Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 8 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland stressed it appears the Council tried to designate this area as a possibility for <br />relocating one of the billboards. In the process of trying to relocate the billboard in this area, Clear <br />Channel has gone another step by adding the height variance. This is going beyond where the <br />Planning Commission wants to go. He does not think it is an acceptable solution. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson stated that if the City Council wants to do this, it is up to them. It is hard to make a <br />recommendation to the City he is opposed to. If the sign is going to be there, 45 feet is the right <br />height. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland said this particular solution is in trouble and it is going beyond the relocation <br />of the billboard. He understands the height issue, but that is why he feels it is the wrong solution. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller said not to approve the Interim Use Permit. <br /> <br />Mr. Sonterre replied he understands the Planning Commission must make a judgment based on the <br />Code and not personal feelings. He asked that the Planning Commission make a decision based <br />purely on how the Code is written today and how the request fits the Code. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson reminded everyone that the Code is for the benefit of the City. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland restated Clear Channel’s request goes beyond what the Code specifies with <br />respect to the height of 45 feet. <br /> <br />Mr. Sonterre respects what the Commissioners are saying if in fact Clear Channel does not meet the <br />criteria of the Code as the basis for their decision. He restated that his question is whether or not the <br />Commission’s charge is to evaluate City Code and whether or not the variance or IUP is consistent <br />with the Code. If in fact it is their charge, that would be the way the process would be determined. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson replied they would not pass the request as presented. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland stated part of the Code includes meeting requirements in the Comprehensive <br />Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not allow for billboards. This has been changed and an <br />agreement is in place to try to relocate the billboards, but this request is going beyond the rules for a <br />normal billboard. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson stated that five years ago the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the <br />City Council that a billboard would be allowed on the current site of Walgreens. The City Council <br />fully approved the Planning Commission’s recommendation that this would be the only billboard on <br />County Road 10. <br /> <br />Mr. Sonterre asked Director Ericson if billboards are contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan. <br />Director Ericson said the Comprehensive Plan is not intended to be so specific as to address a sign or <br />billboard or anything that is so site specific. The Zoning Code is for these types of considerations. <br />The Comprehensive Plan lays out the development of the community and how it should look in the <br />future. It is clear that billboards are not contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan so it would be <br />difficult to say billboards are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.