1A, Clear Channel Litigation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Clear Channel timely appealed the City Planner's decision to the Arden Hills Planning Commission, which upheld the permit denial. In denying the permit, the Planning Commission adopted the same reasoning given by the City Planner in his June letter to Clear Channel. See McCarver Aff., Ex. G. Clear Channel again timely appealed this decision to the City Council. On September 10, 2007, the City Council considered Clear Channel's appeal. The City Council denied Clear Channel's appeal based on its conclusion that the new LED sign face constituted an impermissible cxpansion. The Council's conclusion was based on five factual fmdings: (1) that the amperage of the sign was increased; (2) that the four extemallights had been increased to thousands of lights; (3) that the width of the sign face increased from two inches to eight inches; (4) that the weight increased from 1000 pounds to 9000 pounds; and (5) that structural supports were added to the sign. The Council cited as a further reason for denial that the LEDs are internal to the sign itself and not an extemal lighting source as defined by the Sign Code. See Transcript of September 10, 2006 Council Mtg. ("Sept. 10 Tr.") at 45-46, attached as Soules Aff., Ex. A. By letter dated September 20,2007, the Arden Hills City Planner informed Clear Channel of the City Council's decision and reiterated these same grounds. McCarver Aft:, Ex. H. By that same letter, the City directed Clear Channel to remove the LED sign and replace it with a panel designed to display vinyl images. ld In order to protect its statutory right to make improvements to its signs, Clear Channel filed this action on September 26, 2007. !i 7