Laserfiche WebLink
<br />GREENE <br /> <br />Esp E L <br /> <br />ATTORNEYS 0. COUNSELORS <br /> <br />JOHN M. BAKER <br />DIRE(.T DIAL No. (612) 373-8344 <br />JBAKER@GREt:NEESPEL.COM <br /> <br />April 15, 2008 <br /> <br />CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATION STATEMENT <br />FOR MEDIATOR'S EYES ONLY <br /> <br />VIA EMAIL <br /> <br />Robert H. Lynn <br />9103 Loch Lomond Blvd. <br />Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 <br /> <br />Re: Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., a Delaware cOIporation,jlkla Eller Media <br />Company v. City of Arden Hills <br />Our File No. 2043-340 <br /> <br />Dear Judge Lynn: <br /> <br />On behalf of our client the City of Arden Hills (the "City"), I want to thank you for <br />agreeing to serve as our mediator. As you know, the mediation is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. <br />on April 17,2008, at City Hall. My colleague Robin Wolpert and I will represent the City at the <br />mediation. James Lenhoff, City Planner, and Mark Rossow, from the League of Minnesota <br />Cities, will be present throughout the mediation. Interim City Administrator Jim Willis should <br />also be available as needed. <br /> <br />This confidential mediation statement is intended to provide you with a summary of the <br />facts as we know them, our candid assessment of the claims asserted in this lawsuit, and the <br />City's settlement position. As such, we ask that you treat the content of this letter as confidential <br />unless pennission to share specific information is provided at the mediation. <br /> <br />Overview <br /> <br />The dispute at hand stems from Plaintiff Clear Channel Outdoor, lnc.'s ("Plaintiff') <br />unlawful installation of an LED sign in the City in December 2006. Plaintiff never obtained a <br />sign permit before installing the LED sign, even though the City's Sign Code requires a permit <br />for any alteration of a sign. For five months, Plaintiff ignored the City's requests to submit an <br />after-the-fact sign permit application before finally submitting such an application. The sign <br />permit application was properly denied, along with its appeals from that denial, because Plaintiff <br />had, by its own admission, expanded the billboard by increasing the depth of the sign, in <br />violation of the City's Sign Code, and also had internally illuminated the sign in violation of the <br />City's Sign Code. Plaintiff then ignored directives from the City to cease operations, remove the <br />unlavdul LED sign, and restore the sign to its previous condition. Instead, Plaintiff brought this <br /> <br />200 SOUTH SIXTH SiRE!';:T, SlJlTE J~O. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402_141:5 <br />612-373-0830 TEL 612-373-0929 FAX WWW.GREENEESPEL.COM <br /> <br />PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LlABIUTY PARTNE;R5HIP <br />