My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2006/08/14
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
Agenda Packets - 2006/08/14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:49:34 PM
Creation date
7/18/2018 5:24:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
8/14/2006
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
8/14/2006
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.
/
298
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 3 <br /> <br />5.The demonstrated need for such use. 1 <br /> 2 <br />Director Ericson stated the billboard has been deemed inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, 3 <br />which does not support billboards. The area is commercial/industrial and there is not any 4 <br />residential zoning in close proximity. He stated Staff did not feel the billboard would depreciate 5 <br />the value of the land on which it is located, but there is a concern about depreciation of the 6 <br />adjoining property. 7 <br /> 8 <br />Director Ericson noted Clear Channel has a demonstrated need for the parcel because it is 9 <br />required to relocate four billboards and the Council has authorized a billboard for the indicated 10 <br />location. 11 <br /> 12 <br />Director Ericson stated the proposed use would not cause a burden on the City. He stated the 13 <br />billboard would be separated from residential properties and, therefore, would not have an 14 <br />adverse effect. Director Ericson stated it is a well-traveled road. He stated that the after the 15 <br />interpretation of the need and values of the City, the billboard has been deemed consistent with 16 <br />the zoning code. He stated literally speaking, it is not conflicting with the Comprehensive Plan 17 <br />and it would not affect traffic, necessary roads, or utilities. 18 <br /> 19 <br />Director Ericson explained that the Planning Commission felt there are some visibility issues and 20 <br />potential for obstruction that would be experienced by the adjoining property owner. He further 21 <br />noted that the Planning Commission felt there are other locations on County Road 10 that are less 22 <br />detrimental to the adjoining property. 23 <br /> 24 <br />Director Ericson stated property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified of the 25 <br />public hearing. He explained that the City Council needs to consider the Planning Commission’s 26 <br />recommendation and determine if the billboard is something that should be allowed. He stated 27 <br />the variance will be discussed at the next meeting. 28 <br /> 29 <br />Director Ericson stated the draft resolution would deny the CUP based on the reasoning from the 30 <br />Planning Commission. He stated the Council has so far determined the site is consistent where a 31 <br />billboard could be located. He stated the site satisfies all issues except for the 45-foot variance, 32 <br />which was denied by the Planning Commission. 33 <br /> 34 <br />Acting Mayor Stigney opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. 35 <br /> 36 <br />Dan Hall, 2200 Highway 10, asked Director Ericson if all requirements have been satisfied 37 <br />except the question of a potential depreciation problem with the adjoining property. Director 38 <br />Ericson responded that Mr. Hall provided a good summary for the basis of the Planning 39 <br />Commission’s recommendation for denial. 40 <br /> 41 <br />Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission is worried about the obstructions with the 42 <br />adjoining properties and the proposed location was not the best location on County Road 10. He 43 <br />answered Mr. Hall’s question stating all code requirement are met but the potential depreciation 44 <br />is the basis for the Planning Commission’s denial. 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.