|
-= .�
<br />- :, , r _ . __ _
<br />_ _ _ _ ' . s----.. . >.,� ,� .—
<br />. --
<br />I l.,____•--__•L`3�_ �_ h .__ �___ �__ .—_ _ d. _' __. _ __.
<br />Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000
<br />Regular Meeting Page 5
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stated he did not believe so. He indicated Su�e�'�ritendent
<br />Hammerschmidt has been quite involved with the examination of the dim�ris�t�ns �nd the sign
<br />spacing, and it was believed that these discussions would take pl�:��.;v�ithin t�t� �k��>� ��w days.
<br />Mr. Coyle stated they had hoped there would be a meetin�
<br />Paul Radamacher, a representative of DeLite Outdoor I1
<br />previous week, and this has been the primary obstacle in z�
<br />contact with City staff and the City Attorney on several �
<br />good desire on the part of the City to resolve the issues,
<br />been practically worked out.
<br />,�i'�f%�
<br />V;
<br />i��i:i�thatas�`
<br />Mr. Coyle indicated their fundamental concern at this �
<br />this process, they do not wish to be the ones wk�
<br />variance. He stated it would be logical for th���il�F
<br />,.
<br />decisions regarding the sign facings made up-<�'Cint, �
<br />position of having to achieve the relatively�cult van
<br />Mr. Coyle advised that the City's 1
<br />requirement, therefore, there may �
<br />explained that one option would �.b,�
<br />,<
<br />case the �.ppaic�tion presently be�`c�r+
<br />1,OOO�fo�� �,���a�;�ng betw�:��:. ���:��° ����
<br />proce�cl. ����:� '��., two . .
<br />basis. `
<br />Mr. Coyle
<br />northeast lo
<br />that the a��i
<br />`' e�
<br />iacing issue. II�
<br />ement. He expl�
<br />provide a solutio
<br />� and also res�`�
<br />' i. <;
<br />iliti�s on the::sl��:
<br />o apply
<br />the Cox
<br />posed ��
<br />which
<br />;r in the w��' �� ���i<�����.c? �hat
<br />ising hat� tinder�on�; �v� �;e�� rf �}�c,
<br />,a�d �e indicated he fi�� �� ;�� az�
<br />�;����, and was satisfied tiES;F ►s �
<br />:���€�r, �i. Yhis point, they hav�; rioi
<br />�T�`; `g y �%0111E; �`
<br />� ��������� �z,��plicanl
<br />� ���a.� u��;a�,���g of
<br />;e �g�'��ad�iz€�
<br />�c �l��operty owner in
<br />Y �i�� City seeking a
<br />�tiempt to have the
<br />applicants are in the
<br />"� requii ert��;nt is well in excess of MnDOT's
<br />with re�:`�1 to the spacing of the signs. He
<br />, <;.
<br />an int�tTor lot spacing requirement, in which
<br />�� 5;��3�Icl be in compliance, because there is a
<br />��; i�ic�icated this would also allow Sysco to
<br />;o �paced 1,000 feet apart, on an interior lot
<br />rh ��,�����:�i���� ���d�'� 1,400 feet between the first sign on the furthest
<br />,i� �;o�_xr��, #;� ��n� �ign located around the curb, and it was conceivable
<br /><,������r�ent across those signs would be 1,000 feet, notwithstanding the
<br />� a��; �xplained that this presents another potential means to resolve
<br />��� s,ti�� � another option would be to decrease the 1,000-foot spacing
<br />3 t�at although this would probably require a Code amendment, this
<br />' it would allow the City to achieve the locations proposed for the golf
<br />Sysco's preferred locations, which are necessary for its operational
<br />�r�J�. ��;ti��r��; ��tat+�i� as the Commission was aware, Sysco is a good neighbor to the community, and
<br />���r a,,- r��� �a �. 'is to cooperate with the City in this matter, and they anticipate that with further
<br />ui;�cuy��or�, %�ds would be the case. He indicated it was their hope that if the Commission took any
<br />action on the application before them at that time, they would request the Council not take any
<br />action relative to the golf course that would put the Sysco property at a disadvantage under the
<br />Code.
<br />
|