Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 2003 <br />Regular Meeting Page 5 <br />____________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Director Ericson responded they were designated according to the surrounding area. <br /> <br />Director Ericson explained this issue was before the Planning Commission for its feedback and <br />consideration. He added he had not provided a resolution and could draft one for the next <br />meeting. <br /> <br />Commissioner Scotch noted this issue had surfaced based on the Supreme Court decision <br />relating to the Eller Media’s request for billboards from MnDOT. She added more detail <br />regarding the decision could be obtained by reviewing the case. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson stated the decision was made because the PF zoning derived from City <br />ownership, as there was no designation of use. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland stated the PF zoning indicated City ownership based on the <br />comprehensive plan defining their properties as public facilities. <br /> <br />Discussion followed regarding properties the City uses but does not own. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated he would collect and prepare further information regarding City <br />properties, review the ultimate goal and present the pros and cons for revision at the next <br />meeting. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson asked Director Ericson to advise the Commission regarding public facility <br />designations in other communities. He stated he would be interested to learn if there was <br />additional identification of these properties in their codes. <br /> <br />Director Ericson stated he would present any findings at the next meeting. <br />______________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />8. Discuss and Consider Ordinances Relating to the Zoning and Regulation of <br />Pawnshops in the City of Mounds View. Special Planning Case SP-114-03. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson indicated the City Council had asked the Planning <br />Commission to comment on the overlay issue as to which of the two proposed areas would be <br />more appropriate and which properties should be included in the overlay. He added Council also <br />asked for a response regarding the proposal to include multiple “unwanted” land uses within the <br />overlay. He stated the Commission should address these two issues in light of the legal opinions <br />that had been offered and prepare a response (in the form of a resolution) to the City Council. <br /> <br />Director Ericson noted, to assist the Commission with the potential overlay boundaries, he had <br />revised the original overlay maps to reflect a smaller overlay area with fewer parcels. He stated <br />the Commission would need to determine if the area and parcel availability would satisfy the <br />“reasonableness” test.