|
-- �-
<br />� . , � ---- =-- - . . ,._ . , _
<br />� � --= _ . �� _>_r �, .: �: -- -- _:- - :� T =,. .,_ � '= - �� �. � ---- -- - - E
<br />Mounds View Planning Commiss°ron
<br />Regular Meeting
<br />March 1, 2000
<br />Page 17
<br />. . ,.
<br />right to their own mterpretation, as to whether or not the use actually meets 2�t� cond�fat�ns. She
<br />:.
<br />inquired who creates the conditions. .,
<br />:;s:�;.
<br />�::>:,,;.
<br />Chairperson Peterson stated they are specified in the ordinanc�,.���#� ``'
<br />�j�i�
<br />Ms. Olsen inquired if an ordinance was written for a sp����� area, for. buainess p�.�i���;��t�; ������.�
<br />would occur if someone else were to indicate they requz���.' ���� �ame �c�nsideration to �.c� i:��� ��g:�
<br />business purposes as well. She inquired regarding the pc���.�����°�� ���' li�igation in the even� ���a��������
<br />business were to request a billboard in order to meet theix� c;�a��.�r.�c������w��, which was the reasori �Ii�
<br />City allowed the billboards. She inquired why this was not o�i�, ���' ��a�: +;����;r�a for examination.
<br />Chairperson Peterson stated these issues have been �J� cY
<br />these decisions uitimately does not matter at tivs �c�t 3'.. .
<br />ordinance that allows billboards in the area nort�=�'�� F��r.�
<br />owned property, and the property owned by �y�o�Fa���� :.;
<br />for billboards. He indicated the Planning,Cti'mmission i�
<br />this nature, but rather acting in their tc��e as the,��oar
<br />f�;
<br />examines such applications in terms oiwh;ether or,n�st they
<br />Ms. Olsen stated it would be appt�s�Y'iate to
<br />to direct staff to perform a�easit�i(ity anal�
<br />affect th� �r���:x�; �f'surrou�,����� z�c�i�ie�.
<br />Plannin� ��x����a �€������.a., xr�
<br />different jud����°,���. ����1 �s
<br />He pointed Q��� 3,�..��� ��z,n, 7�
<br />r., „
<br />none of _ t�t�'`it ;,: � � � �:.���
<br />i >>
<br />Stever��on indicated tl�;
<br />;. :: •:
<br />wer���answered to their ��
<br />; ��e
<br />�sly diaci������, arit� the rationale for
<br />�;7�plain�c; " i i�� i�.t�E, �ity now has an
<br />�i;���ay 10, ���k�t�•�i consists of City-
<br />�� $����;�, {�roper�y owners are applying
<br />� �������s� c��' �esirability or matters of
<br />oP' ,����r��trtn�nt and Appeals, which
<br />e�i �:he Code requirements.
<br />a study has been conducted, and
<br />or not this item would adversely
<br />°��� ��I��x��a���;�y, there would be a judgement call on the part of the
<br />�crtr�a �� ��Et_��.�i�g �, recommendation to the City Council, and then a
<br />�.���: ���j.� ���i' �i��° ���ncil, as to whether or not the requirements are met.
<br />�,�1in�; �:c�l�x�a�aission reviewed this matter at their previous meeting, and
<br />c,��; ax� terrrts of requiring much further discussion. Commissioner
<br />a1��£a��ir, �ommission had questions regarding several items, and they
<br />�;.,�::;� ..:;;:,.;,
<br />��airperson Peterson s��ted the Commission did not see any necessity to adjust their view in this
<br />r�#�ard. He stated t}u��'�was one of the reasons he had earlier inquired if staff had received any
<br />/ ;Y
<br />�����;�- �;omments fr+�`i�f residents in regard to whether this use would tend to, or actually decrease
<br />���-���A� ��r va.l��,,s' �� `'the area in which it is proposed. He indicated that this proposal is in
<br />�������������;� �iY► the Code requirement that the use be 250 feet from residential areas. He
<br />c;�rj��������2y e�'►a�; �his also involves a judgement call in terms of whether or not the surrounding
<br />�� o�ei �i�� would be negatively impacted, and after their previous discussion, the Planning
<br />Commission determined that there did not appear to be a significant affect to these properties.
<br />Ms. Olsen stated the Planning Commission had requested both parties come to an agreement in
<br />regard to the two applications. She requested clarification regarding what had occurred in this
<br />regard.
<br />
|