1A, Clear Channel Litigation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Robert H. Lynn April 15, 2008 Page 3 of a billboard. Second, any such expansion, alteration, or modification must be in connection with a transaction that results in a net reduction of the number or sign face area of billboards. Section 1320.13, subd. 6(G)3 of the Sign Code provides that any billboard located in the GB District may be expanded, altered, relocated, or otherwise modified solely upon written approval of the City, provided the expansion, alteration, relocation or modification is authored [sic] by the City of Arden Hills in connection with a transaction which will result in the net reduction in the number of billboards or in the aggregate sign face area of the billboards, located in the GB District. This provision was adopted in 1998 at the request of Clear Channel's predecessor in interest, as part of an arrangement under which it was permitted to build two new sign structures in exchange for the removal of its other sign structures in the Gateway Business District. D. The City Limits the Illumination of Signs in Sign District 7 The City regnlates the illumination of freestanding signs located in Sign District 7. Section 1240.02, Table I, of the Sign Code permits only extemallighting for such signs, and Section 1210.01, subd. 6, defines external lighting as illumination "by means of external light fixtures directed at the sign." E. The City Prohibits the Alteration of a Sign Without Obtaining a Sign Permit The City does not permit the alteration of a sign without obtaining a sign permit. Section 1220.DI of the Sign Code states that "[eJxcept for those signs listed in Section 1230.01, no permanent or temporary sign shall be erected, altered, reconstructed, maintained, or moved in the City without obtaining a sign permit from the City." F. Plaintiff Replaced the Static Face of One ofIts Billboards With an LED Display On December 7, 2006, Plaintiff began to operate an LED dynamic display on the sign, which it has installed in place of the static face without notice to or permission from the City. Plaintiff never submitted a sign permit application to the City before installing or operating the LED face. Although Plaintiff had obtained an electrical permit from the independent contractor hired by the City to receive and grant electrical permits, it never disclosed in its application that it was installing an LED sign face. The department of the City responsible for issuing sign alteration permits leamed about the sign only after it was installed and operational. Clear Channel repeated its pre-emptive approach in most if not all of the other five cities where it decided to install such devices, triggering responses that included stop-work orders and an electrical shutoff (in Minnetonka), cease-and-desist letters (from Arden Hills and Maplewood), and the adoption of moratoria (in all six cities except Maplewood, plus many others that feared a repeat of Clear Channel's approach).