09-10-07 Item 7D, Clear Channel - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - AUGUST 1,2007 11 many questions are legally driven and analyses-based on case law and what has happened in other cities. He then opened the floor to Commission comment. Commissioner Larson stated that the subject is contentious and not popular with most people. He said the crux of the issue is definition of the word "alteration" of signage, City code states that a permit is needed for "alteration" of signs, and it seems clear that Clear Channel believes it is not. Commissioner Larson said it is unfortunate that Clear Channel and the City did not sit down before the sign was installed and decide what "alteration" meant and who was entitled to what, as it would have prevented a lot of problems, though noting that it is always easier to ask for forgiveness than to obtain permission. He said he is willing to stand with staff's determination that this alteration is a permitted activity and the sign was altered and the only matter of contention is deciding what alteration is, noting that Clear Channel obviously works in a lot of cities and is guided by State Statute. Commissioner Larson said a legal conclusion is needed, rather than an opinion conclusion, and as well as a need to find what rules govern the particular sign in question. Chair Sand agreed that it would come down to a legal determination. Commissioner Modesette said she doesn't disagree and doesn't wish to engage in legal conversation regarding the subject. She said it is her understanding of billboards is that they are special in Arden Hills, there is not an allowance for new billboards, and the two that exist are nonconforming and that puts them subj ect to an interpretation that is specific to how it has been described for the Commission. Commissioner Modesette says she thinks the increased nonconformity logic makes sense. Commissioner Stodola said she would require clarification as to what changes Clear Channel made to the billboard. Chair Sand pointed out the verbiage describing "alteration" as relating to repair, replacement, improvement and the ordinance prohibiting enlargement, movement, and alteration. He said "alteration" is vague, subject to alternative definitions, and anything adding to weight of a structure, increasing load-bearing capacity by adding structure steel, may have increased in weight, though perhaps not made an increase in height. Chair Sand said, first, he agreed with Commissioner Larson in that the lighting issue could be subject to interpretation but, second, alteration is a potential viable argument, and, third, adding weight load to the sign would require a City sign permit. Marvin Liszt, attorney from Bernick and Lifson representing Clear Chaunel, introduced himself and Tom McCarver of Clear Channel. He said he would provide an overview and answer Commission questions. Mr. Liszt stated that the question before the Commission this evening is not whether Clear Channel needed a permit but whether the permit was improperly denied. He said that he has had a cordial relationship with Mr. Lehnhoff and described him a very fine representative of Arden Hills. Mr. Liszt expressed disagreement with him and the City DRAFT