Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Suite 1200. The Colonnade <br />5500 'W<iyzata Boulevard <br />Minneapolis, MN 55416-1270 <br /> <br />August 15, 2007 <br /> <br />www.bernicklifson.com <br /> <br />'Saul A Bernick * <br />Marvin 4- Liszt *** <br />Scott A. Lifson <br />Dav~d K. Nightingale ** <br />Paul J. Quast * <br />Steve,n .L.' Fre_eman ***** <br />Geqrge E. Warner,]r.**** <br />Jessica L--Roe <br />David. M. Ness <br />Sarah L Krans <br /> <br />JeromeFilIa <br />Peterson, Fram & Bergman,P.A. <br />50 E. 5th St.,Ste. 300 <br />St. Paul, MN 55101 <br /> <br />Phone 763.546-1200 <br />fax 763-546-1003 <br /> <br />Re: Clear Chal1nel / Arden Hills <br /> <br />Of Counsel <br />NealJ. Shapi,ro <br /> <br />{..egal Assistants <br />Nancy L. Whaylen <br />Brenda L. Da.rkow <br />Gina M. Zuel <br /> <br />Dear Jerry: <br /> <br />I will be filing a formal submission in connection with the appeal of the decision of the Planning <br />Commission upholding the denial of Clear Channel's permit application, but wanted to take this <br />opportullity to share my tllollghts with youprior to that submission. Simply stated, there is no <br />legitimate pasis for tlle zoning director's decision to be upheld as the decision is contrary to the <br />law inthis stateandtlle..city's own ordiJ:ulllces. As you lmow, there are tllree bases on which the <br />denial rests, and I will briefly address~ach separately. <br /> <br />The first basis for denial, and indeed the only basis tlmt the Plmming Commission deemed to be <br />of any substance, is tllat altering or enhancing the sign is prohibited by Section 1280.Ql, Subd. 4. <br />At the outset, it should be noted that the city staff and Planning Commission's denials are based <br />on ml erroneously stated pnlVision in the .ordinance which is theri applied to. deny the p",rmit. I <br />This error, by itself,renders thedecisions arbitrary andcaj"lricious. Atthe h"'aJ."ingonAugustl, <br />2007, the PlanningCommission seemed to rest its decision on tlle fact that the existing billboard <br />is heavier than the previous one, and concluded that this constitutes the factual basis for an <br />alteration that Violates the ordinance. There are a number of definitiye reasons why this analysis <br />cannot be upheld: <br /> <br />. State law clearly grants the right of replacement and improveiTIellt. See Minn. Stat. S <br />462.357(1)(e).. .... . . . . <br /> <br />. City staff and the Planning Commission applied the standard of "altering or <br />enhancing"a legal nonconformillg sign; the Planning Commission used this <br />erroneous standm:d to find that a pennit would not be issued solely .because the <br />weight of the sign had changed. Even undertlle erroneous stmldard used, the weight <br /> <br />] Ordinance Sec. 1280.01 Subd. 4 does not prohibit "altering or enhancing" a legal nonconforming sign. <br />In fact, the Ordinance. states that the uSe may not be "enlarged, moved, or altered in a way that increases <br />its nonconfor. 'luity.'" . Alw Ceni~e.d ~l\bli~ Acc~unlant <br />** Also i\dmltted III _WisconSin <br />..... Real Property Law Specialist <br />Cetlifiedbj lhe Minrnsola Slow <br />BarA.;sod"li~n . <br />UH Board Certified in Credilors' Righu <br />bylhe,AmcricanBoardofC'.enificalioll <br />**.... Also Admitted in California <br />