Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council July 24, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 11 <br />Mayor Marty stated it is his policy to not respond to those who do not leave names or addresses. <br />Director Ericson stated that after the receipt of e-mail, he responded to the resident indicating a <br />name and address would be required. Director Ericson stated the resident did respond with a <br />name and address, which was not included in the Staff Report. He added that Staff struggles <br />with anonymous information. Mr. Sonterre responded that even though it is on file, it should not <br />be included in the Staff Report. <br />Rich Sonterre, 3525 Spring Street Minneapolis, of Clear Channel Outdoor, stated this is an <br />ongoing process by which two parties entered into an agreement and he hopes this hearing <br />tonight is close to an end. He thanked Chair Stevenson for commenting. He stated that Chair <br />Stevenson's comments are significantly different than the reasons the Planning Commission <br />denied the IUP and variance. He stated he would like to work to find a remedy for the situation <br />and he has other challenges, including a lease agreement with the City for another location. <br />Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. <br />Councilmember Flaherty commented that the City is engaged with an agreement and contract <br />with Clear Channel to relocate the billboards and the City has asked to renegotiate the contract. <br />He stated the City should feel an obligation about the contract. He stated the revised contract <br />states the City would re-design its codes to relocate the signs. He stated he agrees with the <br />relocation. <br />Councilmember Flaherty noted the second issue is with the height of the billboard. He said he is <br />okay with the IUP, but not okay with the variance. He stated he believes the Council has done <br />their due diligence with Clear Channel regarding plans for the relocation. <br />Mr. Sonterre responded that he would rather have a 20 foot billboard and they rarely build a <br />higher billboard. He stated the request for the variance is to achieve two objectives: to gain <br />height over Mr. Hall's sign so the westbound face is clear, and at the request of Mr. Kopas that <br />the sign not to obstruct his building's signs. <br />Mr. Sonterre explained that building the billboard at 45 feet costs more and depreciates the sign, <br />but noted that at 35 feet, he will not build the sign. He stated that if the variance were not <br />approved, financial compensation from the City would be the better option. He stated that the <br />request for the billboard to be built at 45 feet is not to be a dominant structure. <br />Councilmember Stigney asked the face size of the billboard. Mr. Sonterre responded it would be <br />14 feet high and 48 feet wide. Councilmember Stigney asked why the billboard would be larger <br />than what is in front of Walgreens. He stated the billboard at Walgreens is because of a perpetual <br />lease. He stated that Clear Channel agreed to put flowers and a base. He stated that is the only <br />reason the Planning Commission approved it. <br />Councilmember Stigney stated that detriment and hardship with Mr. Hall's property is of his own <br />doing. Mr. Hall replied that the only problem is with Mr. Kopas' sign. He stated his problem is <br />not that the billboard will block his property and he does not care the height at which the <br />