Laserfiche WebLink
<br />STATE OF MINNESOTA <br /> <br />DISTRICT COURT <br /> <br />RAMSEY COUNTY <br /> <br />SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT <br /> <br />Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., a Delaware <br />corporation, ffkla Eller Media Company, <br /> <br />Case Type; Other Civil <br /> <br />Case No. 62-CV-07-323I <br /> <br />Plaintiff, <br /> <br />v. <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF <br />CLEAR CHANNEL'S MOTION FOR <br />SUMMARY JUDGMENT <br /> <br />City of Arden Hills, <br /> <br />Defendant. <br /> <br />INTRODUCTION <br /> <br />i <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />! I <br />~ ) <br /> <br />Clear Channel is the owner of two outdoor advertising signs (billboards) located in <br /> <br />Arden Hills near the intersection of federal interstate highways 35W and 694. Each of these <br /> <br />signs is double-sided, with one image facing westbound traffic and the other facing <br /> <br />eastbound traffic. Because cun'ent Arden Hills ordinances prohibit outdoor advertising <br /> <br />signs, both signs are legal non-conforming uses. Late in 2006, in an effort to remain <br /> <br />competitive in the rapidly changing advertising market, Clear Channel replaced the westerly <br /> <br />face on one of the signs (the "1-694 sign") with a new LED face. <br /> <br />This matter is before the Court because of Arden Hills' demand that Clear Channel <br /> <br />remove the LED face and revert to the old face, which was designed to display changing <br /> <br />vinyl images. Because Clear Channel's conversion to a new technology constituted an <br /> <br />improvement, and because improvements are explicitly permitted under Minnesota's nOn- <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />; <br /> <br />confonning use statute, the City's position is without legal merit. For this and other reasons <br />