Minutes - 2006/03/13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council March 13, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 13 • from residentially zoned property. He noted it would probably meet the 250 feet, but stated he wanted to extend that footage. Mayor Marty stated that he had to hand it to Clear Channel wanting to get rid of the interim provisions because they have come to the Council several times. He stated when the idea of putting in billboards first came to the Council, nobody wanted billboards, but nobody wanted to tax citizens either. He stated that Clear Channel came back to extend from 15 to 20 years, and the City was reluctant, but understood that Clear Channel spent a lot of money at the Supreme Court, etc. Mayor Marty stated that it should be left the way it is and he stated he does not want to saddle future Councils with a possible poor decision. Councilmember Thomas stated it is worth pointing out that the Council is not negotiating a contract here, but this is a sign ordinance for permits. She stated should Clear Channel pursue contracts with other private parties, this is a separate issue. She indicated the Council is not going to offer a permit for a longer period of time without Clear Channel having to come back and request a longer period of time. She stated 30 years not to re-address the permit is immense. She stated she is not comfortable with a permit that never has to be addressed again. Mayor Marty asked what the height is of the billboard on County Highway 10 by Walgreens. Director Ericson stated it is 35 feet. Mayor Marty indicated that is plenty high for a billboard in town. Councilmember Stigney asked why sometimes there is an additional item sticking up on the billboards if there is a 35 foot requirement, and asked who monitors the height requirement. Director Ericson explained this is an extension on the top of billboard that is not to exceed 25 percent by City Code, and that the City monitors this. Tom McCarver, Clear Channel Outdoor, stated through the negotiation of the agreement to remove signs, Clear Channel was in a somewhat partnership with the City in trying to find areas to relocate these signs. He stated there are not a lot of locations available, and indicated he agreed with the Council on the Silver Lake issue, as it was not even looked at as a possibility. He stated it is not the intent of Clear Channel to put signs in areas where they are not necessary. Mr. McCarver stated the issue is to find suitable locations to get as close as possible to what is on the other side. He noted when looking at the 45 feet height on the golf course, there were trees and other obstacles to get over, and there will be the same issue on a number of other sites. Mr. McCarver stated as far as the interim use permit, some of the areas may potentially be exactly the same. He stated there is some disparity as far as the value is concerned and part of the value is being able to stay for a longer term. He stated if there is a height limit of 35 feet, it is possible that locations could not be found. He stated that 35 feet cannot work on any site on Interstate 35W. He noted in some locations, Clear Channel is allowed to maintain the trees in area, but there is nothing they can do about the trees on Interstate 35W, so that would not be a viable option. Councilmember Thomas stated this is why the variance option was discussed for places where