Agenda Packets - 2006/05/08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 14 City Administrator Ulrich stated that the one site along Highway 10 is the first interest in a 1 specific sign other than the Sysco discussion. He stated there has not been specific action on the 2 sign permit and necessary approvals for I-35W or Old Highway 8. He stated the City has some 3 discretion on where signs are allowed, and that the City should look at where the signs might best 4 fit. He noted that because this is the first indication of a permit, the City has not gone down the 5 road of approving one specific site anywhere within the City. 6 7 City Administrator Ulrich stated the City is already looking at different locations outside of the 8 major thoroughfares and putting them on County Road 10. He stated that in earlier discussions 9 with the Council, it was determined that County Road 10 is not an ideal location. He stated if 10 billboards were on Highway 10, they would be down near the business end. 11 12 City Administrator Ulrich pointed out there was some indication given to the business owner that 13 it would be a possibility, but it was premised on the fact that the City would have some design 14 control. He pointed out the City has not seen renderings on how the sign will look. He stated 15 this important if it is expanded to this location. He stated the City will have enough control to 16 dictate how it will look and that it will be a benefit to the City and not a determent. 17 18 City Attorney Riggs added that the situation has a lot of unknowns and it was his understanding 19 that the City would have a better idea of where the signs could go. He indicated this is the first 20 sign that someone has indicated where the sign will go. He stated this somewhat ties the hands 21 of the Council to make an informed decision to impose as policy. He noted the Ordinance may 22 be coming back based on where other potential possible sites may be. 23 24 Councilmember Flaherty stated that one of the issues he has is the integrity of the City. He 25 mentioned this goes back to the deal made with Clear Channel to offset the costs of the golf 26 course. He stated a better deal came along for the City, and the City promised Clear Channel that 27 it would create a workable deal to get out of their contracts. He stated the City reneged on the 28 contract with Clear Channel. Councilmember Flaherty stated that when Phase 1 started, and it 29 would be possibly under the City dollars to relocate the sign, clearly the location Mr. Hall is 30 talking about was in there as a possible location. He stated as Phase 2 came up, the attitude is 31 that Medtronic will pay for it if the City does not. He noted Medtronic will not pay for it. He 32 stressed Medtronic is a brand new corporation that is moving into the City, and the City fought 33 dearly to have them come in, and to make the assumption that they will pay for it, is not starting 34 off on a very good foot with such a large neighbor. He stated the City so far has not been 100 35 percent honest with the way it is moving forward. He stated this particular site was open for 36 discussion when it was the City’s dollar, and now that Phase 2 has came along, it is off the able. 37 He stated that is disingenuous to Medtronic and the City needs to find a workable deal and work 38 in good faith with Clear Channel. 39 40 Councilmember Flaherty stressed that he would like to see a rendering, because no one knows 41 what it will look like. 42 43 Mr. Sympanski stated that Clear Channel is a billion dollar corporation, and if the City says no to 44 Clear Channel, they will find sites somewhere else. 45