Laserfiche WebLink
<br />03/27/9- APR02- '.:9E( 09:03AM" PEt;'" BELL , CONV,JENSEKt:KsuN (;jlLLlJ..J\.!'\IU <br /> <br />P. 3/4=~~~ <br /> <br />Mr. Robert Bell <br />March 27, 1998 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />to the following: <br /> <br />"6. All signage for the project must comply with the cWTent , <br />requirements of Section 1009 of the City Code, includ.i:ng the size 21m <br />locmtion of wall signs and directional signs. The foregoing language <br />applies to new signage but not to the existing non-confonning <br />:freestanding sign, which may continue purguant to the terms and <br />conditions of the City's sign ordinance." <br /> <br />Although I believe that it is clear UDder the City ordinan~es that the City cannot force the <br />removal of the non-conforming 5ign. if there were any ambiguity, the ordinanc-cs must be constrU~ <br />in favor of the property owner's position which is that the sign use may continue. See.5.m!g <br />America v. Citv of Little Can. 539 N.W. 2d 264 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied.; Frank'" <br />Nursery Sale$. Inc. 'II. City ~fRosevill~ 295 N.W. 2d 604 (Minn. 1980). <br /> <br />If the City wishes to tem1inate the use of the non-conforming sign, it cannot do so simply by <br />adding the removal as a condition of the CUP. The courts have repeatedly made It clear that existing <br />non-conforming uses must either be permitted to remain or be eliminated by use of eminent domain. <br />See Oswalt v. Ra1'1tSey Coumy, 371 N.W. 2d 241 (Minn. App. 1985), revie'-'.. denied; C.OUT)ty of <br />Freeborn v. Claus~n, 203 N.W. 2<1323 (Minn. 1972). <br /> <br />If the City continues with the enforcement of the CUP condition of removal ofthe sign, a <br />regulatory taking wiII have occurred, for which compensation must be paid. A regulatory taking <br />occurs when a governmental body conditions some discretionary benefit on Gompliance with an <br />otherwise unconstitutional regulation or action~ Dolan v. Ci~ afTigard, 114 S.Ct. 2309 (1994). <br /> <br />In this cas~ a new sign will cost my clients $18,000, plus the cost of removal of the existing <br />sign. Moreover, the new sign win not be as effective a. marketing tool as the existing sign, r~ulting <br />in further losses to my client. ' <br /> <br />So my client will not be in violation of the CUP when the store is to open on or about June <br />8, 1998. my client needs to order the new sign by Apri115, 1998, so it will be ready for installation <br />by June 1. 1998_ <br /> <br />If my client is farced to order the new sign because the City will not amend the CUP by April <br />IS, 1998. then my client has no recourse but to seek compensation from the City thereafter. <br /> <br />I suggest that if the City Council does not have time to act upon this n:.'"quest fot' an <br />amendment to the CUP by April 15, 1998, then the City could agree now that my client may <br /> <br />154018DII( <br />