1A, Clear Channel Litigation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

its supporting structure remain unchanged. Compare McCarver Aff., Ex.l (vinyl sign face) with id, Ex. J (LED sign face). TelIingly, the findings relied upon by the City relate to matters which are not even within the scope the City's own regulatory scheme: Nothing in the Arden Hills Sign Code purports to limit, or even addresses, the amperage, number of lights, depth, or weight of any sign. Even so, the City concluded that these unregulated changes amounted to an expansion. The City's position, in short, is that the only "improvements" allowed under the non- conformity statute are those that have absolutely no effect on the electrical usage, lighting, dimensions, or weight. But the Minnesota Legislature did not intend such a cramped reading of this statute. At the committee hearings, legislators offered several examples of what might constitute an improvement, such as (l) the replacement of a dirt driveway with a paved driveway, Feb. 17 Tr. at 15; (2) the addition of a security system "with, say, cameras or something," id.; and (3) "[c]hanging the lighting inside a building," id. at 26. Each of these examples would result in an increase the dimensions, weight, electrical usage, or lighting of a non-confonnity. The fact that the legislators found such changes to be pelmissible, and that this legislation was passed by an overwhelming majority, underscores Clear Channel's right to update the technology of the 1-694 sign. As a practical matter, the City's interpretation would preclude any material changes to a non-conforming use. This contrasts with the statutory language, which allows non- confonnities to be continued "through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement." Minn. Stat. S 462.357, subd. Ie (emphasis added). The Legislature's inclusion of all these words necessarily implies that an "improvement" is something more 14