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

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - AUGUST 1,2007 14 Commissioner Modesette said she agreed with Commissioner Zimmerman's logic, that the process towards legal resolution or interpretation would be furthered by moving forward and supporting Staffs denial on interpretation of the ordinance. She said she is interested in what the City Attorney has to say and then expressed her recommendation that the Commission not overturn Staffs denial. Commissioner Holewa stated that he had listened to the presentation and tried to absorb all that was said but said he is back at the same place, that this is a legal issue and he is not a legal person, relying on City Attorney for recommendation. He expressed his support for Staff s denial. Commissioner Stodola stated she had asked the detailed signage questions earlier in the meeting because she finds it hard to believe that anyone could not think what was done was anything but an alteration. Commissioner Larson said his opinion was not that City Staff acted in error but acted on their interpretation of the ordinance. He said questions have been raised as to how Statutes may be opposed to ordinances and he would like a proper sign ordinance crafted without having the pressure of an appeal, so that bases are covered and this situation doesn't happen again. Chair Sand asked what the added weight was of the added structural elements, and Mr. McCarver responded 9,000 pounds including the LED. Chair Sand commented that that amount was a substantial increase for an "alteration." Mr. Liszt stated that improvements are done all the time, legality conforms with time over the State with permits and involves very substantial increases in weight and structures, etc. He said, the fact is, Clear Channel had the right legally. Chair Sand said Minnesota Status 462.357 states "any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement, but not including expansion." He said a viable argument could be made to support Staff decision on grounds that, yes, an improvement was made and also an expansion, given the 9,000 pounds that had been added to the structure. Chair Sand said it was unfortunate that the City Attorney and building inspector could not be in attendance at the evening's meeting because the weight addition may have required a building permit and many issues could not be addressed because those individuals could not attend. He said, as he read the documentation, it is a reasonable interpretation that non-expansion could not include an additional 9,000 structural steel weight to the sign, which would be a basis for denial, as well as the State application, and lighting improvement and expansion. Chair Sand said the decision to deny was appropriate. Mr. Lehnhoff added that the City Attorney had reviewed State statutes and it was determined that the City had complied with State Statutes. Chair Sand restated that the DRAFT