03-01-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 14 be objectionable. He stated he did not believe it was the Commission’s position to state that they find gambling advertising objectionable. Chairperson Peterson stated the third paragraph of Eller Media’s proposal regarding advertising copy indicates that gambling is specifically considered non-controversial. He explained that he was in favor of the addition of this language, because he does not agree with that statement, and whatever the outcome, there would probably be little difference in the end result, however, this was a statement he desired to make. Commissioner Hegland stated the second paragraph on Page 2 of the resolution makes reference to the general Conditional Use Permit requirements, and inquired if this would be an interim use. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct, however, the requirements and the review components are the same as those for a Conditional Use Permit. He advised that this was not in fact, a Conditional Use Permit, however, the Council and the Commission would look at those same criteria in their decisions regarding interim uses. Commissioner Hegland stated it appeared that language should be added to indicate that the Commission has reviewed the matter in terms of the Interim Use Permit, under the same requirements as those set forth for a conditional use. Planning Associate Ericson stated the present language could be re-drafted, making reference to the Section of the Code adopted in Ordinance 644, and refer to that particular subdivision instead of Section 1125.01. He suggested the language indicate “WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has examined the siting requirements as specified in Section 1008.08, Subd. 3, and finds that it is consistent with those requirements.” He explained that this would not necessarily address the fact that those requirements are in fact, Section 1125.01, regarding conditional uses, in order to eliminate the potential for confusion. Chairperson Peterson stated Ordinance 644 is mentioned in the third “WHEREAS” from the bottom of Page 1, in the context of Section 1125.01. He stated this was essentially the same reference, therefore, the suggested language would simply reiterate that the matter had been examined in all of these details. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He explained that this language simply states that Ordinance 644 requires that the permit be reviewed in the context of 1125, and the second “WHEREAS” on Page 2 indicates that they have made that determination, and are making the finding that it is in compliance with that Section. Commissioner Stevenson requested Planning Associate Ericson clarify for the record, how they as a Commission, could unanimously vote to oppose billboards, yet justify to the residents of Mounds View and to themselves, a vote in favor of the resolution before them. He stated this