03-01-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 Commissioner Laube pointed out that with the hardship presented in terms of Sysco’s parking lot, a variance would come into play, regardless. He explained that even if they utilized a 250- foot property line spacing distance, it would not affect this specific proposal, because a variance would be granted for the parking lot, which would move the sign closer to the property line. Commissioner Johnson indicated that if they moved the first golf course sign 250 feet, it would be located on the curve, and Eller Media would probably not wish to consider installing it. Planning Associate Ericson advised that with the addition of language requiring a minimum 250- foot setback from the property line, Sysco’s second sign would have to be installed in their parking lot, as it is currently proposed to be 150 feet off of their property line. He indicated that the Planning Commission would be looking at an ordinance with regard to this Section of the Code, in terms of re-addressing the Conditional Use Permit with Interim Use Permit language, therefore, this language would come before them again. He explained that if there was a desire to make a change, or to recommend to the Council that a change be made, it could be done at that point. Commissioner Hegland stated the Sysco proposal had not yet come forward, and inquired if these signs would be subject to the 15-year duration as well. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He explained this was the maximum duration of this use. Planning Associate Ericson suggested language with regard to the fifth stipulation as follows: “The City shall work in conjunction with DeLite Outdoor Advertising to maximize the proposed signage, and this shall be determined prior to Council action regarding this request.” He inquired if this language reflected the Planning Commission’s intent. Commissioner Miller inquired if Resolution 606-00 should indicate that this is to be an interim use. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He pointed out that this terminology is not clearly stated in the caption of the resolution, however, it has been incorporated in the first “WHEREAS.” Commissioner Miller inquired if this should also be clarified in the title. Planning Associate Ericson suggested the title be amended to indicate “…a resolution recommending approval of an Interim Use Permit to install six outdoor advertising signs on Bridges Golf Course Property,” which would clarify that they are referring to the Interim Use Permit. Commissioner Miller noted that the third “WHEREAS” of the resolution refers to the Conservancy Recreation and Preservation Zoning District, however, the ordinance refers to the Public Facilities Zoning District. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He explained that the current zoning of the property is Conservancy, Recreation and Preservation, and the next item on the agenda is the proposed rezoning of the golf course, to make all parcels representative of the Public Facilities