|
.. _
<br />_ _
<br />, .. : .--
<br />�, - - --: _-- � -- - - � � ��— �: _--�• - -��. _ ``<' .__. _ �. .---- - - � -- - —�-___.__.
<br />Mounds View Planning Commission
<br />Regular Meeting
<br />March 1, 2000
<br />Page 16
<br />MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Kaden. To Approve Planning Commission R;'t�solut�p�a I'�1o. 606-
<br />00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Proposal to Install Six �v�ci�r��� :��l�,rs,,��asing Signs
<br />on Bridges Golf Course Property, as Amended to Include .t��itiona l�,��i ;���U� ,;�n the First
<br />Stipulation to Indicate that the City Should Retain the Right tc� ��fiise C�'ujc�c;r'.�����,�,�,; ;,.��,�.-ertising
<br />Content, Including Advertising Promoting Gambling, ancl �� �nclude a k'i���i ��:i�:��;i�f��:a4�,� :;which
<br />Indicates that the City Shall Work in Conjunction with ��;�xflY� Sign �#�t�ripa�y �o ivd� r�;..��� �he,
<br />Proposed Signage Regarding Both Interim Use Permit ��_�������ion�. Such Agreern�r�r ,����� ��.
<br />Deternuned Prior to Council Action on this Request.
<br />At this time, Chairperson Peterson opened the floor for
<br />Julie Olsen, 2663 Lake Court Circle inquired if th� o���ii,��r��°�: �as ���
<br />for a Conditional Use Permit, in that the term "coa�o�a�h���:����s' iric�i�a�e�
<br />this item is not in complete compliance.
<br />s�� ..
<br />,>;; �
<br />r: -,!�`
<br />Chairperson Peterson explained that
<br />some aspect of the proposed use that
<br />Ms. Olsen inquired if the Commi
<br />them, because there is a conditio
<br />Chairper��� �'�t�rson
<br />the an�I��,� � F� .0.;� �a�title
<br />�nditit�rial and ir�e
<br />�;; , .:;: <:.
<br />�q�`es monitc��n�
<br />�,<� �
<br />�, /h '
<br />� , �, ,b�y�£:
<br />��uld rzot f���essa
<br />does xz�S, ��a��% the
<br />, �r��iy ���as there a need
<br />�•�; i� �t� �xception, and
<br />e utilized when there is
<br />; to approve the resolution before
<br />criteria of the ordinance.
<br />this wat� �n��� i�i�;S�rie situation as a request for variance, and
<br />iless th������ �,<� � specific reason not to grant one.
<br />Commi�s�cs��.���' ����r��as� �dvised that ��r�xac���io�al use pernut is such that if an applicant meets all of
<br />the condiiio��f�;, �.rzc� ��a� �ity Coux��il ���$z�;:�' the request, the applicant could successfully sue in
<br />court. He e���s����� �� �;�� €�r�l�ss the a�p�ic;ag�� does not meet the conditions, the City is required to
<br />approve�t�i��requ�:�r.<.a���"�,'.�r��it. I�[e pointed out that this was not like the variance process,
<br />where ��e applicant is ,��;ca�x�r�,.� i:c�;�;�-ove a hardship.
<br />r, .: u- .;:.: �:
<br />.,,>„% ' :�>..
<br />,,,.� �r• ,�.. ,
<br />�:`.,%
<br />A�Is�' Olsen inquired reg��iing the nature of the conditions, and if they were based upon staf�s
<br />a�t��pretation, in tertns t��'the impact of the proposed use on neighboring properties.
<br />�y:��ir��ex-�o� ]Petersc�n `stated staffin this case, is also the applicant on behalf of the City, and there
<br />�.��y ��:: �,,��� ����tion of a eonflict of interest, however, he did not believe this to be the case.
<br />����� �s����; ��d ���`��criteria include five items which are examined in terms of adverse effects, and
<br />,:,.
<br />���' ���- :,ral conditional use permit criteria which are also examined as part of the review
<br />�A�ac�;�s. kIe stated staffwent through each of these items to determine if they were met.
<br />Ms. Olsen stated no studies were conducted, but rather the findings were based upon staff's
<br />interpretation, therefore, the Planning Commission should not be required to accept this as gospel.
<br />She added that although the Comprehensive Plan does not address billboards, this does not
<br />represent that they are in compliance. She stated in her opinion, the Planning Commission has the
<br />
|