Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 9 <br /> <br />Director Ericson explained that the Council needs to consider the criteria guiding an IUP, such as <br />adverse effects, impact on adjoining properties, and issues associated with appearance, such as <br />degradation or impact on the County Road 10 corridor. <br />Director Ericson stated Staff has concluded there is justification for denial. He stated based on <br />Planning Commission's recommendation, there are recommendations denying the IUP and <br />variance. He stated that it is a subjective decision by the Council and there is a resolution that <br />approves both the IUP and variance. He stated there is also a resolution approving the IUP and <br />denying the variance. <br />Director Ericson stated there has been additional public feedback including a resident who <br />commented on the application. He stated there is a letter from Mr. Kopas, adjoining the property <br />owner, who does not oppose the billboard as long as it is at a height of 45 feet. He stated that <br />one member of the Planning Commission determined that if the IUP is approved, the variance <br />should be approved because there is an issue with visibility and obstruction. <br />Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. <br />Mr. Glidden pointed out that at every meeting he has attended so far, all of the input about the <br />billboard has been negative. He stated he understands that there has been input in writing from <br />• three residents requesting denial. He noted that he expressed his opposition at the last meeting <br />and that citizens are asking that the Council deny the IUP. <br />Mr. Glidden pointed out that the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to deny the IUP and voted 4-1 <br />opposing the variance. He stated the only reason for the 1 approving vote, was because if the <br />permit was approved, the height does matter. He stated that the one other business owner who <br />spoke was Mr. Kopas and he was initially in opposition to the billboard and is now only in favor <br />of it at 45 feet. <br />Dan Hall, 2200 County Road 10, pointed out that there was a town hall meeting and not one <br />person who was there brought up the issue of billboards. He stated it is clear that the citizens do <br />not have a problem with the billboard since there are not many residents speaking up in <br />opposition. <br />Mr. Hall addressed the impact on the County Road 10 corridor. He stated the Corridor has many <br />problems and that the half-full strip malls are much more negative than a billboard. He stated <br />there is high traffic at the proposed site and that is where a billboard belongs. He stated that he <br />believes that it is a problem when government interferes with private enterprise. <br />Mr. Hall pointed out the drug stores and their negative impact. He stated the empty buildings are <br />a larger problem. He noted that Councilmember Stigney stated there would be depreciation for <br />Mr. Kopas' building but such an opinion is in opposition to Councilmember Stigney's statement <br />that he would like to stay out of business. <br />