Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mounds View Planning Commission February 16, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 9 <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Coyle stated this was correct. He stated it was his understanding that it was the billboard <br />located on the boundary that conflicts with their placement of two billboards on the Sysco <br />property. He stated they were attempting to be respectful of the City’s desires as relates to their <br />own project, however, it has a direct impact on this private company, which has made <br />application that is pending with the City. He stated these proposed billboards were in <br />compliance with the City Code, with the exception of those that are currently under <br />consideration. <br /> <br />Julie Olsen, 2363 Lake Court Circle stated it was unfortunate that the residents are not always <br />aware of what is occurring, at the time it takes place. She stated she was concerned that if for <br />some reason, the Planning Commission decided to vote in favor of this proposal, there could be <br />many people who might believe they were in favor of the billboards all along. She stated she <br />was aware this issue has been discussed for several months, and she understood the City <br />Council’s statement regarding their reasoning for their decisions, however, she does not <br />necessarily believe this is justifiable. She requested the Commission deny the permit, for the <br />reasons apparent to the majority of them. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson stated, with regard to the Planning Commission’s original decision, they <br />had unanimously believed that the use of billboards in this situation was not appropriate. He <br />pointed out however, the matter currently before the Planning Commission is somewhat <br />different. He explained that the Planning Commission acts in two distinctly different roles. He <br />stated the Planning Commission was previously acting in the role of a planning commission, <br />considering future issues, and the broader scope of things. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson pointed out that many of the other issues the Planning Commission <br />considers are not dealt with in this manner, but rather, in their role as the Board of Adjustment <br />and Appeals. He explained that this is the official body that is comprised of the members of the <br />Planning Commission who act upon variance requests, conditional use requests, and matters of <br />this nature. He advised that this role consists of Code interpretation, and is less of a broad <br />sweeping examination, but rather, a narrowly defined activity. He explained that in light of this, <br />there is the potential for a different vote, or an appearance of inconsistency in their actions, based <br />upon their capacity in these different roles of the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson added that when this matter was initially brought before the Planning <br />Commission, the question before them was with regard to their opinion of billboards at the golf <br />course, and their overwhelming response was that they were opposed to that. He advised that the <br />City Council approved an ordinance, which amended the City Code, and expressly allows <br />billboards, under certain conditions, in the overlay district, north of Highway 118. He stated the <br />role of the Planning Commission at this time, was to examine the City Code, and determine if the <br />application before them complies with the Code. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated there are some issues, which are subjective in nature, that the <br />Planning Commission has the ability to make a judgement call on, however, compliance with the