My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1A, Clear Channel Litigation
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
04-21-08-WS
>
1A, Clear Channel Litigation
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/18/2008 4:09:22 PM
Creation date
4/18/2008 4:08:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Document
Clearn Channel Litigation
General - Type
Agenda
Date
4/21/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />I. <br /> <br />THE SIGN PERMIT SHOULD BE DEEMED APPROVED BY OPERATION <br />OF LAW. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />, <br />, <br />I <br />i <br /> <br />As a threshold matter, Clear Channel is entitled to summary judgment because its sign <br /> <br />permit application was approved by operation of law. The Arden Hills Sign Code requires <br /> <br />permit applications to be reviewed "in an expedited manner." Sign Code ~ 1220.03 (June 26, <br /> <br />2006) ("Sign Code"), attached as Soules Aff., Ex. B. To ensure the timely processing of <br /> <br />, <br />~ j <br /> <br />permit applications, the Sign Code mandates that "[ aJII permits not reviewed within thirty <br /> <br />(30) days shall be deemed approved," and requires permit denials be provided through <br /> <br />written notice "that is postmarked within thirty (30) days of the accepted application." Id. ~ <br /> <br />1220.03. <br /> <br />In this case, Clear Channel submitted its sign permit application to the City on May <br /> <br />18,2007. See McCarver Aff., Ex. E (date stamped application). The City thus had thirty <br /> <br />days from May 18 to issue a Wlitten notice of denial. The City Planner's denial letter, <br /> <br />however, was not postmarked until June 19, 2007 - thirty-two days after the application was <br /> <br />received. Id., Ex. F. Because the City Planner's notice of denial was not postmarked within <br /> <br />thirty days, Clear Channel's sign permit application should be deemed approved by operation <br /> <br />oflaw. See Moreno v. City of Minneapolis, 676 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Minn. App. 2004) (holding <br /> <br />that a municipality's failure to act within an analogous 60-day limit imposed by Minn. Stal. <br /> <br />~ 15.99 results in automatic approval ofthe subject land use application).2 <br /> <br />2 By counterclaim, the City now argues, for the first time, that it should prevail because Clear <br />Channel failed to obtain a sign permit. See Counterclaim 'lI'124-37. This argument is <br />witham merit, and does not weigh against summary judgment in Clear Channel's favor. The <br />reasoning underlying this argument is circular: Clear Channel's failure to obtain a sign <br />penni! is the result of the City's own actions. <br /> <br />(continued on next page) <br /> <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.