Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 8 <br />• stated puppies could be kept until six months of age. <br />Director Ericson stated there have been problems in the City regarding cats and there is no upper <br />threshold about the number of cats residents can own. <br />Mayor Marty stated he has had calls from property owners who rent property and some tenants <br />have excessive numbers of cats. He stated Mounds View has nothing in the code covering cats <br />and it should be considered at a future work session. <br />Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. <br />MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To waive the reading and accept the first reading of <br />Ordinance 774, an ordinance Amending Chapters 701 and 1106 of the Mounds View Municipal <br />Code Pertaining to Dog Kennels. <br />Mayor Marty thanked Staff and the Planning Commission for addressing this ordinance. <br />Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. <br />D. 7:20 pm -Public Hearing to Consider the Appeal of a Variance Denial for a <br />45 Foot Tall Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 <br />• This item was considered following agenda item E. <br />E. Consideration of Resolution 6875 pertaining to an Interim Use Permit (IUP) <br />Application for a Billboard at 2200 County Road 10 <br />Director Ericson explained that the Council has reviewed this item twice and it has been before <br />the Planning Commission. He stated the billboard will be at the Mermaid property and is <br />consistent with the ordinance the City adopted for the relocation agreement executed with Clear <br />Channel in 2005 for billboards that were on the golf course. <br />Director Ericson stated all requirements associated with the IUP have been met, with exception <br />of the height. He stated the Planning Commission denied the variance for the 45-foot height and <br />that code provides fora 35-foot billboard. He stated Clear Channel appealed the decision of the <br />Planning Commission for the variance. <br />Director Ericson explained the reasons for hearing the IUP first and variance appeal second. He <br />noted there are several resolutions attached with several options. <br />Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission denied the IUP because they felt that the <br />location was not appropriate because of potential obstruction and property degradation issues. <br />He explained that the Council needs to determine whether or not there is a hardship when <br />• considering the variance and the Planning Commission determined there was no hardship <br />justifying the variance. <br />