03-27-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council March 27, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 16 which necessitates a variance. He stated he has informed Mr. Coyle that the Planning Commission would act on the variance request with the design proposal before them, so that they could consider the proposed design and location of the signs. He explained that after the variance has been granted, the matter would then come before the Council, and at that point the Council could act upon the interim use permit. City Attorney Long stated when staff drafted this resolution, they were attempting to be accommodating to Sysco and DeLite Sign Company, to assure them that they were not being prevented from proceeding, however, the matter is not in proper form in terms of action at this time. He explained that the applicant should be comfortable with the design that is being required, and at this time, they are simply being referred to the design that has been proposed. He advised that as a condition of the interim use permit, the City could legally require that the applicant’s design proposal meets the same design criteria the City has imposed upon itself. He stated he believed the applicant should have the opportunity to put their proposal together, and bring that forward to the Planning Commission, and for this reason, he would recommend laying the matter over until Planning Commission action. Mayor Coughlin added that he and Council Member Quick attended the previous two meetings of the Planning Commission, and he is aware that the Planning Commission is attempting to accommodate Sysco’s request as much as possible. He indicated he would defer to legal opinion regarding the proper procedure, however, he would in no way desire to delay this process. He indicated it was to the benefit of both the applicant and the City to have this matter resolved as quickly as possible. Paul Radamacher, representative of DeLite Outdoor Advertising stated the second sign they are proposing would be located in their parking lot, and this is the reason they are proposing a different type of a structure. He explained that there would be safety concerns with regard to the truck traffic circulation on the parking lot, if they were to construct the large monument style sign such as the type of sign approved for the golf course. He stated in his understanding, the Planning Commission felt the monopole design would be acceptable, as long as there was some type of wrap that was aesthetically complimentary to the golf course signs. He explained that although it is in a very simply frame, their proposal indicates the sign with a brick wraparound on the pole, which could match the color of the signs on the golf course property. He indicated the primary reason for the differing design is the use of the Sysco property versus the use of the golf course property. He added that all other conditions are acceptable from their perspective. There was no further public input. Council Member Stigney stated the representation in Exhibit B is somewhat different than Exhibit A for the golf course. He explained that Exhibit B eliminates the tower and the soft lighting on the left-hand side of the sign, and he was not certain if this was intentional or not. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff had taken some creative liberties in terms creating this image. He explained that this is not to indicate that the tower would not be required, however, staff was attempting to address what would be reasonable in terms of being similar with the style and design. He indicated that if the Council would like to see exactly the same type of design style, they could certainly specify this, and staff had merely presented this as one option.