My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2001/11/13
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
Agenda Packets - 2001/11/13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:51:05 PM
Creation date
8/29/2018 11:01:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
11/13/2001
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
11/13/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
114
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 October 8, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 13 <br /> <br />Council Member Thomas noted the sign would be twice as wide as it is currently and asked if it <br />would be any closer to the road. <br /> <br />Mr. McCarver indicated it would not be any closer to the road than it is now. <br /> <br />Council Member Thomas noted that she wished the trees at the site were as big as shown on the <br />rendering of the sign and said it is very distracting to the eye because what is behind the sign is <br />Walgreens and City Hall not a forest. She further indicated that the sign will seem more <br />predominant when there is nothing behind it and pointed out she can see where the scale gets <br />distorted because the drawing is not accurate for what is behind the sign. <br /> <br />Council Member Thomas indicated she did not feel the golf course type signs would be <br />appropriate for the area. She then indicated that this matter has been an issue since she was on <br />the Planning Commission and said she feels this is the first workable plan she has seen for the <br />sign. <br /> <br />Council Member Quick noted he felt the yearly payments needed to include an inflation factor. <br />He then indicated he would like to see a higher yearly fee and eliminate the front-end figure. <br /> <br />Mayor Sonterre asked if it would be appropriate to table this matter for future consideration. <br /> <br />Mr. McCarver indicated that it is difficult to know what the protocol is for buying an easement or <br />buying property like this. He then expressed a willingness to sit down with Staff to discuss the <br />matter. He further commented it would be nice to come to resolution on this sign more quickly <br />than the other sign issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Linke of 2319 Knoll Drive asked how much larger the sign would be and how much more <br />property was needed for the easement. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated the company has a 40 x 40 square and would need a 55 x 55 meaning <br />they need seven and a half (7 ½) additional feet all the way around the sign in order to expand the <br />sign. <br /> <br />Mr. Linke asked how much they were willing to pay. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated the original offer was for $100,000 but said Staff felt that payment <br />without annual rental would be inadequate so suggested $50,000 with an additional $7,000 <br />payment each year. <br /> <br />Mr. Linke asked if the City had considered purchasing the sign to get rid of it. He then indicated <br />that there are wetland issues that will need to be considered. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated it was doubtful that the City could afford to purchase the sign from <br />Clear Channel Outdoor. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.