1A, Clear Channel Litigation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Robert H. Lynn April 15, 2008 Page 4 G. Undisputed Differences Between the Static Sign Face and thc LED Sign Although Plaintiff has represented that the LED sign is no different than the static sign face in terms of length, width, and square footage, Plaintiff admitted to the City that the LED sign is different from the static sign in the following respects: . The depth of the LED display device is 8 to 10 inches, but the static sign face was onJy 2 inches in depth; . The static sign had four extemallight fixtures located outside the sign face directed at the sign face, but the LED sign consists of thousands of LEDs generating light from the surface of the sign itself; . The amperage of the LED sign is four times greater than the amperage of the vinyl sign; and . The weight of the LED sign is 9,000 to 10,000 pounds, but the weight of the static sign was 1,000 to 1,500 pounds, and to support the additional weight of the LED sign, the sign pole was modified and structural supports were added to the sign structure. See Exhibit A (letter from Marvin Liszl to James Lenhoff dated May 18,2007) and Exhibit B (Excerpts of the transcript of Minutes of City Council Meeting, September 10, 2007, at 25-29, 33-36.). H. Thc City Denied Plaintiff's After-the-Fact Sign Permit Application Three days after Clear Channel began to operate the LED device, the City Planner notified Plaintiff in a letter dated December 11, 2006 that its LED sign was unJawful and requested Plaintiff to remove the noncompliant features of the sign within 30 days. Plaintiff refused to do so. In a sign code violation letter dated January 24, 2007, the City Planner again notified Plaintiff that its LED sign was unlawful and that Plaintiff had failed to obtain the required permit. In that letter, the City Planner requested Plaintiff to submit a sign permit application. Three weeks later, in a letter dated February 13,2007, the City Attorney informed Plaintiff that its sign was unJawful for many reasons, including the fact that Plaintiff had failed to seek a sign permit. Plaintiff did not submit a sign permit application until mid-May 2007. The City Planner denied Plaintiff's after-the-fact sign permit application and directed Plaintiff to remove the LED sign and reinstall the previous sign face. On appeal, the Planning Commission and the City Council upheld the decision to deny the sign permit. In a letter to Plaintiff dated September 20,2007, the City Council identified the following reasons for denying the sign permit: