03-15-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 Commissioner Johnson indicated that if Sysco’s trucks were parked against the second monopole, this would prevent a complete wrap-around design, and all they could do is put some type of brick in front of the sign. Commissioner Laube stated they could camouflage the pole by utilizing an imitation brick wrap-around material. Commissioner Hegland stated he was convinced that Sysco was willing to make the signs as aesthetically pleasing as possible, and had no concerns in this regard. He indicated there were concerns with regard to the property line issue, however, he believed the application for the variance should be Sysco’s responsibility. Chairperson Peterson stated it was the general consensus of the Commission that the signs be aesthetically complementary, and that staff should work with the applicant to accomplish something to this effect. He stated he did not believe it was fair that Sysco must bear the burden of applying for the variance, however, there was an apparent hardship in terms of both applications. Commissioner Berke stated he believed that the application for the variance should be the City’s responsibility, however, he would be agreeable to granting a variance to Sysco, if their application is approved at this time, to ensure that this would be done. He explained that if one of the applicants was required to lose a sign, it should be the City. Commissioner Miller pointed out that the City’s 1,000-foot spacing requirement exceeds the 500-foot State requirement, which would also be a consideration in terms of granting the variance. Mr. Coyle stated they were not opposed to being required to apply for the variance, however, they would prefer not to be left hanging, and required to undergo a second application process, after having already been before the Commission twice on an indirect basis, in terms of the City’s application. He suggested the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to the City Council that the variance be approved; in conjunction with the approval of the interim use permit. He indicated they would prefer not to have to go back through the process again, when the variance could be achieved on the City’s property. He explained that Sysco was able to satisfy their application on their own property; however, the adjacent City property was creating the issue. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the variance request was anticipated to come back before the Planning Commission for consideration, or if this would be resolved at the City Council level. Planning Associate Ericson advised that according to the City Code, the Planning Commission is required to review the variance request, and public hearing notification must be published and provided to residents within 350 feet of the proposed site. He stated staff appreciates the applicant’s suggestion, however, they must comply with the public hearing and public noticing requirements of the variance request.