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

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - AUGUST 1, 2007 12 Attorney regarding the City's conformance with State Statutes in its ordinances. He said words are critical and owners of conforming uses have a right to "repair, replace, restore, maintain or improve" the nonconforming use, noting that "improvement" and "replacement" were added to the Statute for a variety of reasons, i.e., auto dealer booths that need to be improved to meet current technology. Mr. Liszt said the Legislature allows people who own nonconforming uses to be able to improve them to keep up and "improvement" is a right to alter and he doesn't know how there could be an improvement without alteration. He cited another example, bankers fmancing nonconforming uses and being able to keep up and maintain security, and said the City can't have an ordinance that violates the judicial planning end. Mr. Liszt said there are many municipalities that violate various statutes because cities haven't conformed ordinances to the State statutes. He then cited Minnesota Statute Chapter 173 concerning the Outdoor Advertising Control Act's specifications and prohibitions and said Clear Channel's sign does not violate those prohibitions. Mr. Liszt said he would submit that the City, under Statutes, cannot pass an ordinance that is contrary to the statute and can only do so when it obtains permission from MDOT, as set forth in the statute. Mr. Liszt challenged the City's three reasons for denial, describing them as clearly invalid: 1) Section 1230.02 Subd 8 of the Sign Code prohibits new permanent off-premise signs, including billboard. Due to this provision, the Clear Channel billboard is a legal, nonconforming use. Altering or enhancing a nonconforming use is prohibited (Section 1280.01 Subd 4). Any owner has the legal right to improve the nonconforming use, it is inherent that an improvement is an alteration, and Clear Channel had the right to do so under State statute. 2) Section 1240.02 Table 1 of the Sign Code limits lighting options for freestanding signs in Sign District 7 to external lighting only. Section 1210.01 Subd 6 of the Sign Code defines external lighting as "(illumination) by means of external light fixtures directed at the sign." The proposed sign is using a lighting source other than external lighting. Three reasons to be challenged: 1) The table's maximum sign dimension, according to table, is 45 feet and the Clear Channel sign is 462 feet, which means that this section of the Sign Code must not be applying to billboards; 2) the LED diodes direct light at the sign; 3) City doesn't have right to determine how signs will be lit, under Chapter 173 of the Minnesota statutes, as the prohibition deals with lights that interfere with driving or obstruct other signs or flashing lights. 3) Section 1320.13 Subd 6.0.3 of the Zoning Code states that "Any billboard located in the OB District may be expended, altered, relocated or otherwise modified solely upon written approval of the city, provided the expansion, alteration, relocation or modification is authored by the city of Arden Hills in connection with a transaction which will result in a net reduction in the number of billboards or in the aggregate sign face area of the billboards, located within the BO District." The provisions of this section have not been met. According to the ordinance, the Clear Channel would have to come to the City and the City would be able to consent if the reduced number of signs in the same district, clearly illegal under State law. The ordinance is not enforceable and not legitimate to deny a sign permit application. Commissioner Stodola stated that Clear Channel engineering drawings on page two talked about adding a lateral brace and she asked what the purpose of that served. DRAFT