02-16-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 17 Commissioner Stevenson suggested the Commission send this item back to the Council, to see if the location of the most westerly sign could be examined, with the awareness that the Sysco application has now come forward. He stated it might be possible to adjust the six locations slightly, because there are greater than 1,000 lineal feet between them. He pointed out that the matter may come back to the Planning Commission with information that due to the wetlands or other issues, the sign in closest proximity to Sysco could not be relocated, however, he would like to know if this is possible. Commissioner Johnson stated he would like to see a standard set with regard to the billboard design as well. He explained that this is the only place in the City where billboards will ever be installed, therefore, they should set a standard to indicate that the rest of the billboards be similar to the first four that have been presented. Commissioner Hegland inquired if the Sysco billboards would be subject to a sunset clause as well. Commissioner Kaden stated the City ordinance contains the fifteen-year sunset clause. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He explained that the sunset clause applies to the billboards on the golf course, as well as the billboards that would be located on the Sysco property. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if either of the billboards on Sysco property would be informational billboards pertaining to this company. Planning Associate Ericson stated it was his understanding that these would be standard outdoor advertising signs. Commissioner Hegland inquired who would be responsible for removing the signs, after the fifteen-year period. Planning Associate Ericson stated the City Council would probably review the matter, and take the necessary steps to ensure an orderly removal, within a couple of years of the sunset date. Commissioner Kaden inquired if there was any language in the ordinance relating to the content of the signs. He stated he had not been aware that the ordinance would allow other signs than those on the golf course, and during previous discussions, a question was brought forward with regard to the necessity to include language pertaining to objectionable advertising. Planning Associate Ericson stated the ordinance regulating billboards could not dictate the content that appears on the billboards, as this would be a violation of First Amendment rights. He stated that being that the City is the property owner of the proposed billboards, the City has the ability to dictate the type of content allowed on the signs, through the lease agreement, however, the ordinance can not impose these types of requirements.