My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2006/07/24
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
Agenda Packets - 2006/07/24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:49:09 PM
Creation date
7/18/2018 5:07:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
7/24/2006
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
7/24/2006
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
286
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 City Council July 10, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 5 <br /> <br />granted for 30 years. He noted the perpetual Wallgreens billboard. He added that there is the 1 <br />potential for a detrimental effect to the property owner next to the Mermaid regardless of who 2 <br />owns it. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Councilmember Flaherty stated that he was under the impression that Mr. Copus would be 5 <br />brought in on the conversation much earlier. He stated his belief that the Council is trying to 6 <br />meet Clear-Channel half-way if they approve the site. He explained that it was well-known that 7 <br />the City would not allow the 45-foot billboard because the City has a precedent and stated that 8 <br />was one of the factors he considered when he voted to approve the billboard on the Wallgreens 9 <br />site. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Councilmember Flaherty asked what would happen if a vote was taken. Director Ericson stated 12 <br />the Council could act tonight to deny the resolution or ask Staff to draft a new one. 13 <br /> 14 <br />Councilmember Flaherty stated as the resolution sits, he would support the denial based on the 15 <br />height. Councilmember Thomas clarified that the Council is not discussing height. 16 <br /> 17 <br />Councilmember Flaherty stated as it sits, he would have to support the denial on the height. 18 <br />Councilmember Thomas clarified that they are not discussing the height. Councilmember 19 <br />Flaherty asked Mr. Sontaire if another site to the south could be considered. 20 <br /> 21 <br />Mr. Sontaire replied that he appreciates the concerns and that there have been extensive 22 <br />conversations with Mr. Coups. He stated he does not make decisions regarding locations and the 23 <br />proposed location has been deemed acceptable by Clear Channel. Regarding the height, Mr. 24 <br />Sontaire stated at 35 feet, the billboard could be built without a variance. He stated the 25 <br />application for the variance was made because it was determined at 45 feet, the billboard would 26 <br />have less negative impact. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Mr. Hall stated that future use plans for the front corner of the property include a tall structure. 29 <br />He apologized for not including Copus in the conversations earlier. He stated that Acting Mayor 30 <br />Stigney made an excellent point about the property being old and suggested the billboard could 31 <br />attract a new company. 32 <br /> 33 <br />Mr. Hall stated that there are future use plans for the front corner of the property, which would 34 <br />include a tall structure. He apologized for not including Copus in the conversations earlier. He 35 <br />stated that Acting Mayor Stigney made an excellent point about the property beings old and that 36 <br />the billboard could attract a new company. Same as previous paragraph 37 <br /> 38 <br />Councilmember Thomas stated she watched the Planning Commission meeting and the problem 39 <br />is how to separate the question facing the Council currently vs. future questions. She clarified 40 <br />that the current question under consideration is whether or not the permit is up to code and 41 <br />acceptable. She stated she believes it is a poor decision to deny the CUP based on other 42 <br />discussion. She stated her belief that the Planning Commission’s recommendation for denial was 43 <br />not based on answering the current question, but was based on other issues entirely. 44 <br /> 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.