pf_02977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

April 9, 1998 Page 2 nonconforming uses and particularly nonconforming signs. The City's Comprehensive Plan lists, among its goals and policies, the following: Continue fair and comprehensive sign control as a method of creating a higher aesthetic level of the community. Survey existing signs to determine conformance with existing regulations. The fact that FAI's site plan would continue a nonconforming use is clearly incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The Council also engaged in discussion regarding compatibility of the site plan with surrounding properties. Specifically, they noted the Color Tile/Futon Gallery sign to the north is set back much further than the Arby's sign, and that McDonald's, in their recently granted CUP, was required to bring their non-conforming sign into compliance. McDonald's did not object to this requirement to lower and move back its sign. The Council also reaffirmed that they will continue this policy of requiring sign conformance when conditional use applications are brought before them. The only way to achieve compatibility was to require your client to do what all other similarly situated commercial businesses must do when applying for a CUP -- have their structures meet present code requirements. The law requires that the Council treat conditional use applicants similarly. Hubbard Broadcasting vs. City of Afton, 323 N.W. 2d 757 (Minn. 1982). Allowing a CUP for this site while retaining a sign that is illegal under present code requirements would simply exacerbate the offense which would undermine the policy behind nonconforming uses, which is to obtain their eventual eradication. I agree with your statement that the City cannot force the removal of the noncorming sign and that there is no ambiguity in the City Code in this regard. However, the City is not forcing the removal of the nonconforming sign. Rather, it is F AI which has forced this issue through their conditional use application which is incompatible with contiguous properties and incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The Council's decision will be entitled to great deference on review and will be disturbed on appeal only if the decision has no rational basis. SuperAmerica vs. City of Little Canada, 539 N.W. 2d 264 (Minn. App. 1995). The cases you have cited for the proposition that nonconforming uses must either be permitted to remain or be eliminated by use of eminent domain are not on point. Those cases did not involve an application for a CUP and therefore are of no precedential value. With regard to a regulatory taking, the City has a legitimate interest in requiring compatibility with surrounding properties and the Comprehensive Plan, and the requirement to