My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes - 2006/03/13
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
Minutes - 2006/03/13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2025 1:37:29 PM
Creation date
3/6/2025 1:37:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
3/13/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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 March 13, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 14 <br />. there is a visibility issue. She stated it allows the City to say it is not appropriate for all areas to <br />be at that height, and then the City cannot deny where it would not be appropriate if that is the <br />maximum height allowed. She explained the City would set the maximum across the board and <br />if there are difficulties with the visibility, then the other options would be gone through to allow <br />variances. She explained this will allow flexibility for both parties. <br />Mr. McCarver stressed he is looking for quick resolution as there are a couple of interested <br />parties. He commented there are three locations including the City site that are viable, but one is <br />not viable due to the limitations. He noted even with the 45 feet maximum height, he is not sure <br />that one or two of the sites are viable. <br />Councilmember Gunn asked if the wording could be changed so that 45 feet is allowed in a <br />specific area. <br />Mayor Marty stated he is more comfortable leaving it at 35 feet and variances requested for <br />anything above that. <br />Councilmember Thomas stated it would allow for points in the future. <br />Councilmember Gunn asked if certain areas could be specified in the Ordinance, such as the <br />Interstate 35W area. <br />Ma or M ted it mi tak ouncil t ess a variance <br />y arty sta ght e a meeting or two longer for the C o addr <br />once the locations are established. <br />Mr. McCarver asked if there is a limitation as far as percent varied above the current height in a <br />variance situation. Councilmember Thomas stated it is based on hardship. <br />Councilmember Gunn noted the current Council will not always be here. <br />City Administrator Ulrich pointed out that the hardship criteria is one that is sometimes hard to <br />overcome. He stated that Staff can look at adding language to allow height at specific zones <br />before the second reading of the Ordinance. <br />Mr. McCarver asked when the next hearing would happen. City Administrator Ulrich stated it <br />would be a minimum of two weeks. <br />Mr. McCarver stated he could look at the specific areas. He commented if the billboard is 35 <br />feet high at Walgreens, he would have no need for it to be higher than that. He stated there are <br />locations that may work; however, on Interstate 35W, at a minimum the height will need to be 45 <br />feet. <br />Councilmember Flaherty commented that a variance is a deviation from what the Code says. He <br />stated it could vary up 50 feet, 100 feet, or another amount as part of the variance. He asked if it <br />is possible to get a rendition of what the location will look like. Mr. McCarver stated an accurate <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.