03-01-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 Chairperson Peterson stated the language indicates “Billboards must be at least 1,000 feet apart. Spacing between signs shall be measured by projecting the nearest points of the signs to the property line of the right-of-way from which they are intended to be read, and measuring the distance in a straight line from the projected points.” He stated the best approach would be to work out an arrangement between the two applicants to allow for all eight signs, and to accomplish this through a variance. He explained that the details could be determined at the Council level. Commissioner Miller pointed out that the Planning Commission would grant the variance. Chairperson Peterson indicated either body could consider this matter. Commissioner Stevenson advised staff that the Planning Commission would like to include the fifth stipulation regarding the City and Sysco working in cooperation, as suggested by Planning Associate Ericson. Commissioner Berke stated he agreed. He indicated the loss of any sign should be on the part of the City, as Sysco is the taxpayer. Commissioner Laube stated he would like to see that this matter is completely resolved prior to Council approval of the current application, regardless of whether or not this results in a delay, in order to avoid any misunderstandings on the part of either of the applicants. He advised that language should be added to the resolution to indicate that this situation be resolved prior to the next step in the process. Commissioner Stevenson reiterated that he would like to see both applications submitted to the State simultaneously. He explained that he would not care to see Sysco’s two signs denied because the City of Mounds View was previously allowed six signs in the same general vicinity, and he would like to see that the Sysco application receive the same priority as the City’s. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Coyle if he could foresee a problem in this regard. Mr. Coyle stated he did not. He explained that the fact that they were attempting to proceed on a collective and cooperative basis was sufficient from Sysco’s standpoint. He indicated both parties were basically on the same time line, and it would be his hope that before the City Council takes action, the parties would know precisely what MnDot’s answer would be, and that the final approval on the golf course request would include that final decision. He explained that if they were not prepared to make that decision because the outcome as it relates to Sysco is unknown, they could defer action until the outcome is known, and then they could proceed simultaneously. Commissioner Johnson inquired if Mr. Coyle could foresee a problem in terms of constructing a monument style sign rather than a monopole structure on the Sysco property. Mr. Coyle stated he did, because of the parking lot encroachment issue.