Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2009

Home

(=~) i I I I .r-,: ( ') I j I I I I I I I I i 1 I i I j I I l fl,ij _.__--l Zoning Bulletin April 25, 2009 I Volume 3 I No.8 ',.---' Following entry of the Judgment, Halla was issued a permit for an off- premises sign that was within the Judgment's size requirements. Shortly after the sign was erected, the city observed that Halla's sign faces were illuminated in violation of the Judgment. The city notified Halla of this violation. However, the city took no action against Hilla. The sign re- mained standing and unchanged until 2005 . In 2005, the city issued Halla a permit for an off-premises "illumi- nated monument sign." The permit was. issued by the city planner, Josh Metzer. Metzer was unaware of the Judgment. The ,permit allowed a sign in excess of the Judgment's size restrictions. . When construction of the sign was nearly complete, Metzer deter- . mined that the sign .violated city ordinances and the Judgment. Metzer issued Hallaa stop-work order. . Halla then filed a legal action against the city. It asked the court to prohibit the city from interfering with the use of the sign. Among other things, Halla contended that: (1) it had a vested right to use its substan- tially completed sign since the city failed for eight years to enforce the Judgment; and (2) in any case the sign complied with the Judgment be- cause the Judgment allowed Halla to construct a sign "pursuant to a sign permit issued by the [c ]ity," and the. City had issued a permit for the sign. The district court concluded that: (1) Halla was entitled to illliIDinate the sigil because the city had failed to enforce the Judgment .and had al~ lowed Halla to operate an illuminated sign for 8 years; and (2) Halla had a vested right in the construction of the sign because Halla had, "so sub- stantially completed the financial investment and the physical construc- tion [of the sign]," The city appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The Court of Appeals of Minnesota disagreed with the lower court. It first heid that despite failing to enforce the Judgment's restriction on sign illumination for eight years, the city could still enforce the Judg- m~nt's sign restrictions. This was because the Judgment expressly provid-' ed that any inaction by the city would not constitute a waiver or amend- ment to the Judgment. Next the court held that, contrary to Halla's contentions, the Judg- ment did not allow Halla to construct any sign as long as the city issued a permit, Rather, the court found that since the Judgment allowed for only one off-premises sign; the allowance under the stipulated judgment for "signs pursuant to. a sign permit issued by the [c]ity" applied only to on-prennseli SIgns. Finally, and most significantly, the court held that Halla did not have a vested right to complete the construction of the s.ign. The court explained @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 3 31