1A, Clear Channel Litigation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

than merely repair, restoration, or maintenance. See Minn. Stat. 9 645.16 (interpretative I I canon that a statute should be construed to give effect to all of its provisions). By necessity, an improvement must involve some physical change to the non-conforming structure. See Lietz, 718 N.W.2d at 869 (defining an improvement as a physical installation that is "distinguished from ordinary repairs"). To construe Section 462.357 as the City proposes - such that modest physical alterations are prohibited - would effectively write the word "improvement" out of the statute. The Court should reject this unreasonable construction of the statute. m. THE LIGHTING PROVISIONS OF THE CITY'S SIGN CODE CANNOT BE ENFORCED AGAINST THE 1-694 SIGN. In denying Clear Channel's sign permit application, the City relied, altematively, on the Sign Code's requirement that freestanding signs in Sign District 7 are limited to extemal lighting. But this requirement is inapplicable. The City lacks the necessary State approval to enforce its municipal lighting restrictions against the 1-694 sign. Even if the City had such approval, the lighting restrictions ofthe Sign Code do not apply to billboards. In any event, the external lighting requirement relied on by the City is arbitrary and unenforceable. A. Lacking State Certification, The City Cannot Impose Its Own Lighting Restrictions On The 1-694 Sign. Because the 1-694 sign is adjacent to an interstate highway, the Minnesota Outdoor Advertising Control Act applies to this sign. The Outdoor Advertising Control Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 173 ("Outdoor Advertising Act" or "the Act"), whose major provisions were passed in 1965 and 1971, is designed to accomplish the purposes of the Federal Highway Beautification Act and to bring state law into compliance with federal law. Minn. Stat. 9 173.01. Under the Act, outdoor advertising signs located within commercial or industrial 15