Laserfiche WebLink
_ . I� �: _ -.:.. ..__..� . _ .� l �. r'_ . �'. - . � s_�..._�.-._ ? - -_ -'='�__-_.�._.�. _�� _ Y '� �� - - - .. 'i 4�--r —'� - .-'.. <br />Mounds View Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />Chairperson Peterson stated the third paragraph of Eller Media' <br />copy indicates that gambling is specifically considered non-cor�t <br />/.j:'. <br />was in favor of the addition of this language, because he doe�'�� <br />whatever the outcome, there would probably be little diffet��tce <br />was a statement he desired to make. <br />March 1, 2000 <br />Page 14 <br />proposal <br />in the <br />that he <br />:nt, and <br />��r, this <br />_ __ _ <br />Commissioner Hegland stated the second paragraph on I��.��� ��r(" dhe resolution makes t°���r��ilce <br />to the general Conditional Use Permit requirements, and inqv����� �� �:��� would be an interim use. <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct, how�;��r, �.h� r�c:c�rji��r���;n�s and the review <br />components are the same as those for a Conditional U�� 1�erini�. I-ie �>.{��.����;c� �h�� tihis was not in <br />fact, a Conditional Use Pernut, however, the Cou��;� s���i',,�� �'ommis';��c��� -i�3c�u��i look at those <br />same criteria in their decisions regarding interim„����,�� <br />Commissioner Hegland stated it appE <br />Commission has reviewed the matter <br />requirements as those set forth for a c,c�r� <br />Planning Associate Ericson sta <br />the Section of the Code a.clo��e <br />of Sectiar���1.125.01. I�� ' ;;a�� <br />Planni�ap; ��a�a€t�assion ha.� �;��flri <br />3, and �����r �;��,� ��< is coi�s���� <br />necessarily r���:�d ,y� �;�1� �a.r,� � <br />conditional �.o���., �a� c���,��,a::ec� �lii <br />F Page 1, in ����J ! <br />therefore, � �i�: � <br />in all of these ��i <br />he <br />__ <br />__ <br />_ <br />_ _. <br />� ���c���lc�k �r�ed to indicate that the <br />n�.������ �T�c� I�ermit, under the same <br />prese; � �. �%�p��� ��g� c�ttl�I be re-drafted, making reference to <br />linanc�. �����-; ?�� ����'er to that particular subdivision instead <br />the 1���`�����ti;��F� ii�t��icate "WHEREAS, the Mounds View <br />sitin�; x�c��,h�°��ents as specified in Section 1008.08, Subd. <br />tllo�e requirerrients." He explained that this would not <br />,� xec�uirements are in fact, Section 1125.01, regarding <br />�� t�rjti�ntial for confusion. <br />�7�;e 644 is mentioned in the third "WI�REAS" from the <br />' Section 1125.01. He stated this was essentially the same <br />language would simply reiterate that the matter had been <br />Associate E.,:`��on stated this was correct. He explained that this language simply states <br />,.i�,., <br />,i <br />nance 644:;;;:��quires that the pernut be reviewed in the context of 1125 and the second <br />�iy s ' <br />;PA�'�~t�z���'age 2 indicates that they have made that determination, and are making the <br />��.�, ai is �in compliance with that Section. <br />�:;ornmissioner Stevenson requested Planning Associate Ericson clarify for the record, how they as <br />a Commission, could unanimously vote to oppose billboards, yet justify to the residents of <br />Mounds View and to themselves, a vote in favor of the resolution before them. He stated this had <br />been clarified at the previous meeting, however, he would like to have this reiterated, in terms of <br />how this action differs from the Planning Commission's opposition to the billboards. <br />