Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />February 16, 2000 <br />Page 7 <br />specifies that adequate utilities, access, drainage, and necessary facilities vv�1C' <br />provided, and that is the case. <; ', <br />i�:>;`�f�: <br />< <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated that in consideration o�' s��s� findings, ��� <br />installation of billboards on the golf course property wouic� 4,�>� have an,,ai��ret <br />:;:r. <br />,�; nrQ��t�ed, or are <br />� �7�::i����x� 3 �:ha.z: the <br />G �'7����� �3b'�fif' �Ol£ <br />course property or other properties in the surrounding ar�;a; .�r��r� would be consisten� w�i,�e �`cB= i'��;. <br />Code. He stated staffrecommends the Planning Commissic�ri �tc�c}�� �esolution 606-00, w���1 ��� h�s <br />been revised to reflect the new language pertaining to intez-itn z.is��s. �� �;xplained that there is one <br />stipulation, which indicates that if the billboard vendor is una��a�: ic� t���a.�� ,a ��ermit from MNDot, <br />the permit issued by the City would become null and voir�� ��"� nor�r� ��t�i �t.�i`� was not aware if <br />MNDot would be approving of these permits. <br />Chairperson Peterson opened the public hearing a� %;2� �.;'��. <br />Commissioner Berke indicated the Plannin�;`�ommissi�n° ��c� ����ic��i,�ly voted unanimously in <br />opposition to this entire consideration. � I3e stated ,the City C;c��a�jczl ;�a.c± voted in favor of the <br />matter, and inquired why they were no�`taking th�' respons�bility for this decision, but rather, <br />directing it back to the Planning Co�xumtssion. <br />Planning Associate Ericson exp <br />recomme�x���rzon on any sp�� <br />permic�; a�� �ny items a�`:rl�x <br />the s��r.� ���r„a�-nrnendatiort s <br />Bylaws io �al�� � r�commenc <br />that �la� �'��ni�.ins� ;Commission is required to provide a <br />use pl����i��� ��se, ��such as conditional use permits, zoning <br />He pc�%�ai.�t� aut that the Commission may very well make <br />a�viously provided, however, they are required by their <br />�:la ;such planning cases. <br />Jonelle And,�r�s��a, � y�l 7.�a.�o� i T.°�rit�F �Cated her home was one of the five houses located to the <br />south of tk�� galA c,c�r�t �F_ ���.e si�ted she was concerned that her property value would decrease as <br />a resutt> t�f this proposal. 3x�.� ����lained that no one would want to purchase a house that has a <br />billbpard visible from it� i�ac�� window. She commented that she would not, and the <br />�Q,rrimissioners probablysyaouid not, either. <br />�� <br />i4i�. llnderson stated s�e was also concerned with regard to golf balls in her yard. She stated she <br />�:� �;omplains about �%is every year, and is consistently informed that if golf balls are in her yard, <br />��xe� �.r-,� bein� a�t��itionally hit there. She inquired what would prevent people from hitting the <br />�;����aIIS r�ntr� ��lc billboards, and causing even more problems. <br />1VIs. Anderson stated now that the highway has gone through, there is apparently sufficient traffic <br />to accommodate such advertising. She inquired in light of this, why the residents have no sound <br />barrier in front of their properties, along the side of the road. <br />Chairperson Peterson stated the City has requested a sound barrier in this area for many years, <br />however, they have always been turned down. He explained that MNDot has indicated legal <br />