1A, Clear Channel Litigation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ll. THE REPLACEMENT OF THE 1-694 SIGN FACE WAS A PERMISSffiLE IMPROVEMENT UNDER STATE LAW. As a lawful non-conforming use, the 1-694 sign is govemed by Minnesota's non- confonnity statute, Minn. Stat. 9462.357, subd. Ie. At one time, the sign's non-conforming status would have limited any work performed on the sign to maintenance and repairs. See Minn. Stat. 9462.357, subd. Ie (2003) (allowing non-confonnities to be continued "through repair or maintenance"). The limited protections afforded non-confonnities were consistent with the state's longstanding policy of restricting non-confonning uses in order "to increase the likelihood that nonconformities 'will in time be eliminated due to obsolescence, exhaustion, or destruction. ,,, County of Lake v. Courtney, 451 N. W.2d 338, 341 n.1 (Minn. App. 1990) (citation omitted). That is no longer the case. In 2004, the Minnesota Legislature amended the non- confonning use statute to specifically allow landowners to make "improvements" to non- (continued from previous page) Just as importantly, in considering the validity of a municipal land use decision, courts focus on the rccord that was before the council at the time of its decision. See, e.g., Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park, 211 nW.2d 358, 362 (Minn. 1973). Otherwise, a municipality could "arbitrarily deny a pelmit and later, after the denial is challenged, state reasons which are completely unconnected with the actual basis for the denial." Id.; see a/so Concept Properties, LLP v. City ofMinnetrista, 694 N.W.2d 804, 827 (Minn. App. 2005) ("The rationale for mandating VI'ritten findings accompanying a decision to deny a zoning application is to prevent a government's post hoc rationalization of a capricious decision"). In this case, the City Council denied Clear Channel's permit application on the basis of six clearly articulated findings, all documented in the record. See Sept. 10 Tr. at 45-46; McCarver Aff., Ex. H. The City Council did not rely upon nor even mention Section 1220.01 of the Sign Code. The one City official who raised the issue at all - the City Planner - stated that the City Council's decision "should be based on the merits of the sign and the applicable regulations as opposed to whether a sign pennit was needed." Soules Aff., Ex. H, at 4. Because the City did not rely on Section 1220.01 in reaching its decision, that provision has no bearing on this case. 10