Agenda Packets - 2006/07/24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Clear Channel IUP & Variance Report July 24, 2006 Page 6 On the other hand, Clear Channel has clearly not caused the situation which necessitates the additional ten feet; they were asked to vacate their prime locations at the former golf course to make way for a new development and were provided limited opportunities within the City in which to relocate. The City Council needs to make a good faith effort to assist in the relocation yet a balance must be struck between what is considered a good faith effort and what is considered “overly accommodating”. Public Notice: Staff sent notices to property owners within 350 feet of the Mermaid property and published a copy of the notice in the June 28, 2006 edition of the Bulletin relating to the IUP request and published a second notice in the July 12, 2006 edition of the Bulletin relating to the variance appeal. Three residents (addressed on Sherwood Road, Eastwood Road and Sunnyside Road, all north of County Road 10) had previously contacted staff to express their opposition to the granting of a variance for additional height, a request the Planning Commission did ultimately deny. Mr. John Kopas, owner of the adjacent Abbey Carpet building, appeared before the Planning Commission on June 21 to express concern as to the location of the proposed billboard and the potential for the sign to obstruct his property. Mr. Kopas later submitted a letter in which he consented to the siting of the billboard at the proposed location as long as the height of the billboard were at 45 feet. Mr. Ken Glidden, Edgewood Drive, spoke in opposition to the IUP and variance request on July 5 before the Planning Commission and again on July 10 before the City Council. Mr. Glidden urged both bodies to not lose sight of the fact that a billboard on County Road 10 would impact everyone that travels the roadway, not just the adjoining property owners. He felt the siting of a billboard in the corridor was contrary to the overall corridor redevelopment efforts being undertaken by the City Staff also received a comment by e-mail in which a resident expressed opposition to the siting of the billboard at the Mermaid location and the requested variance. The writer’s comments are as follows: “Now for the [billboard] at the Mermaid, If we have to have this one I feel 35 feet of ''ugly'' is enough. It sounds like the Mermaid--Mr. Hall--will try for a ''hardship'' variance to get this thing up to 45 feet (because the billboard at 35 feet will block the line of sight to his own sign.) To this we should say---“TOO BAD.” Remember, he is the one getting the revenue for 30 years. If you don't want to block your sign----DONT PUT UP THE BILLBOARD!!!!” Summary: The requested Interim Use Permit appears to satisfy all Code requirements and would not appear to cause any appreciable adverse impacts to the area in which the billboard would be located. While some argue that any billboard on County Road 10 is contrary to the City’s goal of improving and enhancing the image and appeal of the corridor, this site has been identified by the City Council as a potential location for a billboard.