposed for the
<br />���a�,r,�;;.�hat those signs reflect the comments that Superintendent
<br />������i is the need to ensure there is clear space under the bottom of
<br />��uility of trucks in the parking area. He stated these plans have not
<br />; Commission, in terms of a formal review, however, the Interim Use
<br />He advised that the design of the signs was an issue that required
<br />x��
<br />�;'t����fr=i.;; ��,r� ,s; i 7ohnson inquired if they were proposing a monopole structure, rather than a
<br />������t�� _:=: ��: ��z�le sign. Mr. Coyle stated this was correct, adding that they have no other option,
<br />given il�e layout of the Sysco property.
<br />Commissioner Berke inquired if there had been any discussion between Sysco and the City since
<br />the last meeting of the Planning Commission.
<br />
|