02-16-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 Chairperson Peterson stated there might be site limitations on the Sysco property as well. He advised that a property line setback restriction would not necessarily assist in resolving this issue. Ms. Olsen inquired if the Planning Commission was to deny the permit request at this time, could the City Council overturn that decision. Chairperson Peterson advised that the City Council is the only body that can enact an ordinance that allows such a thing as this. He explained that this is a request for a conditional use permit, and the Planning Commission could only make a recommendation in this regard He advised that the City Council would take the formal action on this matter. Ms. Olsen inquired if the City Council would make their decision regardless of the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Chairperson Peterson stated he could not say what the Council would do, however, the City Council is the body that formally makes the decision. He added that the Planning Commission is required to review all of the items, and any additional information available, and make their recommendation based upon this. Ms. Olsen inquired if any studies had been done to support the statement that this proposal would have no adverse affect on any of the five adjacent property owners. Planning Associate Ericson explained this was a judgement call, and a subjective response to the belief that it would not have an adverse affect on these properties. He stated staff had not solicited studies from other groups, however, they could probably find some studies that would support this claim, and others that would negate it. Community Development Director Jopke stated much of this determination was based upon the distance of these properties from the subject site, and the fact that they are separated from the golf course by the roadway. Commissioner Kaden inquired if there was a light on top of the billboards. Michael Cronin, representative of Eller Outdoor Advertising stated this was correct. He indicated this was a non-directional, very frosted light. He pointed out that it was very dark on this side of the freeway, and the intent of this light was to add a little more element to the structure. He stated that if this was an issue, the lights could be shut off with no detriment to the billboards. Chairperson Peterson inquired if they were proposing illuminated lights, which would probably not have much, if any effect. Mr. Cronin stated this was correct, the signs would be illuminated with soft light, to balance the sign face with the sign structure. He stated the light on top of the billboard was a diffused, truly decorative light.