Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 11 <br />• Councilm <br />ember Thomas asked why the area north of Silver Lake Road is being considered. She <br />stated that area is unsuited being that is all high density and residential housing, with very minor <br />amounts of business. She stated it is a very inappropriate location to be putting billboards. <br />Councilmember Thomas stated she was uncomfortable with the maximum height of 45 feet <br />anywhere signs are allowed, even though it may be appropriate in certain locations. She stated <br />there is a big difference between Interstate 35W and residential areas. <br />Councilmember Thomas referenced the language about the removal of the sunset provisions, and <br />stated she is surprised that Clear Channel brought it up yet again considering the last six years of <br />negotiations that have gone on regarding sunset provisions and the timelines, and how unwilling <br />the Council was to even go 30 years. She stated more limitations are needed. <br />Councilmember Stigney asked if the area north of US Highway 10 is one zoning district or if it is <br />PUD. Director Ericson stated it is a PUD zoning district, and an area where billboards are <br />presently allowed. <br />Councilmember Stigney stated the .billboard height north of Highway 10 is no problem, and <br />asked if there is language that could be added that specifies the locations that can be at 45 feet. <br />Director Ericson stated it would be possible to not change the height maximum for signs and <br />• leave it at 35 feet; however, it is one of the modifications requested by Clear Channel. He stated <br />it was not a modification that he felt the Council would dismiss out of hand, which is why he did <br />not put in language the removal of the interim use permit provisions. He stated this is something <br />that could be negotiated, and if there is a location along 35W where visibility is a concern, there <br />are variance provisions that the Council or Planning Commission may consider. He pointed out <br />this is the first reading and an opportunity to consider changes. <br />Councilmember Stigney stated he would prefer a variance be requested for all signs higher than <br />35 feet. <br />Councilmember Flaherty referenced the sunset provisions, and stated he is surprised it is <br />suggested to waive it, because Clear Channel had stated it would be the same agreement with the <br />original six signs, which were capped at less than 30 years. He stated he is not in favor of doing <br />that, and does not want to saddle future Councils with a perpetual billboard. <br />Councilmember Gunn agreed with Councilmember Flaherty. She asked if garage sale signs are <br />being allowed or not. Director Ericson stated that language is being removed from the Code that <br />allows garage and estate sale signs. Councilmember Thomas confirmed that they are not <br />prohibited, but the language is being removed that allows them expressly. <br />Councilmember Stigney stated he agrees that the sunset clause should not be removed. He stated <br />the locations on the west side of the City are not appropriate. <br />Director Ericson pointed out that the interim use permit provisions are part of the City Code, and <br />