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 6 <br /> <br />Acting Mayor Stigney stated he agreed with the Planning Commission’s decision that the 1 <br />billboard would affect the adjoining property in a detrimental way. He stated the property owner 2 <br />is creating the hardship by not relocating the billboard. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Councilmember Gunn stated that, looking at the rendering of the billboard, it looks to her like at 5 <br />either height, and the billboard would not obstruct the adjoining building. She stated she does 6 <br />not see the total obstruction or depreciation that would take place. 7 <br /> 8 <br />Councilmember Gunn stated she agrees with Councilmember Thomas that the issue is that the 9 <br />billboards have to be moved somewhere and the spot in question is one that the Council 10 <br />determined was acceptable. She stated the Council had to work in a “good faith” initiative to 11 <br />move the billboards. She stated the Council was not happy about the billboard on Highway 10, 12 <br />but agreed the spot in question would be the least intrusive. She stated she does not support the 13 <br />denial of the IUP. 14 <br /> 15 <br />Mayor Marty arrived at 7:44 p.m. and chaired the remainder of the meeting. 16 <br /> 17 <br />Councilmember Thomas stated, regarding the depreciation, that if Mr. Hall decided to plant a 18 <br />tree, not a single person at the table would claim the neighboring property would be depreciated 19 <br />because visibility was blocked. She added that to claim depreciation is caused by one thing or 20 <br />another is a make-believe reason to justify not approving the billboard. She stated she does not 21 <br />see any way the IUP violates code. 22 <br /> 23 <br />MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/MARTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6875 24 <br />denying an Interim Use Permit for a Billboard at 2200 County Road 10. 25 <br /> 26 <br /> Ayes – 2 Nays – 3 (Thomas, Flaherty, Gunn) Motion failed. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Councilmember Thomas asked Staff to bring back a resolution for approval of the IUP and 29 <br />addressing the height variance to the next meeting. 30 <br /> 31 <br />MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To direct staff to prepare a resolution approving 32 <br />the Interim Use Permit for a Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 that addresses the height limit for 33 <br />consideration at the next meeting. 34 <br /> 35 <br /> Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 36 <br /> 37 <br />B. 7:10 pm Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6876 Approving an 38 <br />Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a Billboard at 5201 Program Avenue 39 <br /> 40 <br />Director Ericson stated this discussion is similar to the last one. He explained where the 41 <br />billboard would be located and that it was one of the sites the City identified as a potential site 42 <br />for a relocated billboard. 43 <br /> 44 <br />Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission considered potential for adverse effects at the 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.