|
' . - � ,;u;
<br />Mounds View Planning Commission
<br />Regular Meeting
<br />! _ F:_ _
<br />u�,-- ,��r,6yra _ - _.
<br />March 15, 2000
<br />Page S
<br />would be willing to work with City staff to attempt to obtain an appropriate design. He �ointed
<br />out that this represents an additional cost to them, however, they understand the sentimen���of the
<br />Planning Commission. t�;::, ,<,�,�`��-3�>'
<br />� ::�
<br />;;_.
<br />;,
<br />Mr. Coyle stated the primary issue is the variance, in that ' �``"
<br />burden to satisfy this requirement, and particularly so,
<br />acknowledges the potential that the interim use permit mig
<br />He explained that if this were the case, Sysco would h
<br />property, however, the City would have all six it has prop;
<br />be the proper outcome. He stated they would argue thai: �
<br />one sign location if necessary, in order to achieve the spacir
<br />taxpayer. He indicated they had no problem with the other
<br />report. �;;}
<br />Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the exact ���<��nr���E;�, ��
<br />Coyle stated their billboards were 1,000 feet apat°t� �-�r���f n x�
<br />City Code. He pointed out that the sout h�.,�tlrriost �arT�;�� `�
<br />billboard create the conflict. ���"�� , .
<br />Chairperson Peterson indicated
<br />comment.
<br />There was no public input.
<br />a
<br />ld be their
<br />thc :,'i:>�'i'�";
<br />be gran��d u" ���,n tt;'�� ��"��ncil.
<br />with ;ci1�� one l�i1l���,�,�-�� �,A� �g�
<br />✓hi��t �hey do not L,r;t�� �;r� �;i���a���.;
<br />�; ;.��ovlc.� be prepared �.� �;����; i�.j�
<br />� � �p,��;r�t� of the private �roperty
<br />3"R� �k3�������s �ei forth in the staff
<br />w�en �ysG��', �;��s���billboards. Mr.
<br />� LA��: spac�n�, requirement of the
<br />��an �r=-� �3 �� n.d ,the northernmost City
<br />�nd opened the floor for public
<br />Commi��;��t���e��� .i��l�inson �fl����;������� ��"�;�� first sigr��c�� cfie� golf course was located as far to the east as
<br />possibl�. �' ��,�����s��; ������a���z �;�r���,��� stated this was correct. He explained that this sign
<br />maintaiY�� �"�,�ri�€��,����€: 5��a�-atic�� ��•s��rg �B�A�; �econd sign, which was situated as far over as possible
<br />without b�ix�n, ��� ,e.�r�. ��:� �<:�Y-�eti. "
<br />Commiss��iner 1tiJiZ�c� i��aa���� �pvv it viwas determined that Sysco request a variance, rather than
<br />the�� "�:'�Planning ��yc��°a��,�Y ���:��Y�n stated the City Attorney has indicated that this was the more
<br />ap�xbpriate manner in ��1����.�> �� i�� oceed. He pointed out that while there were two sides to this
<br />, >,..
<br />}s�t+e, and a case could b� macie that either party should bear the burden of obtaining the variance,
<br />tl�� majority of staff '_ � the City Attorney were uncomfortable with the concept of the City
<br />, ,, .
<br />�� � r� �: � rng itself a vari��, m terms of how this might be perceived by the general public. Staff has
<br />r�������:��rriended that�`��sco apply for the variance. He pointed out, however, the resolution could
<br />���f"���r����:n�� � x� i}ie Planning Commission so desires.
<br />�` '���r�o3��-��u��1�A� �tevenson inquired if there was a point on the Sysco property where their second
<br />sign could be located that would not impede truck traffic. Mr. Coyle stated in his understanding,
<br />in addition to the parking area, there is a stormwater retention pond in that corner of the property
<br />that prevents them from shifting this location any further.
<br />�
<br />
|