My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-20-2003
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
08-20-2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2018 6:48:02 AM
Creation date
8/28/2018 6:47:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Minutes
GOVBOARD
Planning Commission
DOCTYPE
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 2003 <br />Regular Meeting Page 7 <br />____________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> <br />Director Ericson responded he thought that would be a 10,000 square-foot lot, which would be <br />zoned B-1. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland explained he did not mean one individual district but a business area. <br /> <br />Discussion followed regarding the parcel sizes for B-1 through B-4. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland noted this was going to become the second largest business district in the <br />City. <br /> <br />Director Ericson replied the district would be larger than B-1 and B-2 if the position were that <br />the overlay was a district. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland asked if it made sense to create an overlay for one business that was <br />larger than business districts within the City. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson added the pawnshop owner may fight spending a “ton of money” to build <br />in a location where he could not draw traffic. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson asked if the suggested locations would be considered reasonable or arbitrary <br />and capricious, as the pawnshop business relied heavily on drive-by traffic. He questioned if the <br />City would get into a legal bind by limiting the locations to the corner of a golf course or in an <br />industrial park. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson felt, according to the City Attorney, the Commission was being <br />reasonable, as long as the size was adequate. <br /> <br />Director Ericson responded the Courts gave substantial deference to cities to regulate what goes <br />onto a property. He added a judge must rule an action to be arbitrary or capricious for it to be <br />overruled. He explained, if the intent of the City was to segregate this type of use away from <br />residential areas because of issues relating to crime or bringing in the wrong element, that action <br />might be unfounded. He added, however, there were reasons behind the City’s actions if it were <br />trying to separate this type of use from churches, daycares, etc. He noted the consideration <br />would be if the City’s action was reasonable for the pawnshop or if the City was making it hard <br />for the pawnshop to operate. He stated the zoning needed to be for the common good of the <br />community. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson asked how much of the 9.2 acres was occupied. <br /> <br />Director Ericson replied 100% in terms of buildings; however, he was not sure how much was <br />open and could be leased. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson asked if the City should zone for 2,500 feet between adult businesses <br />instead of 1,000 feet.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.