My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes - 2006/07/10 (2)
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
Minutes - 2006/07/10 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2025 1:46:29 PM
Creation date
3/6/2025 1:46:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
7/10/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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 />i S.The demonstrated need for such use. <br />Director Ericson stated the billboard has been deemed inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, <br />which does not support billboards. The area is commercial/industrial and there is not any <br />residential zoning in close proximity. He stated Staff did not feel the billboard would depreciate <br />the value of the land on which it is located, but there is a concern about depreciation of the <br />adjoining property. <br />Director Ericson noted Clear Channel has a demonstrated need for the parcel because it is <br />required to relocate four billboards and the Council has authorized a billboard for the indicated <br />location. <br />Director Ericson stated the proposed use would not cause a burden on the City. He stated the <br />billboard would be separated from residential properties and, therefore, would not have an <br />adverse effect. Director Ericson stated it is awell-traveled road. He stated that the after the <br />interpretation of the need and values of the City, the billboard has been deemed consistent with <br />the zoning code. He stated literally speaking, it is not conflicting with the Comprehensive Plan <br />and it would not affect traffic, necessary roads, or utilities. <br />Director Ericson explained that the Planning Commission felt there are some visibility issues and <br />potential for obstruction that would be experienced by the adjoining property owner. He further <br />• noted that the Planning Commission felt there are other locations on County Road 10 that are less <br />detrimental to the adjoining property. <br />Director Ericson stated property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified of the <br />public hearing. He explained that the City Council needs to consider the Planning Commission's <br />recommendation and determine if the billboard is something that should be allowed. He stated <br />the variance will be discussed at the next meeting. <br />Director Ericson stated the draft resolution would deny the CUP based on the reasoning from the <br />Planning Commission. He stated the Council has so far determined the site is consistent where a <br />billboard could be located. He stated the site satisfies all issues except for the 45-foot variance, <br />which was denied by the Planning Commission. <br />Acting Mayor Stigney opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. <br />Dan Hall, 2200 Highway 10, asked Director Ericson if all requirements have been satisfied <br />except the question of a potential depreciation problem with the adjoining property. Director <br />Ericson responded that Mr. Hall provided a good summary for the basis of the Planning <br />Commission's recommendation for denial. <br />Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission is worried about the obstructions with the <br />adjoining properties and the proposed location was not the best location on County Road 10. He <br />answered Mr. Hall's question stating all code requirement are met but the potential depreciation <br />is the basis for the Planning Commission's denial. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.