Laserfiche WebLink
�- . - . - -,�..n.�t •--.� .. . =--- -�_�_� {:�.�- --- �'�_..� � f.� ._.,�,_�. . !.._:'_,. _ "3'.��` . .� - I=z_F <br />� • <br />Mounds View Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />March 1, 2000 <br />Page 8 <br />Chairperson Peterson stated the language indicates "Billboards must be at 1 <br />Spacing between signs shall be measured by projecting the nearest point <br />property line of the right-of-way from which they are intend�d; �, be r��+ <br />distance in a straight line from the projected points." He sta,�e�' fhe besi a <br />work out an arrangement between the two applicants tci allow for �1I <br />accomplish this through a variance. He explained that tlz� details co:uld '1 <br />Council leveL <br />Commissioner Miller pointed out that the Planning C; <br />Chairperson Peterson indicated either body could consider <br />Commissioner Stevenson advised staff that the Planni�i�y; �ommissi <br />fifth stipulation, as suggested by Planning Associate ��€€����`a. <br />Commissioner Berke stated he agreed. He i��;,patiec� �h�, �F,. ��i ?�a..��T. <br />the Cit as S sco is the tax a er. :`�-`�" <br />Y, Y P Y ,�,� <br />Commissioner Laube stated he wou <br />Council approval of the current apjil <br />order to avoid any misunderstand�t <br />language �houlc� be addeci io th� ��s <br />next st�� ���. �s�1� ��rocess. <br />..�� <br />�y �� .�` <br />��:: :. <br />ke to see,.���t this <br />,� . <br />tnn, x�,�;�� €�l�ss of � <br />on ti�c; ���+r � of �itl <br />ast 1,000 �eet apart. <br />oi 'r11�;; ��i�ns fio the <br />���c� m�asuring the <br />�rc������ �j;,���a1d be to <br />^i�i�s. 5if;t��, ;�,nd io <br />r r�PC�i'ia�i���c� :�:the:. <br />grant the variance. <br />('' like to include the <br />xld be on the part of <br />natt'�r is completely resolved prior to <br />h�t�ier or not this results in a delay, in <br />����of the applicants. He advised that <br />this situation be resolved prior to the <br />Comrr�r':;z a�����;���� ���f�,�remsor� g-��h�z-�.'r.� �� �:�a?� �� would like to see both applications submitted to the <br />State si�a>>�� „=�.�r����;f ���; ��������a���� �����}., ��F would not care to see Sysco's two signs denied <br />because tf�� �;��,,� �,��`1}1����a�icJ� �/i�v�� ������'������°„��iously allowed six signs in the same general vicinity, <br />and he would,�i���f �� ,�� �� �:h��< 9;he Sys�� �a�plica.tion receive the same priority as the City's. <br />�7 <br />if he could foresee a problem in this regard. <br />�'Coyle stated he did 7�t�t �-Ie explained that the fact that they were attempting to proceed on a <br />,:>:>; <br />�ctive and cooperat��'�: basis was sufficient from Sysco's standpoint. He indicated both parties <br />,:;; <br />� basically on the,;,��ine time line, and it would be his hope that before the City Council takes <br />r����, �h� parties '�?Vriuld know precisely what MnDot's answer would be, and that the final <br />���<T?l on. t�� ��(f course request would include that final decision. He explained that if they <br />: <br />, ,. <br />�; x�.s�� z�����t��d to make that decision because the outcome as it relates to Sysco is unknown, <br />�� ������ c��fer action until the outcome is known, and then they could proceed simultaneously. <br />_ ✓., <br />Commissioner Johnson inquired if Mr. Coyle could foresee a problem in terms of constructing a <br />monument style sign rather than a monopole structure on the Sysco property. Mr. Coyle stated <br />he did, because of the parking lot encroachment issue. <br />