2000_0327_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Dennis Welsch March 16, 2000 Page 4 Finally, the 1988 and 1995 additions added in excess of 107,000 square feet to the mall. Presumably, the addition consumed a substantial amount of parking space. The medical center of 42,000 square feet proposed in 1976 was still 65,000 feet short of the ultimate additions to Har Mar Mall. Yet, the addition proposed in 1976 barely allowed for adequate parking under the ordinance. How can the current building footprint have no effect on parking spaces required under the ordinance? At the Hearing, Bradley's counsel suggested that denial of the request for a variance may deprive Bradley of a reasonable use of their property, inferring that a denial of the request for a variance may constitute an unconstitutional taking of the property. The Minnesota Constitution provides that "[P]rivate property shall not be taken, destroyed, or damaged for public use without just compensation therefore, first paid or secured." Minn. Const. Art. 1, § 13. In order to establish an unconstitutional taking, a landowner must show that the government's action or inaction has deprived the landowner of "all the reasonable uses of his land." Czech v. City of Blaine, 3 12 Minn. 535,253 N.W.2d 272,274 (1977). The courts have made it clear that the "allowance of a variance is compelled only where there has been an unlawful taking of property in a constitutional sense, demonstrated by the landowner's inability to put his land to any beneficial use unless the variance is granted." Sun Oil Co. v. Village ofNew Hope, Minn., 220 N. W.2d 256 (1974). In Bradley's circumstance, they have not been deprived of all beneficial uses of the property. First, they built an addition on the property in 1995 that exceeded the lot coverage allowance. Second, they, and their predecessors, have been using the south lot in the same fashion as it has been used for 40 years - as a parking lot needed to provide parking spaces mandated by lease agreements or city ordinance. These are reasonable uses of the property. The decision to go ahead with the 1988 and 1995 additions to the mall, rather than construct a freestanding medical center in the south lot, were business decisions, not decisions mandated by city ordinance. There has been no taking by the City of Roseville. We urge you to consider carefully the well reasoned findings and adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Ve truly yours, / �� Lee J. Keller LJK/cm Enclosures cc w/encls: Mr. Adrian P.H. Keller Mr. Joel Jamnik