|
.;- ._ a , _
<br />:,��-_ _ .. . . .� :: _ _
<br />.. . . , c � :._:.._ -- -� -� ��__._a��. _`= -� ,
<br />Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000
<br />Regular Meeting Page 10
<br />property line spacing distance, it would not affect this specific proposal,
<br />be granted for the parking lot, which would move the sign closer to the
<br />Commissioner Johnson indicated that if they moved the first
<br />located on the curve, and Eller Media would probably noi �
<br />Planning Associate Ericson advised that with the addrtio�; :
<br />foot setback from the property line, Sysco's second �i;;�.
<br />parking lot, as it is currently proposed to be 150 feet off of
<br />the Planning Commission would be looking at an ordinan�
<br />Code, in terms of re-addressing the Conditional Use Per�
<br />therefore, this language would come before them a�ain. �Ie
<br />make a change, or to recommend to the Council t�t.��, ��°,��
<br />point. �,. .
<br />Commissioner Hegland stated the Sysco prQposal had �c�c y�
<br />,•.: �
<br />signs would be subject to the 15-year dura"�on as wel:;;f�'Planr
<br />;•:��:
<br />,.:;;:
<br />correct. He explained this was the m��ii�um durati#�n of this
<br />I�� SP�x�J� ' ��� �
<br />Planning Associate Ericson sugg�st�d lang����.��� with reg�r
<br />"The City shall work in com��,a�ctic�ri with I)� �.::�g:� ��x�tdt�or A
<br />signage, a�€� �lus shall b� ��F��-;�,n��i�ed prior tc: ;:t.ca�;�g���,� �,ction
<br />ifthis �an�t��� reflected���i�� 9�1�t���� Comrn+.��>� ���'c� in'r.ent.
<br />�
<br />neca�as� a
<br />�rop���y 1i�.
<br />sigt� ;?.;�0 �'�
<br />er. ii] �i:�ll2b�
<br />would
<br />�,vould be
<br />'f?A���;ua�� :requiring a Yninir�A�z:a,g � s�•=.
<br />'r,J��y,��t� �a.v� to be install�cl �i� K;��;ig•
<br />�� :aa, ;��x���r�y line. He indicated that
<br />��ii-=� �-��;�.�-� �tio this Section of the
<br />�� vvi�t� �:����r���a �.J�� �'ermit language,
<br />�x��l�inec� �ha� �i �llcr°� was a desire to
<br />�g�;� 1�e� rmac�e, i� c��.21u b� done at that
<br />d, and inquired if these
<br />Ericson stated this was
<br />�' to the fifth stipulation as follows:
<br />dvertising to ma�mize the proposed
<br />regarding this request." He inquired
<br />Commissi���� 1������c�� ;a��r��o�.A�c� �i ��c�>s���?���rl 606-00 should indicate that this is to be an interim
<br />use. Planrni��;'�' j�;fi��;����� �?�-icson';.������b'���i�`��as correct. He pointed out that this terminology is
<br />not clearly ��.�4;€£��� ��.� �.�,�; c��ation o1 ��.j�; ;cr:�olution, however, it has been incorporated in the first
<br />tc[S7L7�DL� 1k CS:��'� " .. :.,.
<br />Cor�ttriissioner Miller ir�qu��� :�° this should also be clarified in the title. Planning Associate
<br />.�t<:,:,
<br />��i�'son suggested the tt�� be `amended to indicate ". .. a resolution recommending approval of an
<br />'�����rim Use Permit to ��i'stall six outdoor advertising signs on Bridges Golf Course Property,"
<br />r�.:�
<br />��r��i�h would clarify that they are referring to the Interim Use Permit.
<br />::
<br />/�r
<br />, ,;:
<br />�,,
<br />�i=�,����ce+:��lc�ne�;: �1i�ter noted that the third "WHEREAS" of the resolution refers to the
<br />','��a.�:a��r�a��� ���creation and Preservation Zoning District, however, the ordinance refers to the
<br />��,x�3rs,�, �:�*�;�liti�� Zoning District.
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He explained that the current zoning of the
<br />property is Conservancy, Recreation and Preservation, and the next item on the agenda is the
<br />proposed rezoning of the golf course, to make all parcels representative of the Public Facilities
<br />Zoning District. He stated this action was intended to occur in the past, however, had not been
<br />
|