09-10-07-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 10, 2007 11 City Attorney Filla replied that the City felt it was an alteration of the sign and a permit was required. The sign was altered and the permit was required. He stated that the language in the zoning code regarding a reduction in signs or sign area is an example of a way in which the city could allow an expansion in return for other consideration on the part of the sign owner and requires an agreement between the City and the property owner. He stated it is a negotiated matter and not necessarily regulated by State Statute. He stated external lighting should be defined the way the City Code defines it and has a specific meaning. He stated the way the sign is constructed it is not externally lit, but lit by the face of the sign itself. City Attorney Filla disagreed with Mr. Liszt's statement that the City had no authority to be more restrictive or to adopt regulations different than Minnesota Statute 173. He stated Minnesota Statute 17.10 and 173.20 specifically indicate a city could be more restrictive when it comes to regulating signs. In addition, although not binding law in Ramsey County, the Hennepin County court looked at a similar issue in a Minnetonka case whereby the Hennepin County Judge clearly indicated the state law did not preempt local regulations. He stated the Statute Section 173.16, Subd 5, did not say what Mr. Liszt says it does, and is not what that statute was for. He said the sign code table would apply for property owned by Clear Channel but for the fact that the signs are a legal non-conforming use and do not fit the chart and did not apply to them because they are existing legal non-conforming and can be replaced but not expanded. He stated he did think, and advised the City accordingly, that what has occurred with the Clear Channel sign is an expansion because of the increased amperage to facilitate the display of the LED, the additional structural support because of the weight of the sign, and the depth of sign was increased, which Clear Channel admits doing. He stated Clear Channel may not have expanded the length or width of sign, but collectively they have done a series of things that could be argued to be an expansion versus an improvement. He stated this has been the basis of Mr. Liszt's comments. He stated the facts indicate that there is arguably an expansion rather than an improvement. CounciImember Holden asked if expansion is always physical. City Attorney Filla replied that in most non-conforming use law and case law equates to physical enlargements to a piece of property. Mayor Harpstead referenced 117.184 and asked Mr. Liszt if there is any indication that it supersedes 462.357. Mr. Liszt replied yes. City Attorney Filla responded that 117.184 requires compensation but not removal and no one is asking Clear Channel to remove the sign, rather, the City is asking that it be returned to the original condition before it expanded. Mayor Harpstead stated there is nothing that says the City must get State approval. Mr. Liszt replied there is an additional paragraph that indicates there must be a submission to the Commissioner to get it approved. He stated that the City must get the approval of the Commissioner and that is beyond argument. Mayor Harpstead questioned whether the amps required were more or less than before. Mr. Liszt replied an electrical permit was applied for and approved. Mr. Tom McCarver, Clear Channel, replied the sign did draw more amps; he believes the electrical permit was for a 400