My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-16-2000
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
02-16-2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2018 8:27:42 AM
Creation date
8/28/2018 8:27:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Minutes
GOVBOARD
Planning Commission
DOCTYPE
minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 25 <br /> <br /> <br />however, by leaving it open ended, the Planning Commission would allow the Council to <br />determine the means to accomplish this. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland inquired if they had language to indicate that Sysco’s signs should match <br />the signs that have been presented. Commissioner Stevenson stated this should be addressed at <br />the time the Sysco application comes forward. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland pointed out that they were requesting Sysco and the City to work out the <br />property line issue, therefore, it would appear to be appropriate to provide a recommendation in <br />this regard at this time as well. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller stated it would not be necessary to require the signs be identical. <br />Commissioner Hegland stated they should be complimentary. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stevenson stated these signs are not before the Planning Commission at this time. <br />Chairperson Peterson added that there is not even a formal application at this time. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stevenson stated the Commission members all appeared to be in agreement that <br />something should be included pertaining to the content of the signs. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson stated this language could indicate, “It is the Planning Commission’s <br />recommendation that the property owners add a clause to their lease agreement stating that they <br />retain the right to remove objectionable signage.” He pointed out that if both property owners <br />could retain that right, this was probably the best that could be expected. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson stated the time to make this recommendation would be when Sysco <br />comes before the Planning Commission with their proposal. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson stated that even if there are legal reasons this is not addressed in the <br />ordinance, it could be added to the lease agreement. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson inquired if the Planning Commission was recommending that a <br />resolution be drafted, or that staff simply sit down with the Council and provide a report on the <br />Planning Commission’s recommendations with regard to these items. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stevenson stated this would be appropriate, adding that staff should convey the <br />Commission’s reason for tabling this item, which essentially is that they are not ready to vote on <br />the matter at this time, because of these issues. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson provided a summary of the items that the Planning Commission <br />would like to have addressed with the Council. He stated the first item pertains to the spacing of <br />signs with relationship to the Sysco property, the second item is that all signs be of similar
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.