03-01-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 16 Planning Associate Ericson stated this property owner probably did not receive a notification, and this was an oversight on staff’s part. He explained that they did not intend to exclude a resident who would potentially be affected by this proposal. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Kaden. To Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 606-00, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Proposal to Install Six Outdoor advertising Signs on Bridges Golf Course Property, as Amended to Include Additional Language in the First Stipulation to Indicate that the City Should Retain the Right to Refuse Objectionable Advertising Content, Including Advertising Promoting Gambling, and to Include a Fifth Stipulation which Indicates that the City Shall Work in Conjunction with DeLite Sign Company to Maximize the Proposed Signage Regarding Both Interim Use Permit Applications. Such Agreement Shall be Determined Prior to Council Action on this Request. At this time, Chairperson Peterson opened the floor for public input. Julie Olsen, 2663 Lake Court Circle inquired if the ordinance was specific, why was there a need for a Conditional Use Permit, in that the term “conditional” indicates there is an exception, and this item is not in complete compliance. Chairperson Peterson explained that conditional and interim use permits are utilized when there is some aspect of the proposed use that requires monitoring. Ms. Olsen inquired if the Commission would not necessarily have to approve the resolution before them, because there is a condition that does not meet the normal criteria of the ordinance. Chairperson Peterson explained that this was not the same situation as a request for variance, and the applicant is entitled to a permit unless there is a specific reason not to grant one. Commissioner Kaden advised that a conditional use permit is such that if an applicant meets all of the conditions, and the City Council denies the request, the applicant could successfully sue in court. He explained that unless the applicant does not meet the conditions, the City is required to approve the request for a permit. He pointed out that this was not like the variance process, where the applicant is required to prove a hardship. Ms. Olsen inquired regarding the nature of the conditions, and if they were based upon staff’s interpretation, in terms of the impact of the proposed use on neighboring properties. Chairperson Peterson stated staff in this case, is also the applicant on behalf of the City, and there may be some perception of a conflict of interest, however, he did not believe this to be the case. He indicated the criteria include five items which are examined in terms of adverse effects, and eight general conditional use permit criteria which are also examined as part of the review process. He stated staff went through each of these items to determine if they were met.