CCP 01272025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment 4 E XTRACT OF THE D RAFT J ANUARY 8, 2025, P LANNING C OMMISSION M EETING M INUTES a. Planning File Heading (PF24-016) Reconsideration of a request by Clear Channel Outdoor MSP for a City Code Amendment to Title 10, Chapter 1010, Sign Regulations, to allow two (2) lawful pre-existing non-conforming off-site billboards to be converted to Dynamic/Digital (LED) Displays, as well as additional modifications to §1010.10 Dynamic Displays in support of changing the duration from 25 seconds to 8 seconds and modifications to maximum daylight illumination from 5,000 nits to 6,500 nits. City Planner Paschke summarized the request as detailed in the January 8, 2025, staff report. Member McGehee asked about Item C under HC. Staff put 500 feet, and she thought, as she was reading the information, it was the only one the City has near residential, with 750 feet. Mr. Paschke indicated that would not necessarily be correct; it would be the one on top of Brown Wilbert on Hamline Avenue. Generally, what was being measured was 250 to 300 feet from residential property on the east side. Ms. Gundlach indicated that the 5oo foot proposed in the ordinance would mean that the one on top of that building could not be converted to a dynamic display. Member McGehee indicated nothing in the ordinance would give the City control of what was on those signs or where the City’s advertising was placed in terms of being sandwiched between other ads. Mr. Pascke indicated that the City Council would have to approve an agreement with Clear Channel regarding the content and the number of hours. The City can approve how that all works. Ms. Gundlach noted that this would only be for the City’s content. The City cannot legally control the electronic or static content on billboards. She indicated this should not be approved if it concerns the Planning Commission. Member McGehee indicated she was concerned about where city advertising would be placed in these ads. She had concerns about the distraction of these displays along the freeways, which are very busy, especially in these areas. She was also concerned about the content there, and the City has no control over this. The City has regulations but no other control over the content. Member Bjorum indicated to piggyback on the last part with the freezing screen and shut down; the note that would be added to the ordinance was that Clear Channel would have to shut it down within one hour of being notified by the City. Does the City count that? That assumes to him that the City was giving them an hour to shut it down, or there would be a penalty imposed or something of that nature. Does the City dictate that, and how can the City enforce it? I am not assuming that Clear Channel would act in bad faith if the City asked them to shut it down because it was broken, but if we had that language in the ordinance, would that mean the City would have to enforce that somehow? Mr. Paschke indicated that if there were a problem with the dynamic displays, Clear Channel would know before the City did because everything was electronic. Clear Channel can monitor it, change things, and do everything. They are going to know if there is an issue. He noted he did not know the ramifications if Clear Channel did not shut it down. Qbhf!93!pg!363