02-16-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 23 Planning Associate Ericson stated the City would sit down with Sysco representatives and examine this issue. Commissioner Stevenson stated the second item was in regard to the design of the signs. Commissioner Hegland stated this should be related to any type of plan to expand the golf course. Commissioner Laube explained that the golf course expansion has not been researched in terms of the wetlands or the other considerations. He stated all of the signs should be of consistent design. Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that he, Mr. Seipp, and Chairperson Peterson had attempted to research the possibility of the last nine holes of the golf course, as members of the Golf Course Task Force, and advised that this expansion may never occur. He stated in light of this, none of the current consideration should be tied in with the golf course expansion. Mr. Seipp stated in his recollection, the primary concern with regard to the golf course expansion was the wetlands, adding that this was Sysco’s reason for dedicating almost 40 acres to the City, and requested this property remain in the park system. He added that this was also the reason they had considered so many different designs, in order to construct the golf course with the least disruption to the wetlands. He stated he was not familiar with the additional plans for this area, however, he would hope that the City would maintain a strong concern for the wetlands. Chairperson Peterson inquired if in terms of the construction, the Planning Commission should take up the applicant’s offer to make all of the signs of similar construction. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that this requirement should also include any future signs by other applicants. Chairperson Peterson stated the sign locations were probably fixed, in that the numbers of accessible sites on this property are limited. He stated he would not anticipate that if the golf course were to be expanded for another nine holes, the signs in this area would have to be moved, because he did not know that there would be that many potential locations for them. He stated there was great concern about preserving what is there, and after having examined this very closely, he was not certain there was sufficient area to expand. Chairperson Peterson stated they had received testimony from a resident who felt that one of the items in the staff report, pertaining to whether or not this use would tend to depreciate the area in which it is proposed, and she believed that it would affect her property. He stated these were subjective opinions on the part of staff, as well as the property owner, and they have no formal basis for this without a property analysis or study. He explained that there would likely be a