Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-16-2000 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting February 16, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m., February 16, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Johnson, Kaden, Laube, Miller, and Stevenson. Members Absent: Commissioner Braathen, leave of absence. Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Rick Jopke, Council Liaison Lynn Thomason, and Recorder Trish Pearson. Index to Minutes Page Consideration of Resolution 604-00, a Resolution Adopting the Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws as Revised at the February 2, 2000 Meeting. 2 Consideration of Resolution 605-00, a Resolution Recommending City Council Approval of the Updated Comprehensive Plan. 2 Planning Case No. CU-00001, Bridges Golf Course. Conditional Use Permit for Installation of Six Billboards. City of Mounds View: Applicant. 4 Staff Reports / Items of Information 27 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 28 3. Citizens’ Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Approval of Minutes A. January 19, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Laube. To approve the January 19, 2000 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 The motion carried. 5. Consideration of Resolution 604-00, a Resolution Adopting the Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws as Revised at the February 2, 2000 Meeting. Planning Associate Ericson stated Resolution 604-00 formally adopts the changes the Planning Commission made to the Bylaws, as discussed at their last regular meeting. He advised that according to the Bylaws, when any changes are made, they must be approved by resolution, after which, the Bylaws are forwarded to the City Council for their review. He indicated that staff has attached Exhibit A to the resolution, which is a copy of the Bylaws with a revision date of February 2, 2000. Chairperson Peterson pointed out that one item discussed at the previous meeting was the addition of the word “the” in the last sentence of Section 4, Subsection a, on Page 1, which should indicate “…for the purpose,” however, this change had not been made. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff would make this correction. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Kaden. To Approve Mounds View Planning Commission Resolution No. 604-00, a Resolution Adopting the Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws as Revised at the February 2, 2000 Meeting. Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 6. Consideration of Resolution 605-00, a Resolution Recommending City Council Approval of the Updated Comprehensive Plan. Community Development Director Jopke stated a public hearing was held on February 9, 2000, for the updated Comprehensive Plan. He indicated no public comments were received at that time, and staff has received no comments since that meeting. Community Development Director Jopke stated staff has prepared Resolution 605-00 for the Planning Commission’s consideration, which is a resolution recommending City Council Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 approval of the updated Comprehensive Plan. He stated this is the next appropriate step in this process, and following this, the Council will be asked to accept the Comprehensive Plan, and authorize staff to forward the document to the Metropolitan Council for their review. He explained that this review could take up to 60 days, after which, the Comprehensive Plan will be returned to the City, and any amendments required at that point would be made. He indicated the City Council would then hold a public hearing, and formally adopt the Comprehensive Plan. Community Development Director Jopke stated staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Resolution 605-00. Chairperson Peterson opened the floor for public comment regarding the Comprehensive Plan. Julie Olsen, 2663 Lake Court Circle inquired if the public hearing to be held after the Comprehensive Plan is returned to the City Council would be a noticed and published hearing. Community Development Director Jopke stated this was correct. Chairperson Peterson added that the previous public hearing was published through all of the normal channels, and beyond these, in an attempt to collect as much input as possible, however, no public comment was provided, at all. He pointed out that Ms. Olsen’s was the first feedback received pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan, and extended his appreciation in this regard. Ms. Olsen indicated she had input to provide, however, had been previously predisposed. She stated she would comment on the matter when it goes before the City Council, with hopes that this would provide her sufficient time to review the matter. Chairperson Peterson stated staff would continue to accept comments regarding any of the items in the Comprehensive Plan in the interim. Community Development Director Jopke stated this was correct. He indicated that if there are any comments, even after the document is forwarded to the Metropolitan Council, staff will accept those, and they will be considered as part of the City Council review. Commissioner Miller stated she had noted some discrepancies in the Comprehensive Plan with regard to page numbers, and matters of this nature. She inquired regarding the proper forum for addressing this. Community Development Director Jopke explained that during the preparation of the document, staff had experienced some computer difficulties, however, he believed those have all been corrected at this time. He stated he has reviewed the plan several times to insure this, and believes that the page number issue has been resolved. He provided Commissioner Miller with the corrected copy of the Comprehensive Plan for her review. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Chairperson Peterson stated copies of all of the maps, and other related items are posted on the walls of Council Chambers at City Hall, and various smaller copies of the maps are available, if residents would care to come to City Hall and pick them up. He reiterated that although this matter was proceeding to the next step in the process, any input was welcome, and any questions relating to the policies or planning items would be addressed. Chairperson Peterson asked Commissioner Stevenson if he found the changes in terminology pertaining to the trailways to be acceptable. Commissioner Stevenson stated they were, and extended his appreciation to Community Development Director Jopke for his efforts in this regard. He stated the language “future paved off-street,” was a more accurate representation of the paved trailway proposed along Highway 10, and he was agreeable to the amended reference to “County Highway 10.” He stated he found this revised terminology to be much more acceptable. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To Approve Mounds View Planning Commission Resolution No. 605-00, a Resolution Recommending to the City Council Approval of the Updated Comprehensive Plan, as Amended. Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 The motion carried. Community Development Director Jopke extended his appreciation to the Planning Commission for their hard work and the time they invested in this consideration. The Commission reciprocated. 7. Planning Case No. CU-00001 Property Involved: Bridges Golf Course. Conditional Use Permit for Installation of Six Billboards. Applicant: City of Mounds View Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: This item relates to billboards on the Bridges Golf Course and is the consideration of Resolution 606-00, a resolution approving six outdoor advertising signs on golf course property. Planning Associate Ericson stated on December 13, 1999, the City Council adopted Ordinance 644, which amended the City Code to allow for billboards and other advertising signs as a conditional use in the City, on properties located north of Highway 10, and west of Interstate 35W. He stated there are only a few properties in this area, one of which is the golf course property, and others, which comprise Sysco Foods. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 Planning Associate Ericson provided an overview of the general requirements of the ordinance pertaining to billboards. He indicated billboards must be located at least 250 feet from residentially zoned property, the minimum spacing between billboards is 1,000 feet, the maximum sign area shall be no more than 700 square feet per side, and the maximum height of the sign would be 35 feet. He stated a copy of this ordinance has been provided to the Planning Commission for reference. Planning Associate Ericson advised that Eller Media has presented the City with a proposal for billboards on the golf course site, and has provided renderings of the signs for the Commission’s review. He indicated these renderings were an accurate representation of what was being proposed at this time. He stated Eller Media was proposing six signs, which are all of a similar nature. He pointed out that these are not the typical type of billboard, and very dissimilar to the standard single-pole, metallic type billboards normally seen. He explained that the proposed billboards were designed to be more environmentally friendly, and to fit into the environment of the golf course. Planning Associate Ericson commented that all parties had been very clear in their sentiments regarding billboards, in that they are not desired or wanted, however, they are viewed as a necessary means to assist with the generation of finances at the golf course. He explained that this is the reason the City is considering this proposal. Planning Associate Ericson stated the City Council approved a resolution that authorizes this venture with Eller Media, and authorizes the application for the Interim Use Permit. He stated at their last meeting, the City Council adopted Ordinance 637, which added language into the Zoning Code allowing for billboards in the Public Facilities and Conservancy Recreational, and Preservation Zoning Districts. He advised that this is an interim use, and some language in the Code would require to be amended to reflect this. He provided the Commission with a revised resolution, which changes the wording from “Conditional Use” to “Interim Use.” He explained that this is considered an interim use because there is an associated time line, which is a fifteen- year period, after which, the permits will expire. He advised that a conditional use does not expire, therefore, the City Attorney has assisted in the drafting of this language, and has recommended the term “Interim Use” be utilized. Planning Associate Ericson indicated that Ordinance 644 directs staff to review the interim use of the billboard against the standards and criteria set forth for a conditional use, in that there are both adverse affects criteria, and general conditional use criteria which must be examined. Planning Associate Ericson stated there were five adverse affects criteria for Planning Commission consideration. He indicated one of these criteria is the relationship of the use to the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the City’s Comprehensive Plan does not address billboards, therefore, there is no inconsistency in this regard. He advised that with regard to the geographical area involved, this is the area on which the billboards would be located on the golf Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 course property. He explained that there are five residential properties located approximately 260 feet from the golf course, on the south side of new Highway 10, and the billboards will be visible from these properties. Planning Associate Ericson indicated the third criteria are whether such a use will tend to depreciate the area in which it is proposed. He stated it is not believed that the siting of billboards on the golf course property would be a detriment to the property value of the golf course. He added that it is not believed that the placement and installation of these billboards would have a negative impact on the properties located south of Highway 10. Planning Associate Ericson explained that with regard to the character of the surrounding area, the golf course is a commercial type operation. He stated there are some open space, wetlands, and wooded area. He stated the area to the north of the golf course is Sysco Foods, which is more of an industrial type operation, and the properties to the north of the golf course are all industrial. He stated the fifth criteria for consideration is with regard to a demonstrated need for such use. He pointed out that it has been fairly clear, as to why there is a need for the billboards. Planning Associate Ericson stated there are eight general conditional use criteria for Planning Commission consideration. He explained that the use must not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, and public facilities, and billboards would not. He stated the use must be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening, from adjacent residentially zoned properties. He indicated there are no residentially zoned properties adjacent to the proposed site. He pointed out that there are properties located south of Highway 10, which are separated by a distance of at least 265 feet, and possibly more, depending upon the exact location of the billboards in relationship to the property lines on the golf course. He advised that this is an interpretive issue, and staff believes there would not be any adverse affect on those properties. Planning Associate Ericson explained that another criteria specifies that the use in the opinion of the Council is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use, which has been clearly stated. He stated the use must be consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the Zoning District. He explained that with the passing of Ordinance 644 in December, and Ordinance 637 the previous Monday, billboards would be a use consistent with the Zoning Code. Planning Associate Ericson advised that this use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and would not cause traffic hazards or congestion. He indicated the last requirement specifies that adequate utilities, access, drainage, and necessary facilities will be provided, or are provided, and that is the case. Planning Associate Ericson stated that in consideration of these findings, staff believes that the installation of billboards on the golf course property would not have an adverse effect on the golf course property or other properties in the surrounding area, and would be consistent with the City Code. He stated staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 606-00, Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 which has been revised to reflect the new language pertaining to interim uses. He explained that there is one stipulation, which indicates that if the billboard vendor is unable to obtain a permit from MNDot, the permit issued by the City would become null and void. He noted that staff was not aware if MNDot would approve these permits. Chairperson Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Berke indicated the Planning Commission had previously voted unanimously in opposition to this entire consideration. He stated the City Council had voted in favor of the matter, and inquired why they were not taking the responsibility for this decision, but rather, directing it back to the Planning Commission. Planning Associate Ericson explained that the Planning Commission is required to provide a recommendation on any specific land use planning case, such as conditional use permits, zoning permits, and any items of this nature. He pointed out that the Commission may very well make the same recommendation as they previously provided, however, they are required by their Bylaws to make a recommendation on all such planning cases. Jonelle Anderson, 2341 Laport Drive stated her home was one of the five houses located to the south of the golf course. She stated she was concerned that her property value would decrease as a result of this proposal. She explained that no one would want to purchase a house that has a billboard visible from its back window. She commented that she would not, and the Commissioners probably would not, either. Ms. Anderson stated she was also concerned with regard to golf balls in her yard. She stated she has complained about this every year, and is consistently informed that if golf balls are in her yard, they are being intentionally hit there. She inquired what would prevent people from hitting the golf balls onto the billboards, and causing even more problems. Ms. Anderson stated now that the highway has gone through, there is apparently sufficient traffic to accommodate such advertising. She inquired in light of this, why the residents have no sound barrier in front of their properties, along the side of the road. Chairperson Peterson stated the City has requested a sound barrier in this area for many years, however, they have always been turned down. He explained that MNDot has indicated legal technicalities, in that they have not actually modified that section of the Highway, therefore, they are not required to build a sound wall. Ms. Anderson stated this area has certainly been affected by the other modifications to this highway. Chairperson Peterson agreed. He stated he believed there has been some change in thinking at the State level, and it is possible that a sound wall may be constructed at some point in the future. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 Community Development Director Jopke stated Director of Public Works Ulrich has researched this matter. He indicated the State’s response is that this section of roadway does not appear in their long-range plan, however, they have agreed to perform some noise monitoring in the spring, when the traffic levels have stabilized, and based upon those studies, a sound barrier may be incorporated into the plan. He pointed out that they were clear that this would be a long- range improvement, if it occurs at all. He stated the City Council is interested in this issue, and in their discussion of goals for the City it has been brought forward. He advised that the City Council would continue to encourage the State to move forward in this regard, adding that language has been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, which acknowledges that this is an issue that should be addressed. Phil Seipp, representative of Sysco Foods stated they were in a slightly different situation than the golf course, and were not before the Planning Commission to object to the billboard proposal. He indicated their situation differed in that they have approximately 1,200 to 1,300 feet that abuts new Highway 10, there is a sound barrier that insulates the residential properties across the highway from their property, and their property is commercially zoned. Peter Coyle, representative of DeLite Outdoor Advertising stated they did not object to the golf course project that the City is pursuing, except in so far as the approval of this application could negatively affect the applications that are currently pending for the Sysco Foods site, which have been filed with the City on behalf of DeLite Outdoor Advertising. Mr. Coyle stated the City’s Ordinance, as approved, contains the 1,000 foot spacing requirement. He explained that if the six applications that are pending before the City are approved, and permits are issued, this would prohibit consideration of at least one of the two applications that Sysco has consented to have filed, with regard to its property. He indicated that to the extent that there are six billboards on the golf course property, rather than five, this application could prohibit consideration of the second site on the Sysco property. Mr. Coyle stated it was their understanding that the golf course does not require all six of the permits in order to achieve the financial objectives that have been set, however, Sysco’s fundamental objection relates to the spacing issue. He stated that if the City chooses to proceed with the six billboards, they would request that the City would process a variance to allow for the consideration and approval of the two Sysco applications, when they come before the City. Mr. Coyle reiterated they were aware that the City has its process underway, and they were not objecting to that process. He explained they were objecting, in as far as the spacing issue negatively affects Sysco, relative to the City, adding that this effectively puts them in competition for this somewhat scarce commodity. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the last billboard located on the City property would be the one conflicting with the spacing requirements. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 Mr. Coyle stated this was correct. He stated it was his understanding that it was the billboard located on the boundary that conflicts with their placement of two billboards on the Sysco property. He stated they were attempting to be respectful of the City’s desires as relates to their own project, however, it has a direct impact on this private company, which has made application that is pending with the City. He stated these proposed billboards were in compliance with the City Code, with the exception of those that are currently under consideration. Julie Olsen, 2363 Lake Court Circle stated it was unfortunate that the residents are not always aware of what is occurring, at the time it takes place. She stated she was concerned that if for some reason, the Planning Commission decided to vote in favor of this proposal, there could be many people who might believe they were in favor of the billboards all along. She stated she was aware this issue has been discussed for several months, and she understood the City Council’s statement regarding their reasoning for their decisions, however, she does not necessarily believe this is justifiable. She requested the Commission deny the permit, for the reasons apparent to the majority of them. Chairperson Peterson stated, with regard to the Planning Commission’s original decision, they had unanimously believed that the use of billboards in this situation was not appropriate. He pointed out however, the matter currently before the Planning Commission is somewhat different. He explained that the Planning Commission acts in two distinctly different roles. He stated the Planning Commission was previously acting in the role of a planning commission, considering future issues, and the broader scope of things. Chairperson Peterson pointed out that many of the other issues the Planning Commission considers are not dealt with in this manner, but rather, in their role as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. He explained that this is the official body that is comprised of the members of the Planning Commission who act upon variance requests, conditional use requests, and matters of this nature. He advised that this role consists of Code interpretation, and is less of a broad sweeping examination, but rather, a narrowly defined activity. He explained that in light of this, there is the potential for a different vote, or an appearance of inconsistency in their actions, based upon their capacity in these different roles of the Planning Commission. Planning Associate Ericson added that when this matter was initially brought before the Planning Commission, the question before them was with regard to their opinion of billboards at the golf course, and their overwhelming response was that they were opposed to that. He advised that the City Council approved an ordinance, which amended the City Code, and expressly allows billboards, under certain conditions, in the overlay district, north of Highway 118. He stated the role of the Planning Commission at this time, was to examine the City Code, and determine if the application before them complies with the Code. Planning Associate Ericson stated there are some issues, which are subjective in nature, that the Planning Commission has the ability to make a judgement call on, however, compliance with the Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 City Code must be examined, and there is always the possibility of a reverse vote. He explained that the Commission might not like an item they are voting on, however, if it is allowed by the City Code, oftentimes, they do not have the luxury of denying it, which is one of the difficult positions the Planning Commission faces. Planning Associate Ericson stated Page 8 of Eller Media’s proposal indicates the location of the proposed billboards on the golf course. He stated the spacing slightly exceeds the 1,000-foot minimum requirement, and in fact, the last billboard proposed on this property is in very close proximity to the Sysco property line. He stated this billboard would impact the application that Sysco and DeLite Outdoor Advertising have made with the City, which would be before the Planning Commission at their March 15 meeting. Planning Associate Ericson stated that if the sign locations are approved as proposed, Sysco would be limited to one billboard on their property. He stated it appears there could be room to shift the signs on the golf course property, to allow for a second sign on the Sysco property, however, this possibility has not yet been fully researched. He stated this was something that could be examined. Commissioner Hegland inquired if there was any language in the new ordinance that limits the distance a billboard can be placed, with respect to a property line. He stated this appeared to be the issue with regard to Sysco, in terms of a conflict with the property line. Planning Associate Ericson stated he was not aware of any provision that specifically addresses the distance from a property line. He noted there may be language in the Sign Code that indicates a specific requirement, however, this would be no greater than 30 feet, if there was any reference, at all. Commissioner Hegland stated it would appear language of this nature should be added, to prevent a conflict such as this. Commissioner Johnson agreed. He stated that if there was a restriction within 500 feet of an adjacent property line, they would not have this problem, however, this would probably result in the loss of one sign on the golf course. He suggested they require 500 feet on each side of the property line. He added that if Sysco was unable to place two billboards on their property as a result of this requirement, it would be unfortunate, however, it would be the same situation for the City. Commissioner Stevenson stated he would agree with this. He indicated however, the City Council has already overruled the Planning Commission with regard to the signs, and are proposing six billboards to generate revenue, which could be reduced to five, in order to allow Sysco to have two billboards. He stated the City would see no financial benefit from this, except through the permitting process, and would lose this income. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 11 Commissioner Berke stated he understood this, however, another consideration is that Sysco has been a good neighbor and a taxpayer in the City, and should be treated fairly. Commissioner Johnson advised that this would be equally fair to all parties. Commissioner Laube stated this Planning Commission should approach this situation in this manner. He pointed out that when a conditional use permit is granted, it affects all of the citizens, and this action would set precedence for the next proposal that comes forward. He stated the requirements that apply to the City are the same for Sysco, and now that Sysco has filed an application, and this conflict has arisen, it must be examined. He stated whatever means they utilize to resolve this must be consistent for all parties, and if they approve this matter, as proposed, they would not be able to do this. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that Sysco would then come before the City to request a variance. Commissioner Stevenson added that they might then have to consider a lesser spacing requirement. Commissioner Johnson reiterated that they could require the signs be set back 500 feet from the property lines. Commissioner Stevenson explained that they would not need to be this specific, because allowing the two Sysco billboards would not interfere with any other billboards. He stated Ordinance 644 and 637 are applicable only to this specific area, and these billboards. He indicated they would not have to amend the Code, but rather, could be very specific that the signs be 500 feet from the property lines, in this case. Chairperson Peterson stated a 500-foot property line distance restriction would effectively limit Sysco to only one sign, therefore, it would not necessarily assist in this situation. Commissioner Hegland pointed out that such a restriction would be consistent for everyone, in that the City would lose one billboard, as well. Chairperson Peterson stated the northernmost sign on the Interstate 35W corridor is outside of the City’s jurisdiction, in terms of the sign spacing requirement. Commissioner Hegland advised that is would still have to be 500 feet from that property line, however, if they were losing one sign, there should be sufficient room for this. Commissioner Stevenson commented that rather than losing a sign, the City would probably place them closer together. He inquired at what distance from the property lines the two billboards on the Sysco property could be placed, and still meet the 1,000-foot spacing requirement. Mr. Seipp stated the frontage of this property was between 1,200 and 1,300 feet, therefore, both signs would have to be within 100 to 150 feet from either lot line. He indicated that almost any restriction from the property line would limit Sysco to one sign. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 Chairperson Peterson stated there might be site limitations on the Sysco property as well. He advised that a property line setback restriction would not necessarily assist in resolving this issue. Ms. Olsen inquired if the Planning Commission was to deny the permit request at this time, could the City Council overturn that decision. Chairperson Peterson advised that the City Council is the only body that can enact an ordinance that allows such a thing as this. He explained that this is a request for a conditional use permit, and the Planning Commission could only make a recommendation in this regard He advised that the City Council would take the formal action on this matter. Ms. Olsen inquired if the City Council would make their decision regardless of the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Chairperson Peterson stated he could not say what the Council would do, however, the City Council is the body that formally makes the decision. He added that the Planning Commission is required to review all of the items, and any additional information available, and make their recommendation based upon this. Ms. Olsen inquired if any studies had been done to support the statement that this proposal would have no adverse affect on any of the five adjacent property owners. Planning Associate Ericson explained this was a judgement call, and a subjective response to the belief that it would not have an adverse affect on these properties. He stated staff had not solicited studies from other groups, however, they could probably find some studies that would support this claim, and others that would negate it. Community Development Director Jopke stated much of this determination was based upon the distance of these properties from the subject site, and the fact that they are separated from the golf course by the roadway. Commissioner Kaden inquired if there was a light on top of the billboards. Michael Cronin, representative of Eller Outdoor Advertising stated this was correct. He indicated this was a non-directional, very frosted light. He pointed out that it was very dark on this side of the freeway, and the intent of this light was to add a little more element to the structure. He stated that if this was an issue, the lights could be shut off with no detriment to the billboards. Chairperson Peterson inquired if they were proposing illuminated lights, which would probably not have much, if any effect. Mr. Cronin stated this was correct, the signs would be illuminated with soft light, to balance the sign face with the sign structure. He stated the light on top of the billboard was a diffused, truly decorative light. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 13 Commissioner Stevenson inquired who had determined the locations of the signs. Mr. Cronin stated the sign locations were chosen by the City. He stated he was not certain if these locations were set around certain features that the City desires to preserve around the golf course, or if they were selected because of the wetland on the western edge of the property. Mr. Cronin requested the Planning Commission approve staff’s recommendation, and allow them to proceed to the City Council, and begin to implement the decision the City made with the adoption of the ordinance. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the most westerly sign, in closest proximity to the Sysco property could not be moved 500 feet, because of the wetland. Chairperson Peterson advised that there are many lowlands on a portion of this property, and the sites may have been selected, because of their accessibility. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that as billboards go, the proposed billboards are very attractive. He inquired if the Commission should set a design standard that others would have to comply with, adding that the City requires developers to consider the design of existing structures. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the City Code does not contemplate the design of the billboards. Commissioner Johnson inquired if they could require the applicants to comply to a design standard, as with any other similar situation. Planning Associate Ericson stated they could attempt to. Planning Associate Ericson stated the locations of the proposed signs were selected with regard to the different features of the golf course, and the presence of the lowlands and wetlands in the northern area of the property, toward Sysco. He explained that there was some reason for choosing these particular sites, which is not to say there could not be alternative locations, however, these are the sites that the City and Golf Course Superintendent, John Hammerschmidt felt would be the best for the golf course. Commissioner Miller inquired if at the time the City decided upon a proposal for six billboards, there was any consideration regarding what Sysco might desire. Planning Associate Ericson stated there was not. He explained that Sysco applied for their permit the previous day, February 15, and at that time, the City had already made its application, and could not have known that Sysco would be making a similar application. He noted that the City was aware that this possibility existed, however, they set the sign locations prior to any knowledge of Sysco’s application. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 14 Commissioner Laube inquired if this had been done when the last ordinance was passed in favor of billboards, which would have been the first opportunity that Sysco had to apply for a permit. Planning Associate Ericson explained that the City has been discussing billboards for quite some time, and the ordinance that allows for billboards was adopted in December. Commissioner Laube inquired regarding the nature of the signs represented with blue dots on the site plan. Planning Associate Ericson stated these signs were for the golf course. Commissioner Laube inquired regarding the maximum square footage of these signs, and if they meet with the square footage requirements of the Public Facilities District. Planning Associate Ericson stated the maximum square footage was 340 square feet, and was similar to a B-3 use requirement. Commissioner Laube inquired if this exceeded the maximum square footage allowed in the City Code. Planning Associate Ericson stated the ordinance adopted by the Council allows for signage up to 340 square feet in the Public Facilities and the Conservancy, Recreational, and Preservation Zoning District. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if these signs would be consistent with the other billboards. Chairperson Peterson stated that according to the proposal, there was to be money set aside for the purpose of creating a sign design according to City standards, therefore, the City would chose what type of signs these would be. Mr. Cronin stated they have offered two images, and would work with the City to find an acceptable design. Chairperson Peterson stated that the proposal for the two most westerly signs to the edge of the wetland area indicates that they are initially to be constructed as standard monopole billboard structures, and the question of the construction materials of the signs is addressed in the proposal, by the applicant. He noted however, there was nothing in the ordinance that specifies the design of the signs. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. Commissioner Kaden inquired if notices of this hearing had been mailed to the affected residents. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 Planning Associate Ericson stated all properties within 350 feet of the golf course property were notified. Commissioner Kaden inquired if there were five of these properties. Planning Associate Ericson explained there are more than five properties, which include many City- owned properties on the south side of Highway 10, Sysco, and some properties north of the golf course, in Blaine, which were notified as well. He stated all properties within 350 feet of the subject site were notified. Ms. Olsen inquired if the five houses located to the south of the golf course were within 350 feet, and if they had all received notification. Planning Associate Ericson stated it was his understanding that notices were mailed to these residents. Ms. Olsen inquired if Eller Media has provided a cost estimate for the construction and installation of the two signs proposed for the golf course, itself. Planning Associate Ericson stated at this time, he did not believe anything specific had been decided, in terms of the type of City golf course signage that would be approved. He stated the golf course signs are not a part of this application, because they are allowed with the ordinance that was adopted the previous year. Chairperson Peterson pointed out that there was a connection between these two proposals in the sense that the financial offer that is made by this company helps the City toward the design and construction costs of the signs currently under consideration. Community Development Director Jopke stated with regard to whether or not the City Council could approve this item without a recommendation of the Planning Commission, Section 1125.01 of the ordinance indicates “The Planning Commission shall make a finding of fact and recommend such actions or conditions relating to the request, as it deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this title.” He advised that the following paragraph indicates “The City Council shall not grant a conditional use permit until it has received a report and recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City staff, or until 60 days after the first regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at which the request was considered.” He explained that according to the ordinance, the City Council could rule on a conditional use permit, after 60 days from the first Planning Commission consideration of the matter. Commissioner Stevenson stated page 5 of Eller Media’s proposal indicates the statement “We propose the two most westerly signs on the edge of the wetland area be originally constructed as standard monopole billboard structures, and then, be converted to this design when the golf Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 16 course is expanded.” He pointed out that for those fifteen years, the City could be looking at a skeleton, single-pole billboard, because the golf course expansion may not ever occur. He stated he did not see any nice designs for these monopole signs, although much time appears to have been spent on the construction design of the other four signs. Mr. Cronin stated they were simply unclear regarding the schedule anticipated for the golf course expansion, adding that it would be an appropriate recommendation of the Planning Commission to recommend that these signs match the others. He explained that this was not a requirement they would oppose. Arthur Dean, representative of Eller Media stated the original intent of the two poles was for construction and maintenance purposes, in that access to this area is somewhat difficult, and they where uncertain of the golf course expansion schedule. He indicated that if the City would like to have brick structures in this area, this could be done, however, they had proposed the single pole structures because of the wetland, and because they were uncertain if they would have to move. He stated they had not wanted to do this type of construction, and then have to relocate the structures for the expansion of the golf course, which would involve a great expense. He reiterated however, if the City would like to have brick structures in this area, this could be done. Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the State criteria for obtaining a permit to allow for the signs. Mr. Dean indicated the City’s criteria for billboards are more stringent than the State criteria. He commented they were confident the State would respond favorably in this regard. Chairperson Peterson stated one of the criteria of the State is that these signs be based in a commercial area. Mr. Dean stated this was correct, however, a precedent had already been set in another city, in a similar situation. Mr. Cronin added that the issue of the dual permitting is not a new issue to the Commission or the staff, and it is addressed in the resolution. He stated they believed that due to the unique nature of the Mounds View Public Facilities Zoning Code, as well as recent actions elsewhere in the Metropolitan area, they were confident they could obtain the necessary permits from the State. Commissioner Miller stated she was uncomfortable with a proposal for six signs, which may effectively cut Sysco out of the picture, although the City Council could overrule their decision in this regard. Commissioner Hegland advised that there should be some solution for the Sysco proposal regardless. He indicated the City could be faced with a request for variance, or some sort of ruling pertaining to the problem with the criteria, if they approve this item. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 17 Commissioner Stevenson suggested the Commission send this item back to the Council, to see if the location of the most westerly sign could be examined, with the awareness that the Sysco application has now come forward. He stated it might be possible to adjust the six locations slightly, because there are greater than 1,000 lineal feet between them. He pointed out that the matter may come back to the Planning Commission with information that due to the wetlands or other issues, the sign in closest proximity to Sysco could not be relocated, however, he would like to know if this is possible. Commissioner Johnson stated he would like to see a standard set with regard to the billboard design as well. He explained that this is the only place in the City where billboards will ever be installed, therefore, they should set a standard to indicate that the rest of the billboards be similar to the first four that have been presented. Commissioner Hegland inquired if the Sysco billboards would be subject to a sunset clause as well. Commissioner Kaden stated the City ordinance contains the fifteen-year sunset clause. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He explained that the sunset clause applies to the billboards on the golf course, as well as the billboards that would be located on the Sysco property. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if either of the billboards on Sysco property would be informational billboards pertaining to this company. Planning Associate Ericson stated it was his understanding that these would be standard outdoor advertising signs. Commissioner Hegland inquired who would be responsible for removing the signs, after the fifteen-year period. Planning Associate Ericson stated the City Council would probably review the matter, and take the necessary steps to ensure an orderly removal, within a couple of years of the sunset date. Commissioner Kaden inquired if there was any language in the ordinance relating to the content of the signs. He stated he had not been aware that the ordinance would allow other signs than those on the golf course, and during previous discussions, a question was brought forward with regard to the necessity to include language pertaining to objectionable advertising. Planning Associate Ericson stated the ordinance regulating billboards could not dictate the content that appears on the billboards, as this would be a violation of First Amendment rights. He stated that being that the City is the property owner of the proposed billboards, the City has the ability to dictate the type of content allowed on the signs, through the lease agreement, however, the ordinance can not impose these types of requirements. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 18 Chairperson Peterson indicated that Eller Media’s proposal indicates “Eller Media Company will prohibit the display of any advertising for political candidates, advertising promoting any editorial position, or advocating any changes in public policies or regulations, and the advertisement of any product or service whose purchase or use is restricted by the age of the purchase or user, with the sole exception of the advertisement of the Minnesota State Lottery, or an Indian operated casino. We have found this restriction eliminates almost all the potential sources of controversy arising from our advertising copy.” He stated that in his personal opinion, one of the more offensive of these types of advertising copy is that promoting gambling, which is specifically endorsed in this proposal. Commissioner Kaden agreed, adding that he found gambling to be just as offensive as cigarettes and alcohol, and if one is allowed, why not the other. Chairperson Peterson stated the lease agreement would allow the City to control the content of the signs that are located on City property. He stated he would assume that Sysco could also have that control, if they so desired. Commissioner Stevenson stated this would not need to be included in the resolution, however, the Planning Commission could forward their views to the City Council in a recommendation, requesting they incorporate more stringent controls in their lease agreement in terms of what type of content is permitted. Commissioner Stevenson stated he thought they should do this, because the matter is out of their hands once it is forwarded to the Council. Commissioner Miller agreed. She explained that at this time, they were actually making a recommendation as to whether or not this proposal meets with the Code, and she was not certain as far as the Code is concerned, if there was anything that would cause them to deny this request. Commissioner Laube stated the Commission should send this back with a recommendation that further work be done with regard to the Sysco consideration, because if it is not there could be a potential for variances and other problems. He indicated that before they make their decision, they should request the City Council and the Golf Course Committee attempt to determine if anything can be done about the sixth sign, and if they can work with Sysco, simply because they are a good partner with the City. He added it would be wise on behalf of the Planning Commission to send this back with this recommendation, prior to making any decision. Commissioner Miller inquired if they could forward this as a separate item, and not act upon this particular resolution. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was up to the discretion of the Planning Commission. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 19 Commissioner Kaden stated it would be more appropriate to table the resolution that is currently before the Commission, and forward a request that the Council attempt to resolve the issues with Sysco. Community Development Director Jopke stated this could be done, however, the Planning Commission’s recommendation could include a stipulation to this effect. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that the Planning Commission could table the item for 60 days. He stated if they approve this resolution, and forward it to the Council, the Council could change it, approve it, and that would be the final decision. He stated he would rather see the item tabled, and a separate recommendation forwarded to the Council. Commissioner Stevenson stated he did not believe they could vote on the matter at this time, without knowing if the issues that have come forward could be resolved. Commissioner Johnson stated the issues pertain to the appearance of the billboards, the spacing, and the Sysco proposal, which must be resolved before the Commission could vote on the matter. He inquired if staff could provide some language to this effect. Community Development Director Jopke suggested they stipulate that the billboards on the City property be located in such a manner as to allow two billboards on the Sysco property. Commissioner Miller pointed out that the Planning Commission could not necessarily approve the installation of six billboards. Commissioner Stevenson stated this could be the responsibility of the City Council, and the Planning Commission could leave this open, and simply indicate that their recommendation is that consideration be made that Sysco be allowed to have two billboards on their property. Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the criteria they would use for the number of billboards allowed on the property. He stated this issue should be resolved in some manner. Chairperson Peterson stated the Planning Commission previously recommended against billboards, nevertheless, the ordinances now allow them, therefore, the Commission now must examine this matter from a different perspective. He stated if there was a problem with regard to placing the signs, the applicant should have an opportunity to resolve this, prior to taking any action, otherwise, this matter may proceed too quickly. He stated in his opinion, Sysco has been unfairly penalized in the past, with regard to the utility tax. He pointed out that Sysco has been a very good corporate citizen, and although he does not like billboards, and probably would not like the billboards on the Sysco property, all parties must be treated fairly. Commissioner Johnson stated it goes back to the question of the minimum spacing requirement of 1,000 feet, because they would not have enough room to put two billboards on their property, Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 20 with this requirement, even if they were 500 feet away from one property line. He stated the Commission should make a recommendation in this regard, and the other points brought forward. Commissioner Stevenson stated the two possible actions would be to table the resolution as presented, or attach a recommendation to the resolution indicating that an application has been made by Sysco for two billboards on their property, and that the proposed locations be revisited. Commissioner Johnson suggested they table the resolution and take the matter up again at the next meeting. Commissioner Laube stated they should table this resolution, direct staff to prepare a new resolution that they agree to as amended, pursuant to the current discussion, and provide this to the City Council at their next meeting. Chairperson Peterson stated it appeared to be the consensus of the Commission that this item be postponed until their next meeting, at which time, the two applicants may have determined some means to accommodate their purposes. He stated they should include a recommendation in the resolution that indicates that the applicants should retain control over the content of the signs, as per the lease agreements. He indicated they should also recommend the Council address the issue of sign construction, to make the monopole signs for the westernmost billboards more compatible to the other billboards. Commissioner Johnson stated there should also be standards that relate to the appearance of the billboards as well, and that the brick design be continued throughout all of the billboards. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Berke. To Table Consideration of Resolution No. 606-00, Until the March 1, 2000 Meeting of the Planning Commission. Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 The motion carried. Chairperson Peterson summarized that they were left with the issues of placement, construction and content of the signs, as well as testimony from the audience member regarding a disagreement with staff’s conclusion that the property values would not be degraded. He stated these were issues for staff and the two applicants. He requested clarification regarding whether or not the City was applying for the permit on behalf of Eller Media. Community Development Director Jopke advised that the Interim Use Permit is issued to the City, as the property owner, and the City is the applicant. David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road stated he had attended the previous Council meeting. He indicated he had seen the Planning Commission meeting on television, and had seen that the Commission was about to table this item. He advised that at the Council meeting, Golf Course Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 21 Superintendent John Hammerschmidt had indicated that if this matter was delayed, the City would lose $800 per day, and he had wanted to make the Planning Commission aware of this. He stated he did not believe the item should be tabled, adding that he was uncertain why Mr. Hammerschmidt was not present, as he had indicated this was a very important issue. Commissioner Johnson stated he could understand the importance of $800 per day for the next 14 days, however, the City could be looking at these signs for the next 15 years. Mr. Jahnke stated this was correct, however, with this postponement, the item could be delayed for 60 days. Commissioner Johnson explained that the item had been tabled until the March 1 meeting of the Planning Commission. Mr. Jahnke stated he had simply wanted to inform the Commission regarding the apparent urgency of this matter. He explained that the bonds could not be paid on the golf course, which he is not very happy about, however, when it comes to his money, he does not want to see any delays. He commented that this is not to say that he likes the signs either, however, he does not like to pay out of his own pocket for these things. He thanked the Planning Commission for their consideration. Commissioner Miller stated they did not want to see any delays either, however, they would like to be fair to Sysco. Mr. Jahnke stated he agreed with this 100 percent, and his only concern was the financial consideration. He stated that everyone was aware of how displeased he is about the bonds at the golf course that must be paid, and this was the money that was to assist in this. Chairperson Peterson stated it was good that Mr. Jahnke had brought this point forward, and it needs to be discussed further. He stated he was uncertain that two weeks would make a great deal of difference, because it would take that amount of time to sufficiently resolve the other issues, regardless. Mr. Jahnke reiterated that he had misunderstood, and had only heard 60 days, adding that $800 per day at 60 days represents a substantial amount of money. He stated the matter must have been tabled as he came down to City Hall, and he had just wanted to bring this information forward. Chairperson Peterson stated he would assume there is a formal contract signing at some point, and inquired where the $800 per day fits into the timing of that. Community Development Director Jopke stated $800 was the amount that Mr. Hammerschmidt estimated the City would lose in revenues, in that every day that the construction of these Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 22 billboards are delayed that it would cost the City between $800 to $1,000. He stated there were a number of other issues, such as the lease agreement, which must be developed, finalized, executed, and approved by the Council, and he was not certain regarding the time line for these matters. He stated the State permit must be obtained, however, he was uncertain regarding this process, and the amount of time involved. He explained that there were other actions that must occur, independent of the Planning Commission action. Chairperson Peterson inquired at what point the revenues to the City would commence, should this matter be approved. Community Development Director Jopke stated this is probably stipulated in the lease agreement, however, he would assume that when the signs are constructed, and there is advertisement in place, the signs would begin to generate revenue. Chairperson Peterson inquired if this would not be any time earlier than the construction and first availability for use. Mr. Dean stated the first payment would be made when the construction has commenced. He indicated that they do not have any control at the beginning of the process, however, once they are ready to pull a building permit, they should have a crew available for construction. He stated once all of the discretionary approvals are completed, they could commence the process. Chairperson Peterson commented that the issue of $800 per day in lost revenues was somewhat premature to bring forward at this point, because there are so many steps in the process. Mr. Dean pointed out that this was not their number, however, it was likely utilized to indicate the sense of urgency with regard to this matter. Commissioner Stevenson stated the Planning Commission should completely ignore this factor at this time. Commissioner Laube stated the first item to forward to the Council is a request that the City work with Sysco to resolve the sign spacing issue as relates to the Sysco property. Chairperson Peterson inquired if both applicants felt they could work out some sort of agreement to the benefit of both parties. Planning Associate Ericson stated on behalf of the City, they would do what they could. He explained that this depends upon the spacing, and there may be some concerns regarding different environmental features on the golf course and the adjacent properties. Chairperson Peterson stated he would like to eliminate the need for a formal resolution in order to proceed in what appears to be the natural course of action. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 23 Planning Associate Ericson stated the City would sit down with Sysco representatives and examine this issue. Commissioner Stevenson stated the second item was in regard to the design of the signs. Commissioner Hegland stated this should be related to any type of plan to expand the golf course. Commissioner Laube explained that the golf course expansion has not been researched in terms of the wetlands or the other considerations. He stated all of the signs should be of consistent design. Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that he, Mr. Seipp, and Chairperson Peterson had attempted to research the possibility of the last nine holes of the golf course, as members of the Golf Course Task Force, and advised that this expansion may never occur. He stated in light of this, none of the current consideration should be tied in with the golf course expansion. Mr. Seipp stated in his recollection, the primary concern with regard to the golf course expansion was the wetlands, adding that this was Sysco’s reason for dedicating almost 40 acres to the City, and requested this property remain in the park system. He added that this was also the reason they had considered so many different designs, in order to construct the golf course with the least disruption to the wetlands. He stated he was not familiar with the additional plans for this area, however, he would hope that the City would maintain a strong concern for the wetlands. Chairperson Peterson inquired if in terms of the construction, the Planning Commission should take up the applicant’s offer to make all of the signs of similar construction. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that this requirement should also include any future signs by other applicants. Chairperson Peterson stated the sign locations were probably fixed, in that the numbers of accessible sites on this property are limited. He stated he would not anticipate that if the golf course were to be expanded for another nine holes, the signs in this area would have to be moved, because he did not know that there would be that many potential locations for them. He stated there was great concern about preserving what is there, and after having examined this very closely, he was not certain there was sufficient area to expand. Chairperson Peterson stated they had received testimony from a resident who felt that one of the items in the staff report, pertaining to whether or not this use would tend to depreciate the area in which it is proposed, and she believed that it would affect her property. He stated these were subjective opinions on the part of staff, as well as the property owner, and they have no formal basis for this without a property analysis or study. He explained that there would likely be a Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 24 subjective decision on the part of the City Council, when the tabled resolution is brought before them for consideration. Commissioner Johnson inquired if this resident’s property was located on the opposite side of new Highway 10. Commissioner Kaden stated he believed all five residential properties were located on the opposite side of the highway. He stated that in his opinion, the proposed signs are not as unattractive as a monopole sign, however, his main concern would be in terms of the lighting. He pointed out that he has driven by the new theater, and these lights are on all night. He stated he would not want to live next to this. Commissioner Johnson stated the lights are not supposed to be directed onto the neighboring properties. Chairperson Peterson stated the light was visible as it reflects off of the atmosphere, in the event there is fog, however, there should be no direct light leaving the site. Commissioner Johnson stated he would be more concerned regarding the golf balls being hit into the backyard, than the billboards. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if this was a legitimate concern, in relationship to billboards. Commissioner Johnson stated there had been some discussion that the billboards would actually prevent the golf balls from being hit out of the golf course. Community Development Director Jopke stated he was aware of this discussion. He pointed out that Golf Course Superintendent Hammerschmidt has been considering the construction of berming along the highway. He stated the proposed billboards are designed to fit in with that berm. Ms. Olsen suggested the Planning Commission include a request to the Council in their recommendation that they consider decreasing the number of billboards to 5, in the event that other alternatives for the fair treatment of Sysco are not available. She explained that this might provide the Council with an option they might not otherwise be aware of. Chairperson Peterson explained that if such a situation were to arise, the Commission could add a stipulation to the resolution, at their next consideration, and recommend this at that time. He stated he was not aware that a specific action at this time would necessarily assist in this issue, however, it may be perceived as unnecessarily antagonistic. Commissioner Stevenson explained that the Commission would recommend that Sysco be allowed to have their two signs, and work this out with the City, thereby, leaving it open-ended. He stated the Council would be aware that one of the solutions would be to drop one of the signs, Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 25 however, by leaving it open ended, the Planning Commission would allow the Council to determine the means to accomplish this. Commissioner Hegland inquired if they had language to indicate that Sysco’s signs should match the signs that have been presented. Commissioner Stevenson stated this should be addressed at the time the Sysco application comes forward. Commissioner Hegland pointed out that they were requesting Sysco and the City to work out the property line issue, therefore, it would appear to be appropriate to provide a recommendation in this regard at this time as well. Commissioner Miller stated it would not be necessary to require the signs be identical. Commissioner Hegland stated they should be complimentary. Commissioner Stevenson stated these signs are not before the Planning Commission at this time. Chairperson Peterson added that there is not even a formal application at this time. Commissioner Stevenson stated the Commission members all appeared to be in agreement that something should be included pertaining to the content of the signs. Chairperson Peterson stated this language could indicate, “It is the Planning Commission’s recommendation that the property owners add a clause to their lease agreement stating that they retain the right to remove objectionable signage.” He pointed out that if both property owners could retain that right, this was probably the best that could be expected. Commissioner Johnson stated the time to make this recommendation would be when Sysco comes before the Planning Commission with their proposal. Chairperson Peterson stated that even if there are legal reasons this is not addressed in the ordinance, it could be added to the lease agreement. Planning Associate Ericson inquired if the Planning Commission was recommending that a resolution be drafted, or that staff simply sit down with the Council and provide a report on the Planning Commission’s recommendations with regard to these items. Commissioner Stevenson stated this would be appropriate, adding that staff should convey the Commission’s reason for tabling this item, which essentially is that they are not ready to vote on the matter at this time, because of these issues. Planning Associate Ericson provided a summary of the items that the Planning Commission would like to have addressed with the Council. He stated the first item pertains to the spacing of signs with relationship to the Sysco property, the second item is that all signs be of similar Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 26 construction, and the third item is that the lease agreement contain language that the property owner reserves the right to refuse objectionable content. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the Commission would like to include a comment regarding the resident’s concern pertaining to depreciated property values. Planning Associate Ericson stated this issue was very vague, and he was uncertain what the Council could do to address this. Chairperson Peterson commented that if he were in this situation, he would be far more concerned with regard to traffic noise. Commissioner Miller stated this resident was aware of approximate locations of the billboards, however, she was not certain this resident could be so specific at this time, as to state the billboard would be visible from her window. Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that six billboards would certainly not be visible, but rather one, and perhaps two, depending upon the location of her property. Commissioner Kaden commented that this resident might have had second thoughts, after seeing the proposed billboards, as opposed to a typical monopole sign she may have been anticipating. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct, adding that from the perspective of her property, a brick pole may be visible, with no type of signage in view. Commissioner Kaden stated he did not find the proposed billboards to be objectionable Planning Associate Ericson stated staff would present the Planning Commission’s recommendations and sentiments to the Council at their meeting on February 28, and would bring this item back before the Planning Commission at their meeting on March 1, 2000. Chairperson Peterson thanked the audience members for their attendance and input. 8. Staff Reports / Items of Information A. Previous Council Actions Community Development Director Jopke stated at the February 14, City Council Meeting, the Council approved second reading and adoption of Ordinance 637, which was the ordinance creating the sign standards for the Public Facilities and Conservancy, Recreational, and Preservation Zoning Districts. He indicated a paragraph relating to Planned Unit Development Districts was added to the ordinance, because the Sysco property is zoned Planned Unit Development. Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 27 Planning Associate Ericson stated the City Council also adopted Ordinance 653, which is an Emergency Interim Ordinance regulating the siting and location of tattoo shops, body piercing parlors, and establishments of this nature. He explained that an emergency ordinance allows the City to review the language of the ordinance, and adopt it at the same meeting. He advised there was no requirement for two meetings, and a 30-day time period is not required in order for the ordinance to be effective. He explained that this allows the City the opportunity to review language with regard to the possibility of siting these types of businesses within the City. Planning Associate Ericson stated at this time, the City has no language pertaining to these types of businesses, and approximately a month ago, the City was approached by such a business. He stated that with the adoption of this ordinance, staff would put together some language, after which, the Planning Commission would review this language and make a recommendation to the City Council for the appropriate language to be included in the City Code. B. Update on Coalition-wide Planning Commission meeting. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Coalition-wide Planning Commission training session has been scheduled for Wednesday, March 29, at the Shoreview Community Center. He indicated staff would provide additional information, as it becomes available. 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Report No reports were considered. 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.