Laserfiche WebLink
., ,. _ F , T _ _ <br />[, ;--_ . �.---..� _. _ _ :� �-- - -----. .— - _. - _. , .. - -- -- . ��. , . _ � <br />Mounds View Planning Commission <br />Regalar Meeting <br />March 1, 2000 <br />Page 15 <br />Planning Associate Ericson advised that in December, the Planning Commiss <br />the City Council to consider the possibility of allowing billboards in a pari <br />City. At that time, the Commission's finding and intent was ve�:�lear, in th <br />an acceptable use. The Commission passed a resolution ind���.�irtg their fin� <br />this to the City Council. The City Council acknowledged t�+� �'lanning Co�'n <br />this item, and proceeded to adopt Ordinance 644, wluch'aan�ended the �i <br />billboards, which are now a pernutted use in this section oi`�;��2 �:'ity, as long <br />met. <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated one of the roles of <br />applications in terms of the City Code. He indicatec <br />application before them in terms of whether or not is. i,.� <br />and not in terms of whether they desire or approve;� ��� � <br />very clear. ,��Y <br />Chairperson Peterson stated at the last <br />spoken with regard to the siting of billl <br />indicated she found this to be objer�:i�t <br />forward. _______. <br />� �with <br />aboil <br />���.:� <br />ty Codc' <br />as certai <br />�sted by <br />n of the <br />was not <br />� w�rded � -:�� <br />.�� <br />�a�ps on ; �F�' <br />1���"$xr �"O➢: <br />>i .u.°r"� Y,Y4i <br />ission is to review <br />�E� � considering the <br />«:i�;r►ts of the Code, <br />c��_ thev have been <br />; <br />of 2�a� i'��° ��:���� '���mission, a resident had <br />o��'the lug��v���y �r om her property, and had <br />;inquired i�' any similar objections had come <br />Planning fissociate Ericson stated �� was noc ��r���€; ca� �ii�;%' <br />Comrni.y��a�����- �:��u�� st��,�� �t,� h�c� s��oke�. i��'��� ��roperty owner who resided at 2411 Laport <br />Drive, �,r�c� ������s�;cl s�i5 "f;+.�apxqc����i��P��i that not all the residents on the north side of Laport <br />Drive tiveY� ��P�x�tl�i�:� :��;,���-�i;�¢ �.��z� <�a}��1i�;���on, and that the notification was strictly within 350 feet <br />of the propc����� t>���;'��. �. �' _.��,>�aini�,� ��3.�z ��t.���ing the wintertime, this resident would be able to see <br />two billboarc�s �_ �:k��. ���: ��,�.�� v✓i�ar� o���, �:t��� �would probably see the light as we]]. He stated all of <br />the residez���v✓l�c� iz�t� c��� �r�4. ��c��-'r�� �ide'ofLaport Drive should have been notified. <br />Planning Associate E� i <br />y,:;:;.:., <br />��rt Drive that abut <br />��hway that may also <br />��.�r� in his understanding, all of the properties on the north side of <br />�:y 10 were notified. There are four properties that do not abut the <br />to see the billboards. These four properties were not notified. <br />ir�issioner Lau��indicated this property was the furthest from Highway 10, however, as it <br />��� ; z��i,� .� ���, �ul�de-sac, the property protrudes outward, and all of the rear windows are <br />; <br />n�sj, ������ fi��� billboards. He indicated that although this property was the furthest distance <br />�1���s �,z,iz' �ourse, it would have one of the better views of the billboards. <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated this property owner probably did not receive a notification, and <br />this was an oversight on staiis part. He explained that they did not intend to exclude a resident <br />who would potentially be affected by this proposal. <br />