|
�
<br />Mounds View Planning Commission
<br />Regular Mceting
<br />March 1, 2000
<br />Page 11
<br />accomplished. He indicated the resolution refers to the Conservancy, Recreatxi�n and
<br />zoning, because that is the current designation of the property. �,,
<br />Commissioner Miller stated the fourth "WHEREAS" refe�;s�����'"the
<br />,� :.;.
<br />designation. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was co;�`#"�ct. He e
<br />current zoning of that parcel.
<br />Commissioner Kaden inquired if this Interim Use Pernvt �f�
<br />Sysco, would expire January 1, 2015, and not 15-years fro�
<br />Planning Associate Ericson advised that the issue of the p�i�'ni�: c�L��
<br />the Council, and the language is proposed to be c:han�ed to i
<br />beginning July 1, 2000. He stated the expiration ,d�f�� �7a�����r1 '�e ;
<br />Ordinance 656. f �,
<br />,,�.,r,,;:.,-•
<br />Commissioner Kaden stated one of the st��a��ations tr� �t��P�� t�,��s������:i
<br />;�;<< <,i�
<br />retain the right to refuse objectionable >�dvertism� �ontetA� �����'
<br />billboard vendor." He inquired who woulc� be res�t��sible for c���er:
<br />,:.;.�
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stated �h�s' woulco
<br />by a specified listing, or if i}�� ���'would e>
<br />accept. ���, ^�at�d he wa � j�f�� a��r��in how is;
<br />the Cii�i ,�t��d��'A�.�:v �nd th�; �;:2�;�a r,��r����ni�s to �
<br />Comrru���� ��;_��' ��������<�ir
<br />and the �'lar�i��>� �.�g�����
<br />gambling �,;
<br />��
<br />�6 Y � ..% � : .
<br />INY� r
<br />Plann�g'`Associate �Ai�
<br />the.�Council that gam.bl�.
<br />.�yr
<br />,. .�{..
<br />th:��first stipulation of
<br />�;,,<::;�,
<br />i�r�iceed in this manner.;
<br />Yub�t� k°�?�:sit���� zo�►mg
<br />�pla�ned i���'�1��� ��� the
<br />that may be apprt�ar��x xor
<br />�l���roval.
<br />���������. �ome back before
<br />�> �,
<br />i��<; � ,.����en-year period,
<br />ds�.�� ��ir�� the adoption of
<br />i.radicates "The City should
<br />'lease agreement with the
<br />ing objectionable content.
<br />, «,
<br />!��;t�e lease agreement, whether that be
<br />I�oard vendor to limit what they would
<br />� place, which was more of an issue for
<br />a'� proposal contained a list of objectionable content,
<br />����ed one item with regard to advertising the related to
<br />����� �he Planning Commission could provide a recommendation to
<br />;��; included on that list. He advised that this could be indicated in
<br />olution. and it would be the Council's decision whether or not to
<br />,,,,
<br />, .,.
<br />�"���?�,�-�jerson Petexst5�►" stated Eller Media's proposal indicates that they are restrictmg t e
<br />�ic�����i��in� x� �1�����;`items that are age restricted, with the exception of gambling. He explained
<br />g:l'�j.: ���� i�x������� of the proposal indicates that this restriction eliminates almost all of the
<br />��r.�sht�f��l :�urc�s o1°controversy, however, he did not believe that was correct, as in his opinion,
<br />billbo�rc�s advertising gambling are some of the most objectionable.
<br />Commissioner Kaden stated in his opinion, the State should not be in the business of running a
<br />business that promotes social problems. He indicated some well known public figures have either
<br />served time, or would possibly do so in the future, as a result of gambling. He added that the City
<br />should not be in the business of providing a means to advertise gambling. He pointed out that if
<br />
|