09-10-07-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 10, 2007 10 fashion. He stated Clear Channel is more than willing to sit down with the City and work to out performance standards regardless of Council's decision. Mr. Liszt stated Clear Channel did not believe a permit was necessary to replace the face with another type of face. He addressed each of staff s reasons for denial. Mr. Liszt quoted from Section 1320.13 sub 6 G 3 of the Zoning Code and stated it is contrary to law and the dictates of Minnesota Statute 462.357 Subd 1 (e). He stated the ordinance is in direct violation of State Statute 117.184 passed in 2006 along with eminent domain changes. He indicated that when a new statute is passed, it is time to correct the City's ordinances and codes. Mr. Liszt next addressed the issue of external lighting. He reported that Code 1240.02 Table 1 is superseded by Minnesota Statute Chapter 173, the Minnesota Outdoor Advertising Control Act, which regulates signs along interstates and primary highways in Minnesota. He stated that because this sigu is adjacent to the interstate, state law governs what can be done with it. Mr. Listz stated the definition of an advertising device as "any billboard, sign, notice . . . or other device visible to and primarily intended to advertise. . . and shall include. . . all lighting or other attachments used in conjunction therewith." He stated that Minnesota Statute Section 173.02 sets the standards for lighting for signs along an interstate and is specific to the type of lighting prohibited. He stated that there is no question that the type of lighting used by Clear Channel complies with the state statute; therefore, a city is not able to pass other standards than those in the State Statues without complying with Section 173.16 Subd 5, the local control section. He explained that in order to zone or regulate differently than the state statue there must be a submission to MnDOT to vary from State Statutes. He stated this had not been done and therefore, the state statutes lighting requirements govern and Clear Channel complies with those. He stated the table did not apply to billboards; it refers to on-premise signage and not to outdoor advertising devices such as the Clear Channel billboard. He stated CC lights are external; therefore, staff denial based upon lighting, is incorrect. Mr. Liszt addressed staffs reliance on Section 1280.01, Subd 4 of the Sign Code relative to altering or enhancing of a non-conforming use. He submitted there is no such violation. He explained that Minnesota Statute 462.357, Subd l(e) gives the owners of non conforming rights with respect to the uses; these include the right to repair, replace, restore, maintain, or improve but not including expansion. He stated Clear Channel improved its non-conforming use but did not expand its non conforming use. He stated that prior to the change of the face of the billboard, there was a 14' x 48' outdoor advertising sign using vinyl; after the change there was a 14' x 48' sign face advertising messages using an LED. He submitted that there is no expansion, there was an improvement; Minnesota statute allows improvement. He provided examples of how teclmology has changed over the years. He stated the City Ordinance would be contrary to the State Statute and therefore there is no violation and to the extent that the City Ordinance would prohibit that would be contrary to State Statute and therefore unenforceable. Mr. Liszt stated staff and the Planning Commission did not give proper weight to the state statute there has not been expansion rather an improvement to the way the message is conveyed; therefore, he submitted that staff and the Planning Commissions decisions are erroneous and should be overturned.