Laserfiche WebLink
<br />C. The City's Actions With Respect To The 1-694 Sign <br /> <br />The City, for its part, did not question Clear Channel's replacement of the westerly sign <br /> <br />face until after December 10,2006, when Clear Channel first began operating the LED display <br /> <br />technology.] By letter dated December 11, 2006, the City ordered that Clear Channel remove the <br /> <br />alleged non-compliant features of the new sign face. McCarver Aff., Ex. C. After more than a <br /> <br />month of discussions, the City then directed Clear Channel to submit a sign permit application. Id., <br /> <br />Ex. D.Discussions continued. As a result of those discussion, and although maintaining that a <br /> <br />local sign permit was unnecessary because of its statutory right to make improvements, Clear <br /> <br />Channel submitted a pennit application to the City on May 18,2007. Id, Ex. E. <br /> <br />James Lehnhoff, the Arden HiIls City Planner, denied the application in a letter postmarked <br /> <br />June 19,2007. See McCarver AIT., Ex. F. Mr. Lehnhoff cited as his reasons for denying the <br /> <br />pennit that Clear Channel's renovation of the 1-694 sign was impermissible because "(a)ltering or <br /> <br />enhancing a nonconforming use is prohibited," that modifications to a billboard are allowed only <br /> <br />when done in connection with a transaction that reduces the number of billboards within the City, <br /> <br />and that because the LED display was not extemaIly lit it violated the City's lighting regulations <br /> <br />for freestanding signs in Sign District 7. <br /> <br />I For a short time, from early November to December 10, 2006, Clear Channel placed a vinyl <br />image over the LED sign face, and did not take advantage of the new technology. McCarver <br />Aff. ~ 12. The reason was that new advertising contracts were not in place until December. <br /> <br />6 <br />