|
. _ . . _ _ - — . . c� �- � :i.s ' i�� — =�y....�� -i ..
<br />, 1 ..__—_' .. �....�...-_.'__— __ '_'� _"�ri�.; __ -..—�. .— "__'1"'__._ ' '. _ ' ` " �
<br />Mounds View Planning Commission
<br />Regular Meeting
<br />Commissioner Johnson pointed out that if the spacing requirement was de
<br />sign could be shifted 50 feet or more in either direction. Mr. .;Coyle it
<br />willing to consider this, and would do their best to cooperate with;;�he City
<br />::,<,.f<.:; ;. .
<br />Commissioner Laube inquired if the construction materials;;�a'r a
<br />more consistent with the materials used on the goif cov� ��� IVI�-
<br />discuss this matter with City staff. He pointed out that � R<. ���ar��
<br />because it would depend upon the location of the signs.
<br />Commissioner Hegland advised that the Commission shc
<br />the adjacent property lines. He indicated that as a Cc
<br />recommend changes to the Code to address problems ( i��
<br />they should have a 250 foot limit between the pro��Y`f �f ''
<br />any adjacent property is provided the same righ� �:.����i
<br />comply with the 500-foot MnDOT spacm� �: e quirem.�
<br />proposal with the exception of the first sigt�� n the go1�" �
<br />the Sysco property. He pointed out that.i;�'�ysco on�yf�a
<br />. sz e .z �.ii
<br />to decrease the sign spacing distanc��tiq �00 feet���iowe
<br />and all of the criteria would fit £t�r �e eight �r�;ns.
<br />consider examining the Code to a�t�:ntl it accox �����1y.
<br />Chair��r
<br />that ai `'������°c �;
<br />signs w�u@r� ��>
<br />the exce�,�ioc1'
<br />Code woul �
<br />�:.
<br />,,:�.
<br />.. . . ,.;!;<
<br />1 �'
<br />�
<br />He
<br />March 1, 2000
<br />Page 9
<br />to S<4t'� �'eet, the
<br />t��v�would be
<br />„^-, �:��aalr_� b�
<br />not co
<br />c�E�t� �: �f��. �r���► location relative to
<br />�io�rr, ii. �a��; 'g�`i�i� responsibility to
<br />�nd thr� ��ras � �p�•oblem. He stated
<br />ic� �ny sig►-� ��aat'�s iristalled, so that
<br />�#:,�,� . He expl�ined that this would
<br />?�� v�.f�ulc? g�ot change the present
<br />,, �x�f� �o�i�;ibly the adjacent sign on
<br />� ���� ��� zrontage, they would have
<br />�at would appear to be a solution,
<br />:tiposed the Planning Commission
<br />�n nos��� +��.��� ��aP site ma�,� ���� ���`�y ��dicates the location of the proposed signs,
<br />two ���i�i����� ���Y�� invol�t��a, ��iich are for the golf course, itself. He advised
<br />a 250�%a�� �.��o�,s�t €;,� li��� d�sca.rice spacing requirement, the locations of these
<br />�`; a,problem. ��� °�,���Ek�Ya�c� that as the Code is written, these proposals fit, with
<br />��; �a�,, tha� cou?�� ���' ��°� �:�F.�ed with a variance. He explained that amending the
<br />r� ���:�.��_�r��;��; clnfl y �,t�4;�=;A, ��nd he was not certain that creating a property line
<br />•:�:£�
<br />,.::...
<br />niissioner Johnson s���� �� had considered this as well, and did not believe this constituted a
<br />ge in the Code, be�iiuse_there was very little possibility that additional billboards would be
<br />osed, except possib��� to the north of the City's first sign, on the border of Mounds View and
<br />�;;��a,�ry�r;i�n�� �t�'venson indicated the permits would only be specific to this area, therefore, he
<br />a��i ���.,+; ,�������� �a problem in this regard. He stated that in terms of the 250-foot property line
<br />y�,���,�a�`'s��a, �1i� intent of the original spacing requirement was to address residential properties,
<br />�nd '��ii� Y�quirement should remain in place, to insure that the signs do not infringe upon
<br />residential property owners. He pointed out that this was a specific case, and they should not
<br />interfere with the City Code, they must simply decide whether or not to allow this specific use.
<br />Commissioner Laube pointed out that with the hards}up presented in terms of Sysco's parking lot,
<br />a variance would come into play, regardless. He explained that even if they utilized a 250-foot
<br />
|