Laserfiche WebLink
Y <br />Mounds View Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />Mr. Coyle reiterated they were aware that the City has its p <br />objecting to that process. He explained they were objecl <br />negatively affects Sysco, relative to the City, adding that th�s <br />for this somewhat scarce commodity. <br />Chairperson Peterson inquired if the last billboard locat�cl <br />conflicting with the spacing requirements. <br />February 16, 2000 <br />Page 9 <br />�� <br /><;;- �F <br />underw»y; �t�c� �;I_aey were not <br />` as far �7 � f;�7� ����ing issue <br />vely pu�.� 3�att��i �n ���r�iition <br />, <br />., <br />��`property would bc; t��� ��7e <br />__ _ <br />Mr. Coyle stated this was correct. He stated it was his.�tndersta��c�i�.� � <br />located on the boundary that conflicts with their placement o�' t��o' �� <br />property. He stated they were attempting to be respc�a��i�� c��.i.(�� �`icy's r; <br />own project, however, it has a direct impact on this �I��>>�t:� +.;��ai��ariy, whi <br />that is pending with the City. He stated thes�.pro�o�c�:l:(,;1�1��,ai��;� ���c;re <br />City Code, with the exception of those that �.r�"currently unri ;k {:�,�,�cl�.rati <br />Julie Olsen, 2363 Lake Court Cir <br />aware of what is occurring, ai the <br />some reason, the Planning Corr►rrz�; <br />many people who might believ� �l�i <br />aware th�n a�si�� has be��� c_l���;��ssc <br />staterrze�t �°��;<��o�c�ing thel� ��.��c>����� <br />this i� _�i�;t_i�i���il�. �he r�c����;�t�G� t�� <br />majori�y oi �;P�et�a. <br />Chairperson <br />y. <br />out h�o't��ver, the ma� <br />. ,;. <br />expl�tined that the PI <br />F;l;aiining Commission <br />;r, <br />�ai�are issues, and the 1 <br />i� vvas the billboard <br />:��zx��l� on the Sysco <br />€s�� �?� `�elates to their <br />a'�s� �r�ade application <br />cornpliance with the <br />,�t�ted it wa.�`�infortunat�'�fia� the residents are not always <br />�� �� ��lcPS ��lace. She,�tated she was concerned that if for <br />on dec%cl�cl �.r� vote in ���or of this proposal, there could be <br />vvere i�� �2.vc��� az�ih� b'IIlboards all along. She stated she was <br />for seve;�«.l za�nri�}�s;�and she understood the City Council's <br />�r theig ra��Fisirj;�s, however, she does not necessarily believe <br />"ommission deny the permit, for the reasons apparent to the <br />with re��.�� to the Planning Commission's original decision, they had <br />;��isc o� l�iIlboards in this situation was not appropriate. He pointed <br />r��ail;}� before the Planning Commission is somewhat different. He <br />�,�rri�nission acts in two distinctly different roles. He stated the <br />�eviously acting in the role of a planning commission, considering <br />scope of things. <br />�:h�irp�rson Peters��'� pointed out that many of the other issues the Planning Commission <br />�.t��as����>�:� are z�qt tlealt with in this nature, but rather, in their role as the Board of Adjustment and <br />1�������1� �-�`, ��tplained that this is the official body which is comprised of the members of the <br />�'1���?���� �:e,�imission who act upon variance requests, conditional use requests, and matters of <br />_ _ ___ <br />___ _ <br />ihis riat�r�;. I�e advised that this role consists of Code interpretation, and is less of a broad <br />sweeping examination, but rather, a narrowly defined activity. He explained that in light of this, <br />there is the potential for a different vote, or an appearance of inconsistency in their actions, based <br />upon their capacity in these different roles of the Planning Commission. <br />