Yup – billboards, which have been essentially phased out of the city are making a resurgence of sorts. And at least one is getting bigger as a result of a lost lawsuit. And, while it resolves some issues, the Don Miller lot seems to have been forgotten in the deal. And when they site the 5 new billboards, there will be no city process.
This is also from the Board of Estimates:
Mayor Paul Soglin says Ed Schultz from Adams Outdoor Advertising is registered in support, available to answer questions.
The city attorney is sitting at the table, but no one is saying anything. Mike Verveer asks for an overview. Satya Rhodes-Conway asks to be recognized and asks for an overview and for highlights and changes from previous versions.
Michael May says that there are significant changes from a few months ago and they are highlighted in his memo of December 8th, 2011. He says they ahd reached a settlement agreement settling all the litigation including some that has been to the Supreme Court and back twice, they had settled for a certain dollar amount. Which is about $1.1M. The city share is $625,000. Subsequent to that, before approved by council and they replaced it with this settlement where the cash is completely gone. They want to construct new billboards and they would have the right to get permits for and build 5 new billboards, modify one, and convert and replace one by moving it 15 feet. They we end up with 7, 2 exist, 5 new ones and will get rid of three, two at the Villager and the one at Union Corners. To do this there is a settlement agreement and separate ordinance that will need to approved to have those exceptions. The plan commission has already approved that. He says it is modeled on a settlement form the 90s where another dispute was settled this way.
They mayor says that the school board and county give up nothing, but get financial benefit of some significance. $400K of the $1.1M the biggest chunk would have been the school board to pay, but they don’t have to pay it.
Palm says his district boundaries have changed and it now includes one of the billboards and he asks if there were conversations with the previous alder about this. He asked for more information.
May says he doesn’t recall speaking with the alders at any point when they were talking about the terms of the agreement and if he did, it was just to answer questions.
Palm asks what the current size of the billboard is and what will it be.
May says its the one by Shakey’s Pizza Parlor, 14 x 48 is the standard size, this one is slightly smaller than that. This will not exceed 35 feet, that makes it 10 or 15 feet bigger, he might have to clarify that with Adams, but its in that area. He says the main reason for the change is that they are trying to get them to all be the same size and this one was slightly different.
Chitter, Chatter.
Adams Outdoor Advertising says it is 10 x 30 feet right now.
Palm says you are adding 18 feet.
To the height? Rhodes-Conways says 4 feet and 18 feet to height and width
Palm says that is substantial.
Adams Outdoor advertising rep says yes “depending upon your interpretation.”
Palm laughs and says that is 50% wider.
Adams guy says height is 10 feet.
Mayor says they are going from 300 square feet to 672.
Palm asks if they talked to the alder.
No.
Palm asks if it was two sided?
They say yes.
Mayor says they had to give them something.
Verveer asks what the timeline for the installation of the billboards would be – the 5 new ones. And what is the internal process since they will be non-conforming.
Adams guys says it could take several years depending upon how long it takes to get the leases and the permits. 2 – 5 years.
Verveer asks what the process is at the city – just go get a building permit and that is it?
They say Matt Tucker would do it.
Verveer says its been a decade or two since the council had to deal with this, what are the no advertising districts.
May says that there are it is essentially downtown and in historic and urban design districts that cover significant areas of the city and there are limitations in the zoning code as well. We wanted it clear that the agreement didn’t overrule any of those limitations. Mostly on West Beltline and 151.
Verveer says C2, C3 and M1 – May says yes.
Verveer says Blair to Park is limited and it is limited on Regent St.
May says the one on Johnson and University could be in the district, but they have to grow out of it if they were already there, we didn’t make them take it down.
Verveer says there were lots of billboards when he was elected but he can’t think of one in his district now and no offense, but he’s like to keep it that way.
Mayor explains the billboard on Johnson and University.
Verveer clarifies that they will be on state highways.
Adams guy says yes, there are a lot of areas they are not allowed by code and they want them in the high traffic areas.
Passes unanimously except Palm abstains.
