|
' _ �;` r ' � ,
<br />�, t - �
<br />_ � - : �! -� �� ' '� ` , � � � -�-; .
<br />�>���.�%��,j� 1i.:4"�r'`.!i%'��/.i.:,r, r�/�, 5/ ��riY/.iii�/:!i ��'y�'ir3 Y�ar-s''i:
<br />-- - - - _-_: _ — '� -Y-�--_- �•.- � _ - -. _"! •_=--- - ' "�'
<br />Mounds View Planning Commission
<br />Regular Meeting
<br />March 15, 2000
<br />Page 7
<br />.,...
<br />Commissioner Hegland stated he was convinced that Sysco was willing to make th���igns as
<br />; � .<;
<br />aesthetically pleasing as possible, and had no concerns in this regard. He i�t�ica9 e��.tb+ere were
<br /><, :;.
<br />concerns with regard to the property line issue, however, he b.,elieved th� ;ag���at'ion far the
<br />y.,:�..
<br />variance should be Sysco's responsibility. i;;�;; �;.
<br />, , ,f�.�
<br />� .���.% , !
<br />Chairperson Peterson stated it was the general consens, � ��� 4:he Comrru���on ��+r�;.' � .q;?�rf , t��
<br />, ,;
<br />aesthetically complementary, and that staff should wox-�� wzth th�;,�,pplicant p�; �,r;z;;��,j����:
<br />something to this effect. He stated he did not believe it w�� ��x� �h�� �ysco must bea� �+�� �����m���;�
<br />of applying for the variance, however, there was ar� '�a���a��-����a, �►a�-�iship in terms +:y�' �oih
<br />applications.
<br />Commissioner Berke stated he believed that the applica,tio�t "for the ��
<br />responsibility, however, he would be agreeable tc� �>� �.�aiing a v
<br />application is approved at this time, to ensure that this -;���';tE��� d,a�; c�one.
<br />ihe applicants was required to lose a sign, it shoult� b� �ra� '�:;i��.
<br />�;>,;,��.
<br />Commissioner Miller pointed out that the �xty's 1,OOQw�"aoi s���.��r�,� ��
<br />��' , .,,
<br />foot State requirement, which would alsa � a consid�ration in ��z-.���r�; �
<br />Mr. Coyle stated they were not
<br />they would prefer not to be left
<br />after havin�, already been b�fe�.re
<br />avnlicatriot�, :�-�c; sueeesr�;�F ;�ti:
<br />He inr�i�
<br />variar�c�
<br />their ap�
<br />issue.
<br />�l
<br />ov�rn
<br />�on Peterson 4�F €� ��
<br />Commission �oa �;�
<br />be the City's
<br />>co, if there
<br />that if one of
<br />�irement exceeds the 500-
<br />granting the variance.
<br />ap�� to b�:��� required tfl' apply for the variance however
<br />;�s�: � � ,
<br />�mg, az��c� h��� �+rPd to �ndergo a second application process,
<br />Commi�,����+� ������: s��t an indirect basis, in terms of the City's
<br />nning C:�����ag�.�;�����a����fl-ovide a recommendation to the City
<br />d; zn co;�j����,�ion wi�h the approval of the interim use permit.
<br />i� 6���� to go back through the process again, when the
<br />f���'4� property. He explained that Sysco was able to satisfy
<br />��,:�j ��owever, the adjacent City property was creating the
<br />h� variance request was anticipated to come back before the
<br />�ion, or if this would be resolved at the City Council level.
<br />ning Associate EriC�;;�n advised that according to the City Code, the Planning Commission is
<br />,�::«j.
<br />ir�d to review t��%'variance request, and public hearing notification must be published and
<br />�s�
<br />i��c� to resid.�;�5 within 350 feet of the proposed site. He stated staff appreciates the
<br />r;�A���' ,<_;; ;rKA�iion, however, they must comply with the public hearing and public noticing
<br />��-�y��5� ���.,� ��� �:he variance request.
<br />�;hair��;��or� Peterson stated that given this, the next step in the process would 6e for the applicant
<br />to apply for a variance, which would then come to the Planning Commission for consideration at
<br />their next meeting on April 5. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He noted there
<br />would be sufficient time prior to the next meeting to provide proper notification and publication
<br />of the public hearing.
<br />
|