03-01-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 17 Ms. Olsen stated no studies were conducted, but rather the findings were based upon staff’s interpretation, therefore, the Planning Commission should not be required to accept this as gospel. She added that although the Comprehensive Plan does not address billboards, this does not represent that they are in compliance. She stated in her opinion, the Planning Commission has the right to their own interpretation, as to whether or not the use actually meets the conditions. She inquired who creates the conditions. Chairperson Peterson stated they are specified in the ordinance. Ms. Olsen inquired if an ordinance was written for a specific area, for business purposes, what would occur if someone else were to indicate they require the same consideration to do this for business purposes as well. She inquired regarding the potential for litigation in the event another business were to request a billboard in order to meet their expenditures, which was the reason the City allowed the billboards. She inquired why this was not one of the criteria for examination. Chairperson Peterson stated these issues have been previously discussed, and the rationale for these decisions ultimately does not matter at this point. He explained that the City now has an ordinance that allows billboards in the area north of State Highway 10, which consists of City- owned property, and the property owned by Sysco Foods, and both property owners are applying for billboards. He indicated the Planning Commission is not ruling on desirability or matters of this nature, but rather acting in their role as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, which examines such applications in terms of whether or not they meet the Code requirements. Ms. Olsen stated it would be appropriate to table the item until a study has been conducted, and to direct staff to perform a feasibility analysis as to whether or not this item would adversely affect the value of surrounding homes. Chairperson Peterson stated ultimately, there would be a judgement call on the part of the Planning Commission, in terms of making a recommendation to the City Council, and then a different judgment call on the part of the Council, as to whether or not the requirements are met. He pointed out that the Planning Commission reviewed this matter at their previous meeting, and none of the items stood out in terms of requiring much further discussion. Commissioner Stevenson indicated the Planning Commission had questions regarding several items, and they were answered to their satisfaction. Chairperson Peterson stated the Commission did not see any necessity to adjust their view in this regard. He stated this was one of the reasons he had earlier inquired if staff had received any other comments from residents in regard to whether this use would tend to, or actually decrease property values in the area in which it is proposed. He indicated that this proposal is in compliance with the Code requirement that the use be 250 feet from residential areas. He explained that this also involves a judgement call in terms of whether or not the surrounding