03-15-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 in addition to the parking area, there is a stormwater retention pond in that corner of the property that prevents them from shifting this location any further. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the parking lot was directly adjacent to the stormwater holding pond. Mr. Coyle indicated this was correct. Chairperson Peterson indicated the entrance driveway and the parking lot are in very close proximity to the edge of the property. He stated the Commission had previously discussed the possibility of monument style billboards on the Sysco property, however, he had not seen the letter indicating there was insufficient room for this. Mr. Coyle stated the letter was sent two weeks prior. Chairperson Peterson stated the requirement that the billboards be aesthetically complementary was somewhat vague. Planning Associate Ericson stated this language was drafted specifically to provide some ambiguity as to what is aesthetically complementary. He explained that the intent of this stipulation was that something be done, which the applicant has indicated is the case, however, the Commission might wish to be more specific in this regard. Commissioner Miller pointed out that the Commission previously determined that the billboards did not need to be identical. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if this matter would come back before the Planning Commission, at the design stage. Planning Associate Ericson advised that it would not. Commissioner Berke indicated he would prefer to see some type of stone structure, rather than a steel pole. Commissioner Johnson advised that at minimum, there should be something of this nature in front of the signs. Commissioner Johnson indicated at the time the Planning Commission tabled the City’s billboard interim use permit, there was to be discussion between the City and Sysco to resolve the issues, before the item came back before the Planning Commission, however, the burden of applying for the variance is now being pushed back onto Sysco. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the City’s argument for this was related to timing, in that the City’s application was submitted prior to Sysco’s. Planning Associate Ericson stated he did not believe this was the case. Commissioner Laube inquired if the variance request would come before the Planning Commission or the City Council for consideration. Chairperson Peterson explained that either body could grant a variance. Commissioner Miller inquired if Sysco would be able to meet the criteria the Planning Commission must consider in granting a variance. Commissioner Laube stated they would have to provide evidence of a hardship.