pf_02977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-^ ~.- ~.n~...~hh CON\! JEuNS'E'KEKSON G1LL1~~~ 03127/9-- APR02" -;98 09: 03AM PET, BELL, v, P. 3/4 !{fIUUoJ Mr. Robert Bell March 27, 1998 Page 2 to the following: "6. All signage for the project must comply with the current , requirements of S'CCtion 1009 of the City Code. includi:ng the size and location of wall signs and directional signs. The foregoing language applies to new signage but not to the existing non-confonninS frce&tmding sign, which may continue purSuant to the tenns and conditions oftbe City's sign ordinance." Although I believe that it is clear UDder the City ordinances that the City cannot force the removal oCthe non-confmming sign, ifthere were any ambiguity, the ordinanc-es must bt: constIUed in favor of the properly owner's position which is that the sign use may continue. See ~ America v Citv of Little Cana4..8.. 539 N.W. 2d 264 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied; Frank'!; ~:ry $ale$- Inc. v. City.9fRosevin~ 295 N.W. 2d 604 (Minn. 1980). If the City wishes to tem1inate the use of the non-conforming sign, it cannot do so simply by adding the removal as a condition of Ute CUP. The courts have repeatedly made It clear that existing non-conforming uses must either be permitted to remain or be eliminated by US~ of eminent domain. See Oswalt v. Rams~ CouQn-', 311 N.W. 2d 241 (Minn. App. 1985), review denied; County of F~bom v. Claus~en) 203 N.W. 2cl323 (Minn. 1972). If the City ccmtinues with the enforcement of the CUP condition ofre:znova1 of the sign, a regulatory taking will have occurred., for which compensation must be paid. A regulatory taking occurs when a governmental body conditions some discretionary benefit on compliance with an otherwise unconstitutional regulation or action. Dolan v. Cj~ ofTigard, 114 S.Ct. 2309 (I 994). In this cas~ a new sign will cost my clients $18.000. plus the cost of removal of the existing sign. Moreover. the new sign win not be as effective a marketing tool as the existing sign. resulting in further losses to my client. . , So my client will DOt be in. violation of the CUP when the store is to open on or about June 8. 1998~ my client ~ to order the new sign by April 1 S~ 1998. so it will be ready for installation by June 1. 1998_ Ifmy clieat is fon:cd m-onler the neW sign because the City wiU not amend the CUP by April 15, 1998. then my client has DO recourse but to seek compensation from the City thereafter. I suggest that if the City Council does not have time to act upon this request for an. amendment to the CUP by April 15. 1998, then the City could agree now that my client may I 5402BDM