2009-07-23 Lamar Served Documents
Larkin
Hoffi:M!~
Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd.
1500 Wells Fargo Plaza
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431-1194
952-835-3800
952-896-3333
www.larkinhoffman.com
July 23, 2009
VIA MESSENGER
Bridget Miller, City Clerk
City of Albertville
P.O. Box 9
5959 Main Avenue
Albertville, MN 55301
Re: Lamar Advertising Company, et al. v. Dayton Holding, Inc., et al.
Court File No. ev 06-7846 gb -CA/- oq.- 3095
Our File No. 28347-09
Dear Ms. Miller:
Enclosed and personally served upon you in the above-captioned matter, please find the
following:
1. Copy of letter to signing Judge;
2. Amended Verified Complaint and Summons and Petition for Writ of Mandamus;
3. Order Allowing Alternative Writ of Mandamus;
4. Alternative Writ of Mandamus; and
5. Certificate of Representation and Parties.
sin~tJ,k~
ssica B. Rivas, for
rkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd.
Direct Dial:
Direct Fax:
Email:
(952) 896-3384
(952) 842-1740
irivas{cV,larkinhoffman. com
cc: Patrick Cole, Esq.
Emil Radaich
Conner Eglin
Mark Sherwood
Peter 1. Coyle, Esq.
Rob A. Stefonowicz, Esq.
1265020.1
:~~-7_~~_ _:- ~_ -== _ ~ _ _ -_ -~. -- -_ ._ c _ -_- _ -:,_ -_------~-,- '_->/C-,:.:~?~::.~~--;-~::~~--- ~"7_C70_---~_~~_-_-- - ~ ~
Larkin
HoJm!illJ
Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd.
1500 Wells Fargo Plaza
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431-1194
GENERAL, 952-835-3800
FAX, 952-896-3333
WEB, www.larkinhoffinan.com
July 21 2009
Court Administrator
Wright County District Court
Wright County Government Center
10 Second Street NW
Buffalo, MN 55313
Re: Lamar Advertising Company, et al. v. Dayton Holding, Inc., et al.
Court File No. €V-06-7846 7Jb-Ct/-/)'r - 35'<1 &'
Our File No. 28347-08
Dear Administrator:
Enclosed for filing in the above-captioned matter, please find the following:
1. Letter to signing Judge;
2. Amended Verified Complaint and Summons and Petition for Writ of Mandamus;
3. Proposed Order Allowing Alternative Writ of Mandamus;
4. Proposed Alternative Writ of Mandamus;
5. Certificate of Representation and Parties; and
6. Our firm check in the amount of$55.00 for the Writ filing fee.
Sinc~ f/. f(~
?;;ca B. Rivas, for
{1:Ln Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd.
Direct Dial:
Direct Fax:
Email:
(952) 896-3384
(952) 842-1740
irivas@larkinhoffman.com
Wright County Court Administrator
July 21,2009
Page 2
Enclosures
cc: Patrick J. Cole, Esq.
Bridget Miller
Emil Radaich
Connor Eglin
Mark Sherwood
Peter J. Coyle, Esq.
Rob A. Stefonowicz, Esq.
1264724.1
~:.= ~-=::.=-_-:~~- ~_ _~__ '- _~R'~' _~_' __'~ __.,. _ __ _ ~- ~=::t, -,; ~ _ ,_ ~~ -
Larkin
HoffiM~
Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd.
1500 Wells Fargo Plaza
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431-1194
GENERAL, 952-835-3800
FAX, 952-896-3333
WEB, www.larkinhoffinan.com
July 21,2009
Judge of Wright County District Court
Wright County Government Center
10 Second Street NW
Buffalo, MN 55313
VIA PERSONAL
DELIVERY
Re: Lamar Advertising Company, et al. v. Dayton Holding, Inc. and Stephen Nelson
and the City of Albertville B.s-rg
Court File No. ~V-06-784o fIb .... ClJ- tJ1-
Our File No. 28,347-08
To the Honorable Judge of the Above-Named Court:
This law firm represents plaintiffs-petitioners Lamar Advertising Company, and Lamar OCI
North Corporation d/b/a (collectively "Lamar") in the above-referenced matter. On behalf of
Lamar, we have filed the following documents with the Wright County District Court: (1)
Summons and Amended Verified Complaint and Petition for Writ of Mandamus; (2) proposed
Order Allowing Writ of Mandamus; (3) proposed Alternative Writ of Mandamus (4) Certificate
of Representation; and (5) Writ filing fee in the amount of$55.00.
In connection with our request for mandamus relief, we are asking that you sign a proposed order
allowing issuance of an Alternative Writ of Mandamus, which will, in turn, provide authority to
the court administrator to execute the Alternative Writ of Mandamus. The execution of the
Alternative Writ of Mandamus enables Lamar to commence this Writ of Mandamus Action by
serving the pleadings upon the City of Albertville ("City"), as well as the original defendants.
While such writs are commonly used in our land-use practice, we find that courts do not often
have significant experience with these requests. I write to explain why we are making this
request of you at this stage in the proceedings.
Through this Amended Verified Complaint and Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Lamar is
bringing the City into this lawsuit. Part of the lawsuit against the City is an inverse
condemnation action in which Lamar alleges that the City has taken away valuable property
rights from Lamar without just compensation. Inverse condemnation claims must be initiated by
a petition for a writ of mandamus, Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Me ndota Heights, 708 N.W.2d
162, 178, n. 10 (Minn. 2006) ("actions for inverse condemnation may appropriately be brought
by writ of mandamus" [citations omitted]). The Mendota Golf case provides a helpful discussion
of the proper use of mandamus. Id. at 176-79.
The procedure for obtaining a writ of mandamus is set out in Minn. Stat. Ch 586. A mandamus
compels an inferior tribunal, corporation, township, board, or person to perform some act
Judge of Wright County District Court
July 21,2009
Page 2
required by law. Minn. Stat. S 586.01. A writ of mandamus is either "alternative" or
"peremptory." Minn. Stat. S 586.03. An alternative writ of mandamus - such as the one we are
asking you to authorize - recites facts that mirror the allegations in the complaint, then
commands the defendant either to: 1) perform the act plaintiff-petitioner insists is required; or 2)
show cause before the court why defendant-respondent need not perform the act. Minn. Stat. S
586.03. Court administration cannot issue an alternative writ of mandamus without a court
order. Minn. Stat. S 586.05.
It is important to note that the alternative writ does not simply order the City to perform an act
without a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The "show cause" aspect of the alternative writ
allows the City several options. In practice, defendants nearly always choose to show cause by
serving and filing an answer to the petition for writ of mandamus. Under the statutes, the answer
demonstrates sufficient cause why defendant need not perform as directed before the return date
set out in the alternative writ. See Minn. Stat. S 586.06. This is why the "return date" on the
writ is usually 20 days or more from the date the writ is issued - so that Defendant is allowed the
same time to answer as in an ordinary civil action. Once the answer is filed, the show cause
hearing is removed from the calendar and the case proceeds as a normal civil matter, with the
writ and answer acting as the pleadings. Minn. Stat. S 586.08. If Lamar ultimately prevail, the
court issues a peremptory writ of mandamus that finally commands the City to perform the act
required by law.
Not only is the Order Allowing the Alternative Writ of Mandamus required to initiate this action,
it is also not appealable. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that a grant of a writ is not
appealable until judgment is entered and a peremptory writ is issued. See Ullrich v. Newburg
Township Bd., 648 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Minn. App. 2002); see also Minn. Stat. S 586.09. This will
not occur in our case unless Lamar ultimately prevails on the merits.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to address this issue. Please feel free to call with any
questions or concerns regarding our request.
e= ;S{z;. H WT/J
J sica B. Rivas, for
kin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd.
Direct Dial: (952) 896-3384
Direct Fax: (952) 842-1740
Email: irivas@larkinhoffman.com
cc: Bridget Miller, Albertville City Clerk
Patrick J. Cole
Emil Radaich
Connor Eglin
Mark Sherwood
Peter J. Coyle, Esq.
Rob A. Stefonowicz, Esq.
1264619.1
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
DISTRICT COURT
CERTIFICATE OF REPRESENTATION AND PARTIES
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
* * (ONLY THE INITIAL FILING LAWYERlPARTY NEED TO COMPLETE TillS FORM.**
Court File Number - CV-06-/846 136 -etJ-tJ:JsrfJ
Dayton Holding Inc., Stephen Nelson, and City of
vs. Albertville.
Lamar Advertising Company, and Lamar OCI
North Corporation d/b/a Lamar Advertising of St.
Cloud, Minnesota, Inc.
Pursuant to Rule 104 of the General Rules of Practice for District Courts, this form must be completed
and filed with the Court Administrator's Office at the time the case is filed. The court administrator shall,
upon receipt of the completed certificate, notify all parties of their lawyers of the date of filing the action
and the file number assigned.
LIST ALL LA WYERS/PRO SE PAR TIES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.
Plaintiffs
Lamar Advertising Company, and Lamar
OCI North corporation d/b/a Lamar
Advertising of St. Cloud of Minnesota, Inc.
Rob A. Stefonowicz (297161)
Jessica B. Rivas (312897)
Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd.
1500 Wells Fargo Plaza
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55431-1194
Tel: 952-835-3800
Fax: 952-896-3333
Date: July 21,2009
1264665.1
Defendants
Dayton Holding, Inc. and Stephen Nelson
Patrick J. Cole
Leonard Street and Deinard
3800 Eighth Street North
Suite 102
St. Cloud, MN 56303
Tel: 320-654-4100
Fax: 320-654-4101
Defendants
City of Albertville
Bridget Miller, City Clerk
City of Albertville
P.O. Box 9
5959 Main Avenue
Albertville, MN 55301
Tel: 763-497-3384
Fax: 763-497-3210
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
DISTRICT COURT
TENTH WDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: OTHER CIVIL
File No.
Lamar Advertising Company, and
Lamar OCI North Corporation
d/b/a Lamar Advertising of St.
Cloud, Minnesota, Inc.,
P laintiffs- peti ti oners,
SUMMONS
v.
Dayton Holding Inc., and Stephen
Nelson,
Defendants,
and
City of Albertville,
Additional Defendant-Respondent.
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS.
You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon Plaintiffs-petitioners' attorneys an
answer to the amended verified complaint which is herewith served upon you within twenty (20)
days after service of this Summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do
so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the amended
verified complaint.
This case may be subject to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes under
Rule 114 of the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts. The Court Administrator or
your attorney can provide you with information about ADR options and a list of neutrals
available in your area. ADR does not affect your obligation to respond to the summons and
amended verified complaint and writ of mandamus within twenty (20) days.
Dated: 1!tll )09
R A. StefonOwlcz (2 7161)
J s 'ca B. Rivas (312897)
L in Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
1500 Wells Fargo Plaza
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431-1194
(952) 835-3800
1259414.1
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
DISTRICT COURT
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: OTHER CIVIL
File No. GV 06-7846- 8b -~ v- 61.... 3.!;~rff
Lamar Advertising Company, and
Lamar OCI North Corporation
d/b/a Lamar Advertising of St.
Cloud, Minnesota, Inc.,
Plaintiffs- Petitioners,
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS
v.
Dayton Holding Inc., and Stephen
Nelson,
Defendants,
and
City of Albertville,
Additional Defendant-Respondent.
Plaintiffs-petitioners Lamar Advertising Company and Lamar OCI North Corporation
d/b/a Lamar Advertising of St. Cloud, Minnesota, Inc. (collectively "Lamar") for their amended
verified complaint against Defendants Dayton Holding, Inc. ("Dayton") and Stephen Nelson
("Nelson") (collectively "Defendants"), and Additional Defendant-Respondent City of
Albertville ("City") state and allege as follows:
PARTIES
1. Lamar is a Delaware corporation that owns and operates outdoor advertising and
logo structures in more than 40 states and is doing business in Minnesota with a registered
address at 1025 Rook Road, Sauk Rapids, Minnesota 56379.
2. Dayton is a North Dakota corporation with its principal place of business located
at 7656 128th Street West, Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124.
2.
3. Nelson is the owner of Dayton Holding, Inc. and currently resides at 7656 128th
Street West, Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124.
4. The City is a Minnesota municipal corporation located m Wright County,
Minnesota.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. Defendants own real property in Wright County located at 5701 Mackenzie
Avenue, Albertville, MN, Wright County, which is legally described as Lot 2, Block 4, Green
Haven Estates (the "Subject Property"). The presence of the Subject Property in Wright County
confers jurisdiction on this court to decide this dispute.
6. In addition, jurisdiction and venue are appropriate in Wright County because the
City and the Subject Property are located in Wright County, Minnesota.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Billboard Lease Agreement Between Defendants and Lamar.
7. On March 27, 1998, Defendants entered into a lease agreement with Nelson
Outdoor Advertising ("Nelson Outdoor") to lease the Subject Property to Nelson Outdoor on
which Nelson Outdoor could place and operate a billboard advertising structure (the "Lease
Agreement"). Attached hereto and incorporated into this Amended Verified Complaint as
Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Lease Agreement.
8. At some point after the execution of the Lease Agreement, Nelson Outdoor sold
the billboard advertising structure to DeLite Outdoor Advertising, L.L.C.
9. On April 1, 2001, Lamar acquired the stock of DeLite Outdoor Advertising,
L.L.C. and DeLite Outdoor Advertising, Inc. Through this acquisition, Lamar became the
successor of the Lease Agreement as the Lessee and owner of the billboard advertising structure
("Billboard"). Lamar also acquired: (1) the sign permit from the City to operate the Billboard at
the Subject Property; and (2) the sign permit from the State of Minnesota to operate the Billboard
at the Subject Property. Since the acquisition, Lamar has paid an annual fee every year,
including 2009, to the City for the sign permit and to the State of Minnesota for the state sign
permit. Attached hereto and incorporated into this Amended Verified Complaint as Exhibit B is
a true and correct copy of the Stock Purchase Agreement between Lamar Advertising Company
and DeLite Outdoor Advertising, L.L.C.
10. The Lease Agreement was for an original ten-year term and automatically renews
from year to year: "This lease shall be for a term of (10) years beginning on completion of
construction or May 1, 1998, whichever is later and shall automatically renew from year to
year. "
.B. Defendants Bring An Eviction Action Against Lamar And Court Determines Lease
Agreement Is Valid And Automatically Renewed For 2008-2009 Lease Term.
11. In February 2009, Defendants brought an eviction action in Wright County, Court
File No. CV-09-0I04 to evict Lamar from the Subject Property claiming that the Lease
Agreement was a ten-year lease term that terminated on May 1, 2008.
12. On February 23, 2009, the district court determined that the Lease Agreement did
not terminate on May 1, 2008, but automatically renews from year to year. The court
specifically found that Defendants had received
a rent check on or about April 23, 2008, prior to the expiration of
the original ten year term. He did not tell Lamar that the lease was
ended. He did not return the check until after May 1 st, specifically
on June 27, 2008. His inaction caused the lease to renew
automatically, for a year, until May 1,2009.
13. The court further determined that because Lamar has a valid Lease Agreement,
Defendants' eviction claim failed. The district court dismissed the case and entered judgment.
3.
Attached hereto and incorporated into this Amended Verified Complaint as Exhibit C is a true
and correct copy of the district court's Order Granting Judgment of Dismissal And Judgment.
14. After the eviction proceeding, Defendants did not provide Lamar with a written
termination of the Lease Agreement. According to the terms of the Lease Agreement, the Lease
Agreement automatically renewed on May 1,2009 for another year.
C. The City Grants And Then Improperly Attempts To Revoke Lamar's Building
Permit To Relocate Lamar's Billboard On The Neighboring Property.
15. Despite the automatic renewal of the Lease Agreement, the deteriorated
relationship between Lamar and Defendants led Lamar to execute a new Sign Location Lease
with the neighboring property owners Michael J. and Heidi B. Potter (the "Potters"), which was
to commence pending receipt of all applicable permits for Lamar's Billboard. Thus, Lamar
applied to the City for a building permit and a sign permit to move the Billboard to the
neighboring property owned by Michael J. and Heidi B. Potter (the "Potter Property").
16. On March 25,2009, the City received Lamar's Building Permit Application, Sign
Permit Application, and a check for $445.58 for the fees associated with the applications to move
the Billboard to the Potter Property.
17. Lamar's Building Permit Application specifically requested that Lamar be
allowed to relocate the Billboard from the Subject Property to the adjacent Potter Property. In
Lamar's Building Permit Application, under "Description of Work," Lamar stated that the
Billboard was "to be relocated to a conforming location approx. 500' to the East - so this is a
replacement site and we will move existing sign." In addition, Lamar included an aerial picture
depicting the relocation of the Billboard from the Subject Property to the Potter Property.
Attached hereto and incorporated into this Amended Verified Complaint as Exhibit D is a true
4.
and correct copy of Lamar's Building Permit Application, Lamar's Sign Permit Application, and
Lamar's check to the City.
18. Lamar's Building Permit Application and Lamar's Sign Permit Application
complied with and met the City Code requirements.
19. On April 9, 2009, the City approved Lamar's Building Permit Application and
Lamar's Sign Permit Application. Thus, the City issued a Building Permit to Lamar to relocate
the Billboard to the Potter Property (the "Building Permit") and the City issued a Sign Permit to
Lamar to operate its Billboard at the Potter Property (the "Sign Permit").
20. In addition to issuing Lamar a Building Permit and a Sign Permit, the City also
provided Lamar with emails from the City stating that Lamar's Building Permit meets the City's
Code requirements for billboard advertising signs. Attached hereto and incorporated into this
Amended Verified Complaint as Exhibit E is the approved Building Permit, the approved Sign
Permit, and copies of emails from the City regarding the approval of Lamar's Building Permit.
21. In reliance upon the City's issuance of the Building Permit and the Sign Permit to
Lamar, Lamar's Regional Manager Mark Sherwood told Nelson that Lamar planned to remove
the Billboard from the Subject Property by April 30, 2009.
22. In reliance upon the City's issuance of the Building Permit and the Sign Permit to
Lamar, Lamar removed the catwalk and the lights from the Billboard in preparation to relocate
the Billboard to the Potter Property pursuant to the Building Permit and the Sign Permit.
23. In violation of the City's Code and Lamar's due process rights and without the
requisite authority, the City notified Lamar on April 21, 2009 via a letter that it was revoking
Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit for the Potter Property.
24. In its letter, the City explained that it had just discovered that it had already issued
a building permit to Dayton to remove and replace the existing billboard advertising sign on the
5.
F. Revocation of Permit: The city council may revoke any permit granted herein after a
hearing for violation of provisions of this chapter, or applicable laws and regulations of
the United States or the state of Minnesota, upon thirty (30) days' written notice of such
hearing to the permittee. The city council, within ten (10) days after conclusion of the
hearing, shall notify the permittee of its decision, and may, where appropriate, notify the
permittee what he can do to retain the permit, and the permittee shall, in those instances,
have thirty (30) days therefrom in which to comply with the requirements of the city
council, if compliance would bring the advertising device into lawful conformity with
this chapter.
Subject Property on May 27, 2008. The City further explained that because it had issued two
permits to different parties for the replacement of the same sign on two properties and both
billboards cannot be constructed due to the 1,000 foot-spacing requirement between billboards, it
revoked the "building/sign permit issued to Lamar Advertising on April 9, 2009 as being in
violation of the City's zoning ordinance."
25. Under the City Code, only the City Council can revoke a permit that has been
approved and can only do so after affording the permittee a hearing and after determining that
the permit violates the City Code. The City Code expressly provides:
26. After receiving the City's April 21, 2009 letter, Lamar put the City on notice that
Dayton did not own the Billboard, but Lamar in fact owned the Billboard and had not granted
Dayton permission to seek a building permit to remove Lamar's Billboard. After receiving such
notice, the City did not retract its purported revocation of Lamar's Building Permit and Sign
Permit.
27. The City's purported revocation of the Building Permit and Sign Permit is
unconstitutional under the Takings Clause unless the City pays just compensation to Lamar. The
City's purported revocation of the Building Permit and Sign Permit was done in direct violation
of the City Code and deprived Lamar of its property rights in the Building Permit and Sign
Permit, and the Potter Property, and deprived Lamar of its ability to honor its advertising
contracts for the Billboard.
6.
28. Due to the City's improper attempt to revoke Lamar's Building Permit and Sign
Permit to relocate and operate the Billboard at the Potter Property, Lamar was forced to keep its
Billboard on the Subject Property. Thus, Lamar reinstalled the catwalk and the lights on their
Billboard.
29. As noted above, Lamar was still operating the Billboard pursuant to the City and
the State of Minnesota sign permits that Lamar had acquired for the Subject Property in 2001.
30. As noted above, the Lease Agreement had automatically renewed because it was
not properly terminated by the Defendants.
31. Thus, pursuant to the terms of the Lease Agreement, Lamar tendered rent for the
lease term of May 1,2009 through May 1,2010, on April 28, 2009. Lamar did so by sending a
letter to Defendants stating that the Lease Agreement has automatically renewed and enclosed a
rent payment of$6,478.01 for the lease term of May 1,2009 to May 1,2010.
32. Despite the fact that Defendants had not provided Lamar with a written
termination of the Lease Agreement and despite the fact that the Lease Agreement automatically
renewed, Defendants improperly returned the rent payment in violation of the Lease Agreement
on April 30, 2009.
33. On April 30, 2009, Lamar resent the lease payment along with another
correspondence to Defendants explaining that the Lease Agreement had automatically renewed
pursuant to its own terms and conditions and that Defendants failed to take any action to properly
terminate the Lease Agreement.
D. Without Any Notice To Lamar, Defendants Commit Self Help And Forcibly
Remove The Billboard Replacing It With A Billboard Owned By Defendants.
7.
34. Without providing any written or oral notice to Lamar, Defendants hired an
outside company to dismantle Lamar's Billboard on the morning of Saturday, May 16, 2009 and
erect a new billboard sign owned by Defendants in its place.
35. Lamar discovered Defendants engaging in illegal self-help tactics and physically
removing the Billboard on Saturday morning because Lamar's Sales Manager just happened to
drive by the Subject Property and notice a crane and a company removing the Billboard.
36. Upon learning that Defendants were illegally removing the Billboard, Lamar's
Vice President and General Manager Emil Radaich contacted the Wright County Sheriffs
Department for assistance in maintaining its possessory rights under the Lease Agreement. The
Sheriff s Department informed Mr. Radaich that this was a civil matter and Lamar would have to
enforce its rights in court.
37. Thereafter, Mr. Radaich went onsite and witnessed this outside company
dismantling Lamar's Billboard, placing Lamar's Billboard on the ground, and replacing it with a
billboard owned by Defendants.
E. Defendants' Self-Help Eviction On A Saturday Morning Interferes With The Lease
Agreement, Lamar's State Sign Permit, Lamar's City Sign Permit, and Lamar's
Advertising Contracts With Third Parties.
38. In addition to a valid and binding Lease Agreement providing Lamar with
possessory rights to have the Billboard on the Subject Property, Lamar also has a state sign
permit for the Billboard that allows Lamar to place advertisements on the Billboard through the
Minnesota Department of Transportation. Lamar's state sign permit was valid through June 30,
2009 and Lamar has applied for renewal of this permit.
39. As noted above, Lamar also has a sign permit from the City to operate the
Billboard at the Subject Property.
8.
9.
40. In connection with the valid and binding Lease Agreement and the state and City
sign permits, Lamar also has two advertising contracts for the Billboard in which companies pay
a monthly installment to advertise on the Billboard.
41. The first advertising contract is for a one-year term that began on November 25,
2008 and ends on November 24, 2009, wherein Gruber's Quilt Shop ("Gruber's") pays a
monthly installment of $1,500.00 to advertise on the Billboard ("Gruber's Bulletin Contract").
Gruber's Bulletin Contract is location specific because the Billboard is the only sign located
before the exit to the Albertville Outlet Mall. Gruber's specifically advertises at this location to
capitalize on and market to the patrons going to the outlet mall.
42. The second advertising contract is for a three-year term that began on January 1,
2008 and ends on December 31, 2010, wherein Red Roof Inns, Inc. ("Red Roof Inn") pays a
monthly installment of$1,545.00 to advertise on the Billboard for 2009 and will pay $1,590.00
in 2010 ("Red Roof s Bulletin Contract"). Red Roof s Bulletin Contract is also location specific.
Under the Red Roof s Bulletin Contract, Red Roof Inn has to approve a substitute billboard if the
location is lost during the contract term.
43. Without oral or written notice, Defendants wrongfully evicted Lamar from the
Subject Property on May 16, 2009, and have caused substantial damage, including wrongfully
removing the Billboard, wrongfully interfering with Lamar's possessory rights under the Lease
Agreement, directly causing Lamar to lose revenue and profits from the Billboard, and tortiously
interfering with business contracts and relationships that Lamar has established for this location
and its Billboard on the Subject Property.
10.
COUNT I
WRONGFUL EVICTION AND RECOVERY OF PREMISES
(DAYTON AND NELSON)
44. Lamar restates and realleges the foregoing allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
through 43 above as if fully set forth herein.
45. Lamar and Defendants are parties to a valid Lease Agreement that automatically
renewed on May 1, 2009 for another year.
46. On April 28, 2009, Lamar tendered its rent payment for the May 1,2009 through
May 1, 2010 lease term to Defendants.
47. Without any written or oral notice, Defendants physically and forcibly removed
Lamar's Billboard on Saturday morning, May 16, 2009, in violation of the Lease Agreement and
Minnesota law.
48. Under Minnesota common law and Minn. Stat. S 504B.281, Defendants cannot
engage ill self-help eviction. Therefore, under the Lease Agreement, this court should
immediately restore Lamar's possessory rights to the Subject Property and allow Lamar to
resurrect its Billboard.
49. Under Minnesota common law, Minn. Stat. S 557.08, and Minn. Stat. S 557.09,
Defendants are liable for treble damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees in
connection with Defendants' forcible eviction.
50. As a direct result of Defendants' wrongful eviction, Lamar has and continues to
suffer damages, including attorneys' fees, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, the exact
amount of which will be proven at trial.
11.
COUNT II
BREACH OF CONTRACT
(DAYTON AND NELSON)
51. Lamar restates and realleges the foregoing allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
through 50 above as if fully set forth herein.
52. Lamar and Defendants are parties to a valid Lease Agreement that automatically
renewed on May 1, 2009 for another year.
53. As set forth above, Defendants have breached the Lease Agreement by forcibly
evicting Lamar in violation of Minnesota common law and statutory law.
54. Defendants' breach of the Lease Agreement has caused substantial damage to
Lamar, including but not limited to the loss of revenue and profits from the Billboard, the loss of
location of the Billboard, and expenses and costs to replace the Billboard on the Subject
Property.
55. As a direct result of Defendants' breaches, Lamar has and continues to suffer
damages in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, the exact amount of which will be proven at trial.
COUNT III
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS AND
CONTRACTS
(DAYTON AND NELSON)
56. Lamar restates and realleges the foregoing allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
through 55 above as if fully set forth herein.
57. As stated above, Lamar currently has two bulletin contracts for the Billboard on
the Subject Property that provide monthly revenue and profits to Lamar.
58. Defendants' wrongful and forcible eviction constitutes an intentional and
unjustified interference with the two bulletin contracts as Defendants have illegally removed the
Billboard from the Subject Property preventing Lamar from performing under these contracts.
12.
59. Defendants' illegal actions not only contribute to a loss of profits and revenue
from these two bulletin contracts, but their actions also create an immeasurable damage to the
business relationships that Lamar has established with Gruber's and Red Roof Inn in connection
with this location and the Billboard on the Subject Property.
60. As a direct result of Defendants' intentional and unjustified interference with the
two bulletin contracts, Lamar has and continues to suffer damages in an amount in excess of
$50,000.00, the exact amount of which will be proven at trial.
COUNT IV
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. ~ 555.01, et seq.
(DAYTON AND NELSON)
61. Lamar restates and realleges the foregoing allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
through 60 above as if fully set forth herein.
62. This cause of action is brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 555.01, et seq. for a
judicial declaration by this court that: (1) Defendants have wrongfully and forcibly evicted
Lamar from the Subject Property causing substantial damage to Lamar; (2) Lamar's possessory
rights to the Subject Property be immediately restored and Lamar can immediately resurrect its
Billboard on the Subject Property; and (3) Defendants must pay all damage caused by their
wrongful and forcible eviction.
63. As set forth above, Defendants wrongfully and forcibly evicted Lamar in violation
of Minnesota common law and statutory law. In doing so, Defendants have caused substantial
harm to Lamar as set forth above, including intentional and unjustified interference with Lamar's
business contracts and relationships.
64. After wrongfully and forcibly evicting Lamar from the Subject Property,
Defendants illegally placed a new billboard on the Subject Property owned by Defendants.
13.
65. There is a real, immediate, substantial, continuing, and justiciable controversy
between the parties requiring the intervention of the court with respect to Lamar's possessory
rights in the Subject Property.
66. Accordingly, Lamar is entitled to a declaratory judgment that (1) Defendants have
wrongfully and forcibly evicted Lamar from the Subject Property causing substantial damage to
Lamar; (2) Lamar's possessory rights to the Subject Property be immediately restored and Lamar
can immediately resurrect its Billboard on the Subject Property; and (3) Defendants must pay all
damage caused by their wrongful and forcible eviction.
COUNT V
INJUNCTION
(DAYTON AND NELSON)
67. Lamar restates and realleges the foregoing allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
through 66 above as if fully set forth herein.
68. Lamar will suffer immediate irreparable harm if Defendants are not required to
remove their billboard sign and replace it with Lamar's Billboard, and if Defendants are not
enjoined from using their billboard sign in any manner, including seeking and obtaining city or
state permits, advertising contracts, or using their billboard sign in any manner to interfere with
Lamar's rights to use its Billboard under the Lease Agreement and the state and City sign
permits.
69. Lamar is entitled to an order temporarily and permanently requiring Defendants to
remove their billboard sign and replace it with Lamar's Billboard and be enjoined from using
their billboard sign in any manner, including seeking and obtaining city or state permits, seeking
or obtaining advertising contracts, and any use that interferes with Lamar's rights to use its
Billboard under the Lease Agreement and the state and City sign permits, and maintaining the
status quo with respect to the Subject Property pending the resolution of this action.
14.
COUNT VI
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. ~ 555.01, et seQ.
(CITY)
70. Lamar restates and realleges the foregoing allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
through 69 above as if fully set forth herein.
71. As stated above, and as the City determined, Lamar's Building Permit and Sign
Permit met the requirements for the Sign Regulations under the City Code.
72. As stated above, the City acted outside the scope of its authority under the City
Code for attempting to revoke Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit by letter, rather than
providing Lamar with the required pre-deprivation hearing and complying with the other
mandatory requirements for Revocation of Permits.
73. This cause of action is brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 555.01, et ~ for a
judicial declaration by this court that the City's attempt to revoke Lamar's Building Permit and
Sign Permit is void because it was procedurally and substantively defective, and that Lamar's
Building Permit and Sign Permit are still valid and enforceable.
74. The City's letter purporting to revoke Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit
has caused substantial harm to Lamar as set forth above, including intentional and unjustified
interference with Lamar's Lease Agreement for the Subject Property, Lamar's lease agreement
for the Potter Property, and Lamar's business contracts and relationships for the Billboard.
75. There is a real, immediate, substantial, continuing, and justiciable controversy
between the parties requiring the intervention of the court with respect to Lamar's right to the
Building Permit and Sign Permit.
76. Accordingly, Lamar is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the City's attempt to
revoke Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit is void because it was procedurally and
15.
substantively defective, and that Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit are still valid and
enforceable.
COUNT VII
INJUNCTION
(CITY)
77. Lamar restates and realleges the foregoing allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
through 76 above as if fully set forth herein.
78. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 65, Lamar is entitled to the issuance of a temporary
restraining order and permanent injunction enjoining the City from now following its required
procedures under City Code to revoke Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit because the
City's initial attempt to do so was void and Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit complies
with the City Code and are valid and enforceable.
79. The City has acted outside the scope of its legal authority by purporting to revoke
Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit. The City Code provides an express procedure that
the City must follow if it wants to revoke a building permit and sign permit, which includes a
hearing before the City Council. Because the City's letter purporting to revoke Lamar's
Building Permit and Sign Permit was legally improper it should be declared to have no force
or effect.
80. If injunctive relief is not granted, Lamar will lose its established property right in
the Building Permit, the Sign Permit, and the Potter Property, and will suffer irreparable harm
that cannot be compensated solely by money damages. Additionally, Lamar does not have a
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
16.
COUNT VIII
CITY'S PURPORTED REVOCATION WAS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, AND
UNREASONABLE
(CITY)
81. Lamar restates and realleges the foregoing allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
through 80 above as if fully set forth herein.
82. The City's purported revocation of Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit was
arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable as the City failed to follow its own required procedures
for revoking a building permit and a sign permit. The City acted in direct conflict with the City
Code and improperly attempted to revoke a Building Permit and Sign Permit that are still valid
and enforceable.
COUNT IX
VIOLA TION OF DUE PROCESS
(CITY)
83. Lamar restates and realleges the foregoing allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
through 82 above as if fully set forth herein.
84. Under the Minnesota Constitution and the City Code, the City cannot deprive
Lamar of its approved Building Permit and Sign Permit without providing due process of law.
85. Due process requires that the City comply with the procedural requirements of the
City Code, which expressly requires that a permittee must receive notice and a hearing before the
City Council can determine if a building permit and sign permit can be legally revoked.
86. The City has failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the City Code,
and improperly and illegally attempted to revoke Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit.
87. The City's actions have deprived Lamar of its due process rights, have improperly
attempted to revoke Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit, and have caused Lamar to suffer
damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
17.
COUNT X
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL/DETRIMENT AL RELIANCENESTED RIGHTS
(CITY)
88. Lamar restates and realleges the foregoing allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
through 87 above as if fully set forth herein.
89. As fully set forth above, Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit Applications
met the City Code and the City approved Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit for Lamar to
relocate its Billboard from the Subject Property to the Potter Property. Thereafter, the City
purported to revoke Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit via letter in direct violation of the
procedural due process requirements of the City Code.
90. Lamar relied on the City's approval of the Building Permit and Sign Permit to its
detriment and notified the Defendants that it would remove the Billboard from the Subject
Property. Thereafter, the City improperly purported to revoke Lamar's Building Permit and Sign
Permit, and Lamar was forced to stay on the Subject Property and invoke its property rights
pursuant to the Lease Agreement to maintain its Billboard, its contractual obligations pursuant to
the Bulletin Contracts, and its state and City sign permits for the Subject Property. Thereafter,
the Defendants improperly engaged in self-help eviction removing Lamar's Billboard from the
Subject Property, which has currently left Lamar with no property on which to place its
Billboard.
91. The doctrine of equitable estoppel and detrimental reliance requires that the City
be estopped from now attempting to revoke Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit pursuant
to its City Code.
92. In addition, the doctrine of equitable estoppel and detrimental requires the City to
acknowledge that Lamar has vested rights in Lamar's Building Permit, Sign Permit, and the City
sign permit for the Subject Property.
18.
93. There exists a justiciable controversy between the parties requmng the
intervention of the court with respect to the application of the doctrines of vested rights,
equitable estoppel and detrimental reliance with respect to Lamar's rights in its Building Permit,
Sign Permit, and the City sign permit for the Subject Property.
COUNT XI
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - Purported Revocation of City Permit for Subject
Property
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. ~ 555.01, et seq.
(CITY)
94. Lamar restates and realleges the foregoing allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
through 93 above as if fully set forth herein.
95. As noted above, since 2001, Lamar has paid an annual renewal fee every year to
the City, including 2009, for a sign permit to operate its Billboard on the Subject Property. Since
2001, Lamar has operated its Billboard on the Subject Property.
96. In May 2008, unbeknownst to Lamar, the City issued a building permit to Dayton
to remove Lamar's Billboard and allow Dayton to replace Lamar's Billboard with another one
owned by Dayton.
97. The City failed to notify Lamar that it had purported to "invalidate" Lamar's sign
permit for the Subject Property by issuing a building permit to Dayton. In fact, the City
requested that Lamar pay an annual renewal fee for the sign permit in 2009, and Lamar paid this
fee and the City accepted it.
98. This cause of action is brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 555.01, et seg. for a
judicial declaration by this court that the City's attempt to invalidate Lamar's sign permit for the
Subject Property is void, and that Lamar's sign permit for the Subject Property is still valid and
enforceable.
19.
99. There is a real, immediate, substantial, continuing, and justiciable controversy
between the parties requiring the intervention of the court with respect to Lamar's right to the
sign permit for the Subject Property.
100. Accordingly, Lamar is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the City's attempt to
invalidate Lamar's sign permit for the Subject Property is void, and that Lamar's sign permit for
the Subject Property is still valid and enforceable.
COUNT XII
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT- Issuance of Permit to Dayton
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. ~ 555.01, et seQ.
(CITY)
101. Lamar restates and realleges the foregoing allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
through 100 above as if fully set forth herein.
102. As noted above, the City informed Lamar in April of 2009 that it was purporting
to revoke Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit for the Potter Property because the City had
issued a building permit in May of 2008 to Dayton to tear down Lamar's Billboard and replace it
with another owned by Dayton. Thereafter, Lamar immediately notified the City, before Dayton
tore down Lamar's Billboard, that Lamar owned the Billboard on the Subject Property, and not
Dayton.
103. After the City was notified that it had issued a building permit to tear down a
Billboard to a party who did not own the Billboard, the City should have revoked Dayton's
building permit, instead of using it as the sole basis to purportedly revoke Lamar's Building
Permit and Sign Permit for the Potter Property.
104. Yet, after receiving such notice, the City did not retract its purported revocation of
Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit and allowed an improperly issued building permit to
remaIn.
20.
105. This cause of action is brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 555.01, et seq. for a
judicial declaration by this court that the City's issuance of a building permit to allow Dayton to
tear down and replace Lamar's Billboard was improper, and that Dayton's building permit
should be revoked.
106. There is a real, immediate, substantial, continuing, and justiciable controversy
between the parties requiring the intervention of the court with respect to Lamar's Billboard for
the Subject Property and the City's issuance ofthe building permit to Dayton.
107. Accordingly, Lamar is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the City's issuance
of a building permit to allow Dayton to tear down and replace Lamar's Billboard was improper,
and that Dayton's building permit should be revoked.
COUNT XIII
MANDAMUS- INVERSE CONDEMNATION
(CITY)
108. Lamar restates and realleges the foregoing allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
through 107 above as if fully set forth herein.
109. Article I, S 13 of the Minnesota Constitution guarantees that no private property
may be taken, destroyed or damaged for public use without just compensation.
110. The City's purported revocation of Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit
constitutes an unconstitutional taking of Lamar's property right in its Building Permit and Sign
Permit and in its property rights in the Potter Property pursuant to lease agreement with the
Potters.
111. This cause of action is brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 586.01, et. seq., for an
order directing the City to commence condemnation proceedings on Lamar's property rights to
21.
the Potter Property and to the Building Permit and Sign Permit III accordance with the
requirements of Minn. Stat. S 117.01, et. seq.
112. The purported revocation of the Building Permit. and Sign Permit was an
unconstitutional taking of Lamar's rights in the Potter Property and the Building Permit and Sign
Permit for a public purpose without just compensation in violation of Article I, S 13 of the
Minnesota Constitution.
113. Despite its taking of and damage to Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit and
its rights to the Potter Property, the City has not instituted eminent domain proceedings for the
purpose of condemning the Property and determining the amounts to which Lamar is entitled as
damages for the taking.
114. Minn. Stat. S 117.045 provides that persons whose property rights are taken for a
public purpose but for which no eminent domain proceeding is brought may bring an action to
compel the acquiring authority to initiate condemnation proceedings and, if successful, may
petition the Court for reimbursement of reasonable costs and expenses, including reasonable
attorney, appraisal and engineering fees, which are actually incurred in bringing this action.
115. The failure of the City to comply with its legal duties constitutes a public wrong
specifically injurious to Lamar; and because there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, Lamar is entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering the City to commence
condemnation proceedings pursuant to Minn. Stat. Ch. 117.
COUNT XIV
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.c. ~ 1983 FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
( CITY)
116. Lamar restates and realleges the foregoing allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
through 115 above as if fully set forth herein.
22.
117. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the taking of
private property rights for public use without the payment of just compensation. Through the
Fourteenth Amendment, the requirements of the Fifth Amendment, including the Takings and
Just Compensation Clauses, apply to the State of Minnesota and its political subdivisions.
118. 42 U.S.C. S 1983 provides that any person acting under color of state law who
deprives any other person of rights secured by the United States Constitution shall be liable to
the injured party.
119. The City's purported revocation of the Building Permit and Sign Permit is
unconstitutional under the Takings Clause unless the City pays just compensation to Lamar. The
City's purported revocation of the Building Permit and Sign Permit was done in direct violation
of the City Code and deprived Lamar of its property rights in the Building Permit and Sign
Permit, and the Potter Property, and deprived Lamar of its ability to honor its advertising
contracts for the Billboard. Accordingly, the City's actions represent a taking of the property for
which just compensation must be paid to Lamar.
COUNT XV
VIOLATION OF MINN STAT ~ 173.17 AND 23 U.S.c. ~ 131
(CITY)
120. Lamar restates and realleges the foregoing allegations contained in Paragraphs 1
through 119 above as if fully set forth herein.
121. Article I, S 13 of the Minnesota Constitution guarantees that no private property
may be taken, destroyed or damaged for public use without just compensation. Minn. Stat.
S 173.17 and 23 U.S.C. S 131 provide that property rights in outdoor advertising devices are
entitled to the same protections.
122. The City's purported revocation of Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit
constitutes an unconstitutional taking of Lamar's property right in its leasehold interest in the
23.
Potter Property and the Subject Property, and Lamar's property right in the Building Permit and
Sign Permit.
123. The City's purported revocation of the Building Permit and Sign Permit is in
violation of Minn. Stat. S 173.17 and 23 V.S.C. S 131. The City's purported revocation of the
Building Permit and Sign Permit was done in direct violation of the City Code and represents a
taking of Lamar's property rights in the Potter Property, the Subject Property, and the Building
Permit and Sign Permit for which the City must compensate Lamar under Minn. Stat. S 173.17
and 23 V.S.C. S 131.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs-petitioners Lamar Advertising Company and Lamar OCI
North Corporation d/b/a Lamar Advertising of St. Cloud, Minnesota, Inc. (collectively "Lamar")
pray for judgment against the Defendants Dayton Holding Inc. and Stephen Nelson (collectively
"Defendants") and the Additional Defendant-Respondent City of Albertville (the "City") as
follows:
1. Declaring and adjudging that: (1) Defendants have wrongfully and forcibly
evicted Lamar from the Subject Property causing substantial damage to Lamar;
(2) Lamar's possessory rights to the Subject Property be immediately restored and
Lamar can immediately resurrect its Billboard on the Subject Property; and (3)
Defendants must pay all damage caused by their wrongful and forcible eviction.
2. Awarding Lamar a money judgment against Defendants for breach of contract,
wrongful eviction, and tortious interference with business relationships and
contracts, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, the exact amount of which will
be proven at trial, as well as costs, disbursements and attorneys' fees;
3. Temporarily and permanently requiring Defendants to remove their billboard sign
and replace it with Lamar's Billboard and be enjoined from using their billboard
sign in any manner, including seeking and obtaining City or state permits, seeking
or obtaining advertising contracts, and any use that interferes with Lamar's rights
to use its Billboard under the Lease Agreement and the state and City sign
permits, and maintaining the status quo with respect to the Subject Property
pending the resolution of this action;
4. Declaring and adjudging that: (1) the City's attempt to revoke Lamar's Building
Permit and Sign Permit is void because it was procedurally and substantively
defective, and Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit are still valid and
enforceable; (2) the City's purported revocation of Lamar's Building Permit and
Sign Permit was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable and Lamar's Building
Permit and Sign Permit are still valid and enforceable; (3) the City should be
equitably estopped from revoking Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit
pursuant to its City Code; (4) Lamar has vested rights in Lamar's Building Permit,
Sign Permit, and the City sign permit for the Subject Property; (5) the City's
attempt to invalidate Lamar's sign permit for the Subject Property is void, and
that Lamar's sign permit for the Subject Property is still valid and enforceable;
and (6) the City's issuance of a building permit to allow Dayton to tear down and
replace Lamar's Billboard was improper, and that Dayton's building permit
should be revoked;
5. Temporarily and permanently enjoining the City from now following its required
procedures under the City Code to revoke Lamar's Building Permit and Sign
Permit;
6. Adjudging that the City violated Lamar's Due Process rights by attempting to
revoke its Building Permit and Sign Permit and has damaged Lamar in an amount
to be determined at trial;
7. Ordering that a writ of mandamus issue, compelling the City to immediately
commence eminent domain proceedings with respect to that taking of Lamar's
property rights in the Potter Property and the Building Permit and Sign Permit;
8. Entering judgment against the City and in favor of Lamar for just compensation
for the taking of Lamar's property rights in the Building Permit and Sign Permit
and the Potter Property in an amount in excess of $50,000, to be specifically
proved at trial, together with legal interest on that amount from the date of taking;
9. Awarding Lamar compensation under Minn. Stat. S 173.17 and 23 U.S.C. S 131
for the taking of Lamar's property rights in the Potter Property, the Subject
Property, the Building Permit and the Sign Permit in an amount in excess of
$50,000, to be specifically proved at trial, together with legal interest on that
amount from the date of taking;
10. Awarding Lamar its attorneys' fees, costs and disbursement incurred in the
prosecution of its claim under Minn. Stat. S 117.045, 42 U.S.c. S 1983 under 42
U.S.c. S 1988; and Minn. Stat. S 117.045; and
24.
11. Granting such other and further relief as the court deems just and equitable,
including any reasonable attorneys' fees and costs recoverable according to law.
Dated: 7/~' I aLl
b A. Stefonowicz (297161)
Je sica B. Rivas (312897)
rkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd.
1500 Wells Fargo Plaza
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431-1194
(952)835-3800
Attorneys for Lamar Advertising Company
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I hereby acknowledge that sanctions may be awarded pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 549.211,
subd. 3, if the court determines that this document violates Minn. Stat. S 549.211, subd. 2.
~-ewCN J3 ,~
Jes ca B. RIvas
25.
VERIFICATION
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF STEARNS )
Emil Radaich, being first duly sworn, deposes and states that he is the Vice President and
General Manager for Lamar Advertising Company in the above-entitled matter, that he has read
and fully understands the allegations of this amended verified complaint, and that the same are
true and correct, except as to those matters stated on' on:n.8:tipn and belief, which matters he
\\ 1
\
\
believes to be true and correct.
Sub cribed and sworn to before me this
of July 2009.
. 1\".f."""'''''W
~. "\, PAUur'JE S. OLSON
~!) NO 1'1\IW p'IJeUC . MI!N N ESOTA
1f;1
P My Comrl'i. <:1", J.an, 31, 2010
'<~w~Nhf9~~,'$ff~<,;t4\.t:;kFi)%ft\i!ft,~t
26.
'-
"'i~~~.:'
....\
,
/rflO/JJr{)
., AGREEMENT mai:k (I) c< / ci--- ;2 7
an<:! NELSON ourDOORADVERTlS]}lG ("~=;'):
~=~T.;< ~.lr'b7f7 r!Jli"k ~~ ~"'"-"'-i1Vp r? u e
City or lawn: d-i ~ L
Log. 0="0"",' S,,,,,,,,,", ,"'Ib" ..,.. ' . ',. .
i, "" ,oo,~" tA/ I' I '" Tv + . Sa..f ,M!' /I /1 I'?S CJ m d= h=by ''''' "d pon' ~d~'"'' w "" '-"'=
." portio, 0'.' 1'_"" ~,~"" . """,",," ( (J7lJ$) ~~OO, ,d,.""'" ,w,w"",.i'h ,.md~' ~=, "'IIr;;?~ " "'~'''' ~d m"'w, ,"'" =""'~". '
:,. T "m. Thl> ,~:_ ;,,",""M' .,m.I( IO) l'<'" bo,i~i" .. _ol,'~ ., ,='n"'" ", ;; ~ 'I I ~ ," f Ii: wh'.~
"J'''':':;:'~:::::':: 7i:": ='i"c, :;:;:;E;;rt!i:;$;j~1;;~o o~09, Dq'::y~~
"""""~~ from Ib, off...f L"'~"!.=M ""'by "",.wlod,~ _ip< of' riJ I A- . . ~ ro~"''''''''o fM oh, =,,, 0' ,'"
,= which ""II k"= "'~d" "",,0 ,,,'"vo, by O~=l M~'" of '-"'= , whl,h ,h,ll k ."Ii,d '0 .' .~, """" POY=" ,", '1"" Oomm'~'''''''' of.' _.
/1/Jd
LEASE AGREEMENT
, 19 7' g by and between'
["~5Cr").
.' ..." . ~
',. "old ",=,=, '-"'= ,,",, .... "" ,="" h='~' ,.... ,II d,.'" w _~ M pmp<"" by =" " ~.,,"O =."", from ., ",Ii,~, ~, of
its a;:::\l~. c:r.plcyec;s or other; employed in the eonsL"tJclion. mainte;t:lOce. repair or rcmov:J.l of its signs on the premises. .
6. C.n,eM.n ofL<=. ""~~ If d., .I,w ,f "', "="" " ""v,""'o, "'" " ,I,,, """d ,he~' " p,","'Y "wh,lIy ,b"~,,id, " ,"'" "",~"In,
,,'"' 'o"i~' " &1O"',h'" by """'''' "hi~'" d~",""n, " ,h, ". " rom ","' I> ""v.~"d " ~";,,od by "w, ., ''''"' 'h.1I 'mmd'~"y, .. iu "de',
=,,' "'" ."" wd ""I" .JI ,,,' poid roo ",. ",~pim' ",,',k=', by ,i"" ,h' Lo~" 00'10., In ""'d', 0' >~h "",,,,,i,o_ '1Op""~" ,,,,,,,tion "
r-:stricticr. of use. . .
" """". ,""" ,lull ,,,' ,',' ri ,hi " ,,='"'" ,hI> ,=, .. "y "" d.rio, .e "" k=' if '" ""~,, I> " '10";" '" p~~"" hy p<-~' ~"",'"
" "'.""'"' ","ri" "" ~m'''' of 1.==', "" '''''u= 1.== ,h'" ,_" iu ",z .I,hi,',i"," ,WI d.y' .." ,""ipl ,f · ~pY " ,.. ',p""b" "did",
p<.m'(md ,II ="" ,:"11 "" p"",d. c~", '[r~' " ="''''' w'.. """', " .11,. 10m''"' """ .'w''''" " ""h" Fon ,i." p'='= if '0' F,d.d,' "i
the d:::vc!opme;Jt. UFQn the same t~nn 2.nc conCmons of the ongm2.1lcase he~elD. '
7, """",....""',..t1oz. Urn= 'p<,;r",lIy ,,"'" ""~;" bonl,. .. """" "p'''''''' "d "~,, "" """0";' oJ,'" ,h, o~"" ,I;< 'f'" 0'
,.. owo" " .. ,~m"" ",." d''''''''', ..., f.1I ,u,hori" '" .0>, "''' ,,= "d ,,~M'" ,h.. Lo=' ,h,1I ~'J>'=h "y .dpi,i', f'Omi"', .w,'" ,,,~d'od
by iw", '0 k "od bY"",""'" P"""'" ~, p<=h ",,=,', ,I,~ '" '" ,b,waod. !, ,h, "'" 0' .~y ""'''''' 1.=0':' ""',,'.', me ,,,"v, d,,"'bo' ?~r.,i~',
b'"' ",,~'1O prom,"y ,>" Lo=' "''''' 01 ,ooh tnzf" "" " ddlm " "",,'" 'n,,'e= .nll" """ 0' Ib, ~..,,'~ 01 m.. b~ ,,' , "" """PI.
S. "-,,,,, A,==n1. "" ~p""., ,,'oo,ood "'" "I,h" "', "",,~ ,nh, "",," " bo"d.by "y "'1"'''''"" ~p"""''''''' ""ro'm,"~ ,~ p"'~
~ wri""' i, ihi, 1=', n;. ,,~. ,h.1I ioo" " ,h. k'ofU ,f "" i>e bi,.di.,.p" 1h, pmPO~ "p'~'","'''', ,,,,,,,,"0 md ~,i", of ,', p.m~ hm,", 1""''''
however that this lease shall oat be binding upon any secured Fany until delivery of written notice 10 the panies hereto by such secured ?art'j.
,. Qul" EoJ"1m"" Lo,= ~=""...' " "" ,k oi'" "d ~,hori" 10 ,"~ '01' ,hi, ,_ "d ,-""" ..,,~u ,h" Lo,,~ ,h,1I ..joy ,..~,"d '"'
cuicl oosscss;on'of the Pn:mises during the term hereof 2S long as Lc$s~ abides by 'the terms of Ihis Lease.
. . 10. M""d,.n~~' '-"'", ",.11 k ,",,,,,,,,lb. '01 "" poy=", ohll n," ,.,;d PO ."'" "d ""= """ k "'po"''''' roo ,11 ,=, '~I,d PO ,h, p"m"~.
!(.sflc,eq~C")li?asE' ?i?YlT- .by C, r,:c, t?C(cl" ,,<?~, Sn,/h'^' me, /
'. ;) '7 c: tfI 1-... . 95>" ..-'. '7' ,
,=,,,d "", ,,"yof <vr ~ , 19_ I 9' '? .?:
Nels.::JD. Outcccr Adverti:;ing #
,y~~;:c;(1 ff~
LESSOR:
,.. .J
4) a"i !o fl
l?ri~( N.mci
f/ol;1titg / ~Y2C.
v
1-::5"":;: Ap?ro\.d hy:
/ZU'
lU f <
,~( ~ (' '-I~ II
SS~'/;;l
r
(Si~n'(ur.) -S Lj I w, 9 J? ~ 0' I,
{J /00 m. / (\ r Iv /? / /'-11 ;1..)
(AddresS) v
Sod.1 Security ur Fed. ID#
\2ent of Nelson Outdoor Advertising
:y ~ f/;l(
Its Lc.uint Agent
LfS --0 L{ d. q ~ Li 7
EXHIBIT A
801411199.4
. .
\..
\.....:
STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT
by and among
LAMAR ADVER1'lSrNO COMPANY
and
LAMAR MEDlA CORP..,
on the One hand,
and
08LITE OUTDOOR ADVERllSlNG, L.L.C.
and
DEUTE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC..,
on the oth~ hand
Dated Effective Aprill, 2001
EXrllBIT . B
3
r'
(
. ,
(c) DeLite lne. will sen. convey and tranSfer to Lamar Media, and Lamar
Media will purchase and acquire from DeLite Inc. all of the shares ofMlnne!3O'!a Stock, free and
dear orall Liens.
1.2 "total Consideration: Allocation.
(a) The total consideration (the "Total Consideration") for the Florida Stock,
the Tellllessee Stock and the Minnesota Stock is $42.600,000 cash. allocated as follows:
(I) $13,000,000 will be li110cated to the Florida Stock;
(ii) . $13,600,000 will be allocated to the Tennessee Stock; and
(ili) $16,000,000 Wl11 be allocated to the Mirmesota Stoele.
1.3 . Closing. The Closing will tBke 'Place by delivery of duly exeCUted closing
documents to Lamai's cou.nsel, Jones., Wa1ket'. Waechter, poitevent, Carrere &. Denegre, L.L.P., at
. Four United PIBZB. 8555 United Plaza Boulevard. BatQn Rouge, Louisiana, 70809 on April S.
200t, or on another date mutually ag{'eeCl upon by Lamar and the StQQkholders., but the Closing
will be effective as of April I, 2001..
1.4 Deliveries at Closing. At the Closing:
(a) Lamat will deliver to the Stockhold~ the Total Consideration by wire
transfer to an account designated in writing by the Stockholders.
. (b) 111e stoclcholders will deliver to Lamar certificates representing aU of the
Qutstandittg shareS of the Target Entitles (as defined in Section 23), in each case duly endorsed to
tamar, or accompanied by duly executed assignments separate from cet1ificates, and free and clea:r
of any Liel'13.
(c) The StOckholders will deliver to LIillIBI' letters ofreslgrtatlon of each of the
directors and officers of the Target Entities.
(d) Each of the Stoclcholde~ will extplte and deliver to Lamar a certllicate dated the
Closing Date of the Stockholder's non--forelgn status ;;s set forth in Treasury Regulation SectIon 1.1445- 2(b) .
1.5 ?ost-ClosiIlg Recoacillation of Working CapilBl Adius1ment.
(a) The Stockholders will prepare and deliver to Lamar, within 30 days after
the Closing Date. statements listing as of the clOSfl of business on the Closing Date:
(i) all assets and liabilities ofDeLite Florida (as defined in Section
23) and DeLite USA (as de&ed in Section 2.3) constituting items .ofFlorida Working Cai?ita1;
ell) all assets and liabilities of DeLite Tennessee (as defined in
Section 2.3) constituting items of Tennessee Working CapllBl; and
BOl-lS199.4
!l:4
!J:'l ~s WHEREOF. ~ Advenismg. UmaI ~mi th~ stcckholdrn h,,;ve
C$Se-tbis ~tt) bl:: ~Ih~v~ otb1fhcit~'v15 d.u1y ~~ QfJi.~ as ~
~ ~ firs,!;bow wdttea-
~~G~
Br~ -
~:-
'Iill.c~ vico 1'~deM, ChW'Pb2ndlll ~
;:g:;~~
'!itbr. V'~~~lmA~
~ QU!POOlt~11SIN'fr, L.L.C.
By.
~
~
!1EIl'IB (J{)TDOOR ~'I'ISlNG, we.
'0.." .
P:J----....
~
1'fc:1c;
IlM441>'!1J1
L.wARADVEF.'USlNG C01cn'Am'
IN wmmsS WEEREOF.!.amM Adv~ !.amm: Maditr.1lJlA tha Sulddw~ 1lz,.vt
~fbilt~!Q b= d'8Md.th~ot' h1~e;il;~W duly ~,,1fi~m all q!
tb4 ~ ii:t$t tbrY~~.
. -.
~1'JS'''''
:By:
~ ~J..."f:otte
"Ok V'ico~CWd'~OiS=
1.AMAR MEDlA CORr.
:By:
~ ~,A.~
'I.'ltrt:>' vll::e:~F2lW1t:Clmd.~
DSUl'E oumooR~G-.LL.C.
~~~~
~ ~.y;. u..~ Q"",,~Q
~ c;( "
uarrE oumoORftDY~~~;INC.
BY. ~el1-S
~J: ~~~ t!'lh~.M-~
TJt1D: Co c;' tI
32
I hereby certrtv mat 10e toregolng CCl\stitutes the
Judgment of the court
~~~~n.~~ Deprty
Dated: r9. ....JJ ' -
. .
lrt
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF WRlGHT
TE~J.DISTRlCT
File CV -09-0104
Dayton Holding, Inc., by its
President, Stephen Nelson,
Plaintiff
Vs.
ORDER GRANTING
JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL
AND JUDGMENT
Lamar Advertising Company, a/k/a
Lamar Outdoor Advertising Company,
a/k/a Lamar Outdoor Advertising, alkJa Tbe
Lamar Companies, alkJaI Lamar, LLC,
aJk}a Lamar Central Outdoor, LLC,
aJk}a Lamar OCI North Corporation,
Defendants
The above matter came on for triEas a contested unlawful detainer action before the
undersigned on February 4,2009. Appe . g for Plaintiff was Lorelle Moeckel, Esq.
Appearing for Defendants was Jessica B.! Rivas, Esq.
At the close of Plaintiff's case, Defendant moved for dismissal as a matter oflaw and
waived any further evidentiary presentation. Counsel briefed the issues. The Court now
GRANTS Ihefendant's motio~o dismiss for tbe reasons stated in the attached Memorandum.
Ld "(/~cf~V>--7a-'V'~ ~ .
Defendants are permitted to tax tfueir costs and disbursements of the action.
Dated: February 23,2009
ilh/ ~~
Judge )
EXHIBIT C--
r,~3~~t~G- G_"J~
WR\GH~ESO:,
by
MEMORANDUM
This case presents legal issues abc>ut a lease for an outdoor advertising sigOlocated, in
Wright County, MN.
Defendant is the successor in intetest to the original Lessee. Interestingly, the 'original
lease was between two entities controlled by the same principal, Stephen Nelson. The drafter of
the lease was Mr. Nelson. It was he who annotated the lease agreement (Exhibit 1), deleting the
words, "... thereafter,. with the understanding that the total renewal periods shall not exceed ten
years. "
The lease is not ambiguous. It c14arly provided for a fixed term of ten years from its
inception on May 1, 1998. The annotate\i lease clause provided,
2. TERM. This lease sh<ill be for a term of 10 years, beginning on completion
of construction or May 1 S\ 1998, whichever is later and shall automatically renew from
year to year. .. (emphasis added)
Unambiguously, the clear meaninjg of the cited lease clause is that while it ran for ~
initial uninterrupted ten years, thereafter,:without further limitation, it was extended
"automatically" for a year at a time. Its clear language is not susceptible of more than one
interpretation. Art Goebel. Inc. v. No. Suburban Agencies, Inc., 567 NW 2d 511,515. Because
it is not ambiguous, extrinsic evidence is ~barred, rendering discussions about the parties'
expectations and understandings years after commencement legally irrelevant. C.f. Dunn v.
National BeveraJl:e Corp, 729 NW 2d 63U (Minn. App., 2007).
Plaintiff argues that Defendants gave timely notice of termination so that the lease
expired on May 1,2008. Plaintiff claims that Lamar's representative initiated termination in a
document dated October 18, 2007 (Exhibit 2). A review of the document in question belies that
assertion.
a) In paragraph 1), the document expresses Lamar's desire to RENEW, not terminate
the lease.
b) The reference in the docume~t to a "straight 10 year lease" means the original,. fixed
term. It is true that initial fix~d term terminates in May, 2008. If Lamar desired a
long term continuing relationship, the parties needed to negotiate a new fixed term
arrangement. Lamar's propo$als were all for extended terms. The parties never
agreed to a new long-term relationship. But the original "renewal for a year" clause
continued to be a part of their unambiguous agreement. Exhibit 2 is NOT a notice of
termination, but rather an expression of interest in agreeing to a long term and
continuing relationship.
The evidence from Stephen NelsQn was that he received a rent check on or about April
23,2008, prior to expiration of the original ten year term. (Exhibit 3). He did nottell
Lamar that the lease was ended. He did not return the check until after May 1st,
specifically on June 27,2008. (Exhibit 4). His inaction caused the lease to renew
automatically, for a year, until ~ay 1,2009. Winthrop Resources Corp. v. Sabert Corp.,
567 F.Supp 2d, 1084,1094 (D.Minn., 2008).
Because Defendants have;a valid and subsisting lease, Plaintiff's claim to eject
them from his property must fail.
:,~ -~.
~1?.~:.!'!ilLE:
hVILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
5959 Main Avenue
Albertville,:MN 55301
Phone: 763-497-3384 Fax 763-497-3210
- - ;.;~,;;..:,; - { - - -:-1: - - - - -~ ~~s.;o-ct.,. - ~6 -:
~"Name ~ ~ ~ ' 18~
The Appticmrt ,,,' "'" ~ _ T<rumt ~ ~:
Legal Description: . :
Addition Lot Block _ I
~ (.., \-l;;j), . ~3~1J/1l-'J \j~ 6brJ/vJ \fy- G;G VJ K'11'
Owner:: n ~~lc\.' B JL. .;- -I+.. /. " \ r_ I
Name m, mo.....L>L . 1 fiu-Xddress \lL,SO S I "~. \\JD :
City f\\ ~'l \.\ ~_ . St~ Zip 5'5"30 I I
Phone (H) /(';3-4C\l-~t~\ (W) (C) :
I
eoDlractO" ~ MM' ". I
Company Name f"A.-{ vi -R License # ~ I ~ I
Mrlress]rJ~S;- Cily~ Stll1\l ZipE{,367:
ContactPerso ~(.~ (Jt<SD,() :
Phone: (W) &'o--'l~'1-4gqlQ (C) ("3~::i)3"33-1q3~ (Fax) 3);:>-:>-c;)~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
(Fax) I
MDV.IL-tv R- ~~:
jAlteration I ~~c I
o ResideIReroof Fireplace I
. Deck I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Architect:
I Name
I
I City
I
I Phone (W)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
: . . '- . . o-t ~ I
App'licants SIf!i9ftu~. ..J L' () - t? .~icants Prmtcd Name Date .
__P~rf~~~~-~_CQ~----------------
Address
~ \-\\'
St_ Zip
(C)
~e of Work:
o New Construction Residential
.. ew Construction Commercial
19j Tenant Finish
Separate permits are requiredfor electrical, plumbing*. heating*. ventilation* or air conditioning. *
* Do not need to pull separate permits for New Construction ResidentiaL
rtifY that I have read and eramined the application and understand that a/l work which is being peifonned shall comply
a praved plans and specifications submitted. All provisions of laws and ordinances gaveming this type of work will be
lie with whether specified herein or not.
Approved by Building Official
Vall>e Approved
Date
Special Conditions or Comments:
White - City and Customer
Blue - Connty Assessor
EXHIBIT D
Date Received
Date Notified
Date Paid
Ck, Cash, CC
Permit #
BUILDING PE:v;MIT FEES
<2'li/i ~
Permit 4-I!; I
Surcharge
Plan Check
Engineering (site)
Mechanical
Fireplace (s)
Plumbing
S&W
Water Meter
City WAC
JPWAC
SAC
Storm Water
License Check
Other
TOTAL
Type of Consl.
Use ofBldg
Occupancy Group
Occupancy Load
Zoning
Code Used
Are Fire Sprinklers Required?
[jYes [JNo
Date Approved
Fire Dept
City Engineer
City Planner
Public Works
( . of Albertville
5959 Main Ave, P.O. Box 9
AIbe~lle,NUN 55301-0009
Phone: 763-497-3384, ext 103 Fax: 763-497-3210
. -'~;~
~1?-~!"l~tlL€
Received Stamp
SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION
Please print or type all information. Complete all applicable items on both pages. A 'Briildiiif;-Periliii
ADUllca6cnifuustac:comow'Veach PeiDianent siiiii PerlriifAD~Iication:' Temporary Signs !!Q...nQ! need a
Building Permit Application. Property Owners Approval is required for Permanent and Temporary
Signs by signature below or letter of approval submitted with application.
This application is for: (Check One) ipermanent Signag~ 0 Tempo~ Sign age
Appli""'" Name: . ~ lC AJ ,\rOJf +ifJ ~ Address: j:\J RD /'- '8(., S;
Applicants Phone: ~~ (1.=1 ~ ~ ~ . elt) I A.A I fY)rJ .5(03Q~
Applicant is (please check one) 0 Owner 0 Contractor ~ Other (La S~" n ~
o
~IJ~ ~~~~
Ownerl Sig' riature~Reqtiit~.
7(O3=- 'l/1.1.~ 3l3J' .
Phone Number
r'nt\/ 5530 L
State Zip Code
\-0. ~ J,.lV<1>f -\: t~l ,
Si~ Contractor's NK 1\
o ~~ 'Roo ~ oodt.-
S~AddreS~
~ . Uo-~' iJ. s. fl\N
C~ r ~~J9
(P,ro") 171~ t./891o
Telephone Number
fnfV
State
5(,,37'1
Zip Code
Temporary Signage Information:
BusinesslDevelopment Name:
Permit Fee: $25.00 Temp Only Check No.lCash
Sign Message:
days
Expires:
No. Issued this Year:
X Height: ,.
= Total Square Footage
Sign Permits will not be processed if Incomplete.
I hereby certify that I have furnished information on tins application, which is to the best of my knowledge true and
correct. I also certify that I am the owner or authorized agent for the above mentioned property and that all construction
wi co rm to all existing state and local laws and will proceed in accordance with submitted plans. I am aware that
pe . can be revoked for just cause. Furthermore, I hereby agree that the City Official or a designee may enter
u nth property to pe~o~ed inspections.
l ~ r---.IL- ~S~ Jb- \ -d.-c6?>
Si ture of Applicant Date:
~'i!
.,
'., , Sign Permit Application
Page 2 of2
For Permanent Signage Only:
Class of Work: 0 New
Job Cost: ~ l ~I Cf:D .
o Addition
o Alteration 0 Repair
o Demolition
Total Number of Signs:
I
,
~NO
Are you currently licensed as a Sign Contractor?
IV/A-
MUst INCLOOE A piCTURE OFSiGNAGE 'ON BUILDING WTfEl DIMENSIONS OR SURVEY
wt,ttI SIdN D:f<A\VN, iON rirbSCAL~FORMONuMENT.'6R FREE.S1ANDINGSIGNt.iGE "
.. - -. ,... - -. - .' . , ~. ~. '. -,
llluminated
Note: Please complete the following section by indicated the terms listed above in the columns provided for
each sign, If more columns are needed, use an additional form,
Sam Ie Si 3
T e Wall
Quanti 1
Face P~stic
Frame Plastic
Su ort Buildin
Oass Business
Illuminated * NO
Len h 4 eet
Width 4 eet
S uare Feet 16 s are fiet
mumination Requirements: a - ~ ~l '(I
* Specification as to electricity needed & ~lumination calculations are required. \.Lq)~-t-S\'\
* Will the sign include an electronic changeable copy sign or readerboard? 0 Yes 1l(No lfyes, please
provide details to include: Source and Illumination Specifications.
I bereby apply for a Sign Permit and I acknowledge that the information above is complete and accurate; that
eo' be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City; that I understand this is not a permit
and or is not to start without a permit; that the work will be in accordance with the approved plan in the case
of w which requires review and approval of plans.
(0 - I
Date
~oo8
Building Official Signature
Date
Special Approvals:
* Monument &Free
Standing Signs
ONLYunless noted
Date Routed
Approved
Building Official
Public Works Supervisor *
Wastewater Superintendent *
, City Engl'n~er *
Other
. ~.
.e
.~.'~ .~!
O. il'~
. . 0
'~. . i~,
,~. ~ ~ik
.. "i!;;!'
.J.: i ;:~:-I
.. '"
.... ~ ;:
O .. -
. .. mZ
.J] . gl4 ~'i:l>:
It-' . ~
".ri . ~
.D .' ~.
LJ,J . ~~~
'D :;;R
\ IF.J'
..-
.'... :.
. :.
:~ ,;.
'cP, ;
...
It-'
.' \'.
"
. . ~.. : .
. .
I ,,1:';':':1"
",' \.'
; ;": "..
"1" '.'
':.\\". .,.;.....
"!. (
t.
t7
~
(jJ
. c M-
. . 0 ....t:.'
.... "~. :~(
,..... .~f-f... :&t: ~13
. i . W
>
f
::tJ
~ i!i~
~ ~m
p;\1 =n
oP~ :::I
6.2;':I:~
'x Z
~I~ G)
'" 1;0
~ ~'T1
CJ)
;-f
o
r-
o
c:
o
J .
\.
i'
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
5959 tlAHI AVE ~E
PO BOX 9
~BERTVILLE tiN 55301
763-497-33&4
Transar.tion 62B1
2S-Mar-09 10:02am
Tr~c~y ~ COU~TER
P~rmit (No Wacl $265.50
Billboa(d r~location
rLh~r9~ (No Wac) ~7.50
Billboard reloc3\icn
n Ch~ck (Ho Wacl n72.'DB
Billboard relocation
J-l
I\)
I\:)
OJ
Reci.'ipt Tot;;!l
$445.58
Check PayMnt
HQ5.56
-
t,.
.,W
.....
.p
-0
o
~.
3:
.01
.~:;
l1>
~
~.;.
CD .'
'g
-
.-0
V: ~
~
o
cf)
...;
*
~f~
~
~ . "
~ tv ><~
r~~
t:ift
~tr
~
.~
t~\
~
c ....-
--I' P.
to
f*'-
~
o
f
(
rJ;:
)2
1
.., ~~-~";";~1: .
,... """~"~h'q~'Q" .m~"'~a.., "mo,.
'I'" - -~ 0-~~4":, " ,. "'q'j'\ ';0." ;;m .h::: 0 .,,,,,~:. "',.. ", <i 3,%,,,'.
."" .. ..""""..." ""~ ~," P! "m.O ";:::.;...", -, ,,~ ~ ',. '" . "1Jl ~ . 'm .'B;';;7'.
~:;.r;:'~ ""',,,,,,,.~. , ..,~ 6", ~ "'~ - . m ~,." " .'.~ . "'ffi ~'m ""0 0 .~ .,., ,n 'm" '"
'\". -""'.", ,.", ~'" c.", '." .:.:::~; '" roc "'~, ''''::".0 ~;,~!' "'",.. """i,n'.'" '''.n",,,
',." . ... ~ 'i>I Q .m ,,~ g "',,-, b'm';;., rll",;, 0 ~., ~ ~ ,. , '" .. ~ '. 'W _ "''-'rll <<'~'.O.
\" . ~,- "m 9.", 0,'<-0;'. : m". 'm -' ~.. ''''~'''~ ~ "~'" "m ". ~ ".,~.~ '" '_'".
" , .no '~"','m,. "" m - ~ 0 '. ". ~ 3 "'m n '" m " . ..m,o..", """..'.
.~,. '. m ~ rll '~'m ~'" '." ~ ."'" .... ~'<, "m'rH~ .. ".' . ,. "2 '." m.f;:j ~'0
j .li:.{::~!~:'!;:::~~~I:~~L:1!<fjji~!:~;~11~&~J;k!-~1
.. ....::::;-~....;.......:.r.z...-i7f.~..:~
H~~
.' i~~
t[f~4
. .l'"~
11
;:) It'':1
"III """,~;"':'t:~. . . "::'i' :'::,,,~J:'!ii~~;);;':E,;~;;:~~~;~i~'( ;,,,,""^,,,,;'.'.,,.ci
1':~Jl?@'>ilit"';-91'~ .C,~U~!? '?\ ~.:~:;.ffi,g:f;i! ~~'~;3~:~~i;{~ g ':?l'g;~'..el'g}gt~~ ~';~~?:~d~:~':-\ ;.~,::~r
::::;1'. :~~.::L:':.~'~~';.:~~.:.,',~::i~""'I.::f:.Ot ~='~D'; ,..~::r..;~n:~:~'-r~:\d""'t ':~ ~A vo:'~~::;~ S.,L:;:: '.- .~
j, "....;:>, '"'r.l..,.r...... ",..,..-r"....{l"."O'bJ...;;;: .....;:>'......t-j<.', rr .,rr'....' ." "., _.,,;>...OlO' .
1';:;raJg).::;',';~g;.:~?gj ,i7")lf2A2.~g; W.;g;"l~)~l:~~~~'m:l>J '~~:g;'!!!:':::8:i,lTI;jgj::ti:)&: ~ ;~g;}h~; :.m ~,X~;q'r: ".~';g-:
I" 'I ," ,N. ~"",., ,. ".:.," :<)0 . ~ : t<. '" ":<) oW' i\' :":<) ~ :" ;". ~ ,c:<) ~: tl; iF 'i'." ,'l',,;"',""~ ,. ",)if:, 3 e;' ij',g \ '"
i J\~1 "~;:'~;~Jr~ ~':~{::Sf"~ '~~~%~1~~;;';::;i~:~;!~~~~J~;':';~r:W:fj'lll:1
... J3.a~d:'Wf.j~~~Ji~3i~0ii;i:3tTImftf:1~~~~t~~~;~:"2q3i~~J;t1~1t;~~1~. .. .
~'-'
"",:.
""I;."~'.
,.
~
r
(J
~
t
r
~
m
@
~~:i
~
l~J
r::;J
b~
ru
01
to
(to
(9)
-4
10
o
Vi'
m
@
Overview
layerll
E2I Roads
E21lload labels
E2I City{Township limits
o To;,nship/Range
o Sections
o Quarter Quartel>
o Subdivisions
o SUbdivision labels
o Blocks
o Block labels
E2hots
o Lot labels .
L~:p;r~ei~:~'-:::~~D
o Address labels
o Railroad
o Ditches (County)
o Parks (County)
o Park labels (County)
o Torrens
o Torrens labels
o Shorcland Area
o Water
o Soils
o Son tabels
E2I Zoning
o ESZ
o lanluse
o Ambulance Zones
o fire Zones
o Police Zones
o ZOOS Aerial Imagel"f
~ le~end
m: 561535, 194167 i HARN f~~! Zoom Cbse
--"" Zo~
V~:~
W1Sd-~
}
Wright C
ity, MN
~
l:;J Map
P Se.arch JTI Conlp Se.arch ~ Results ~ Comp R2sult:; ~ Report
,.
"
01;-;
~P-.~flR:;~
c.;) IF:1 n ~
ffiI]~fd -::;.7
li3&
Scale: 1 lin=64ft
"'"'
~
Ql Map
Measure Results
length:
393.5 i feet wiJ Area:
0.011 i~ f.<j
v
"
~~
o
@) Summary
Perce I 1D 101B00062200
Sec/Twp/Rng 6-120-23
Pro~rty A.ddreu
District
Brief Tax Der;crl!'tlon
Alternate to N/A
Cia.. 233 - COMM LAND & lltDGS
Acru~e 0.00
NIA~
,ass NIA~
Sect-C6 Twp-1Z0 Range-{)Z3 UNPLATTED LAND NW1/40F NW1/4EX W16RDS OF S30RDS OF N32RDS EXC
E460FT EX TR DES IN BK312-!l34
(Note: Not 10 Ir.! used on legal documents)
Announcement:5:
<::t $2.arch across multiple: countias with Guidepost!
L>st Data Upload: 10115{200B 7:06:46 AM
756 users currenlly online
'iP ....,-fl:~i' t.::'J.
<~ :.:t,l l31 'U1
Ii} Info
^
^
!p',,:rc:.i ro-:-i~.~~~(i~~..Q!lJ
~/
~~.pf
)02
+- ( 1f ?- ~
.l~I"'" )
{~ STAlE OF MINNESOTA
'""...~!I DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ADVERTISING DEVICE PERMlT APPLICATION
"'\'>:~~~g~(':/,..!'i;.i;;:'f. - i":; ~;:S..;JA.I;.Jt.;
~~{tt;~";"~
:td~r:i::;: b1:.:. '. .\". :~..,
~f~~t(1inr~l,1~ . .
.., . - "., ,'.' .,[21~.QJ..??L!:1
.i~t~}\>,,~[\~~~~T+':', ":~"
r
MnfDOT TP 11191 ~2 (1-82)
LEAVE A BLANK BETWEEN WORDS
A
p
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
-~~ ,
6~~
. ,./rf~~ro:r
~~J1t
L
A
N
D
o
W
N
E
R
18. LOCATION SKETCH SPACE:
(Submit sketch property SyO' pro posey
device locatio and t!.es. ~tc. l.l(:>O Y /
. \\\ ',~
.J'A{-'tf,- .f~(K )
.\c I tD~'
o~?
<<\oSocJY .
I 7
~~bhWillJ
CITY S1ATE ZIP
.~
TELEPHOnE
PROPERTY LOCATION:
I~- '1~~ LI^\~"+
7. HIGHWAY B. mY
9.
SIGN MESSAGE:
,/ ...
\I fJ.... Y I 0 l,c':--.
,
10.
LANDMARKS:
11.
ADVEr4N~ AREA (Include b~'ter & trim):
<+8 (rJ 7~
HEIGHT WIDTH SQUARE FEET
IllumInating Deyice;MYes NoD .
Distance from center of highway to nearest comer of device
Ft. 1
12.
13.
13A.
14.
15.
18.
o Yes, letter Attached
17.
(:)-
DATE
Submlta cation with check for ro er fee a able to Commissioner of Trans ortation
ADVERl1SING DEVICE PERM I!
Permission is hereby granted for the construction of the device as described in th~ above application, said device to be io
accordance with the regulations as set forth in \he Commissiooer of Transportation's regulations and the laVlS of the State of
Minnesota. SUbject to Local Ordlnace.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: Device must be erected within 120 days or permit will be voided. Permit number must be affIXed
to device together with permllee name. It Is expressedly understood that this permit is conditioned upon maintenance of the
device In its original or to a satisfactory condition.
This permit expires 011 June 3D, 20 /}q
FOR DlSTRIBUTlDN oF"GOPIES,
SEE REVERS!': SIDE.
I r~E 13 - D ~ I
(" 7;;;"'""R
'---
"tl
..
3---
~
o
'CJv
~
~
"
'"
s
~
::;
a.
,
<
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
\
.'
Ii
Ii
Ii
!
- - ---- ------ --- ------ --------- -- ---- ------- ---- --- -------------- --- --- ---
--------------------------- - -- ---- ------ ----- ~_ :----1:::
---------------- - ~
,-
!~~
, I .
I" J
:<c
, I <:>
, a
, I
"
, f;
'"
, i ~
, I '"
, . ...
! ~
. ~ '5
~ i!O
'"
i .
"
i;;
~
~
.II-,or
II
H
~~
E.
~~
r
~
2
'.
{
. ~ .
~l ~
,~-
.0-,"
;~1L.~-~,
. . nY/fYoII
.p-,pl
"
'"
s:
>:
a
'"
~
~
!
::.
ig
~I
, 13 !.J.
,iIIi) i Ii; ~'O
-'
~
''''0 ~ ~ <:
hW · ~ '"
~~i~i ,.- ~
Fa~ ~ c a
<:, G
!!f!i '_' ~ s: ...,
>=: 5 '-'
u '"
:::>
Cl <0 I
~ ~ ... Q:
~ ~
h :: :s
;.
h ~
~~Kr ~
'^ . .~~~~ ..
~ ~~ ~ I( ~ ~ g . a
2 ~~ ~; ~ ~ ~~ i ~
o ~~ ~ri d i h ~~ ~ .
- og ~ ~" " u~ .
~ ~~ ~ ii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~;~ *
~ i~ : Q~~ . 9 ~ E ~ ~~ i ~
&; ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ' g." h · t
~ffi ~ ;~~ 8 ~ "~< ~ ~
~. ~ rS~ :,. 0 P ~~ ~ ~
~l ~ ..' ~ ~ ~ 2 ~~ . ~
~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;:~ ;: ~
.;: " ".
..: "'oi ""i '" iii lOi
~ U~
I ~. ~
~~~!~
~~~h
~~~h
~~~i~
-V. '.
~~~~~~
~::a'2..~
~
I
~
~
~
1
~
I^... g
..:~> !
~l
~.
- HI
~~~
~ i !Ii
h ~
~; ~ t. ~-
~ i
"
>:
'"
a
~
~
l>
l:'
~
~
"
.,
I L~'M
.p-,J
.~
AJ~~l~Ql€
L
,
B'L..:LJDING PERMIT APPLICATION
5959 Main Avenue
Albertville) MN 55301
Phone: 763-497-3384 Fax 763~497.3210
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lot Block I
er' ~ ~,"T-l;P, c>'~->lf~\N 1~/vJ vq:-~ l.01~.t'
Name tr\it.'f\~~"\\t.\(\jB O~81!(PSO ~~. (\.)6 :
City f\-\ ~J.;v~ \ \ oJ<! St~ Zip ~-.?;O I :
Phone (H) 71. 3 --tt en ~ ~ 13.\ (W) (C) :
I
Contractbr: ~ ' . . I
CompanyName ~ ~1'~oense# l..:J1t.\ I
Addreos:fD~~~ _ City~d. svm./ z;p6b~6]:.
Contactperso~"'NL- At~D. ~ I
Phone: (W) ~..!f~,,) -4ffHt-, (C) (~)3"S-1934. (Fax) ~~).c;s,~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
(Fax) . I
Mbl/-4~O 0:- ~~:
jAltemtiOll ;~Mit~tC t
o Rcmde/Rb:Qof 0 Fireplace I
o o Deck I
I
I
Site Address:
.Bnslne81 Nll1ne: '
The AppUcant is:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
Architect:
Name
Address
B\\>
City
St_ Zip
(C)
Phone (VI)
IECQfWork:
New Construction Residential
ew COnsUvction Commercilll
\Ql Tenant Fini~h
Sl!JHZrlllt permtrf are ~lrtdfOr IIlltCtrlca~ pllUtlbtng', hltJ1tfng"', wmtllati{)n' or air oondtllonJ11g."
.. Do /lOr l1ud to puU f~[XlT'l'ft' p,rmltJ for NH./ Corr~ctfon Ruid,lltlaL
l/t<<,.. rtlJY IMII /tQw ",Ad and u:ambscd Ill. (>ppli~tiWl And u...unland thaC all werle whioh j; b.,'ng J1Brform6d 3haU """'ply
1<1 '" 1'''''''.1 pltuu awl. zp4dfti>fi~ flIb",ll/<ld. A.II provtnOlfl oj'/4NI4l;lnd ~ gOY6T1llnR /hI.! J,yP' ofwod: W'iU bf
/J.. with Wlllltho:r rp.c:(jItld hentn or not.
lO:\~~
Date
I fXH1BITLUE"-
Dale Received ~i~{'J
Date Notified
~paid
C ash, cc~ (J('.
rmit # ~y..3
:BUILDING PEJ,M'fI'liT'I1C'
.~ (dj~
~l~~
Pc:rntit
Surcharge
Plan Cited;:
E1\ginecring (site)
Mechanical
FiIeplncr: (s)
Plumbing
S&W
Waltr Meter
City WAC
JP WAC
SAC
Stonn Water
License Check
Other
TOTAL
!j1iJr:;K
Type of Const.
Use of Bldg
Occupancy Group
Occupancy Lond
Zoning
Code Used
Are Fire Sprinklers Required'?
OYe~ ONo
Fire Dept.
:~~:d_ .
~(
-.,. " I'll'
...~1
A.!~~!;!.iO<y u.~ .
stre ets
(j- &:,
2007 MN STATE .BUILDING CODE
TYPE OF INSPECTION INSPECTOR DATE
IY-.. FOOTING 'If Property Irons must b~ vl&lbl~
IT
SewerlWater
Foundation Reinforcement
Found~tion Prior to Back Fill
Plumbina Rouqh In
Fireplace ROUQh In
Heatim:1/Mechanical Rouqh-ln
Lathe
IX EIsctrical Rough In · Cell Dean Eggert at 783-428-9083
. Framing
Insulation/Enerav Code
Sump DischargB Drain Tile
Other
Do not ~over work until the above has bean approvsd
Electrical FInal" Call D6lln Eggert at ,63-426-9Q83
Plumbin Final
Fire lace Final
Heatin IMechanical Final
BUILDING FINAL/OCCUPANCY
OTES
DO NOT OCCUpy ANY ST~UCTURE UNtiL WRITTEN APPROVAL OR A
CER.TIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL
Jon Suth~rland, Albertvil10 Building Official
For Insoectlons call the CIty of Albertville Building Department@ 763-491-3384 ext 103
Ci ,f Albertville
5959 Main Ave~ P.O. Box 9
Albertvillet MN 55301.-0009
Phone: 763-497-3384t e::d 103 Fax: 763-497-3:210
REC
Received Stamp
y....,)",^
A!~~,r.l,::iJL€
ttM t5 ..
SIGN :PERMIT APPLICATION
Please print or type all information. Complete all applicable items on both pages. A BuiIdin2 Permit
t\nDUl;l}~QP Ulust accomDanv: e\J~b Permanent Sif!n Permit Apolication. Temporary Signs do not need a
Building Permit Application. Property Owners Approval is required for Permanent and Temporary'
Si~ns by signature below 01' letter of approval submitted with, application.
This application is for: (Check One) ipermanent Signage 0 Tempol"Br)' Signage
Applioant Name:. ~ =~ : AA yo )[-Us,i~ Addreso' ~ R", z;. '8\0 ~ _
ApplicantS Phone: ~TI:l-~.~ ~\. Cl(,)IA, A \ rnrJ 51c~
Applicant is (please check one) :J Owner :J Contractor ~ Other (k..~o:>.A-)
--0 '
~Il P1rtM &A ~ ~ ~mv
Owne(~ Signatul'e ft Required
7~--1j'l1-3/3 I
Phone N,umber
fY'i1\ _ 5530 L
State Zip Code
City
~~~")
ss:.AddreS~
:-... \.b~ lJ~. rw
City , 310~ 19
(Ren ') 771-: tleAtn
Telephone Number
rrvy
State
S~37cr.
Zip Code
Temporary Slgnage Information:
BusinessfDevolopIrtent Name:
Permit Fee: $25.00 Temp Only Check No./Ci1$h
Sign Message:
Lengt\ofPe '.
Wi
days
bPires:
No. Issued thi~ Year:
. .~
X Height:
r I'
= Total Square Footage
. ~
Si~ Permits will JU~t. be processed If Incomplete
I hereby certify that I have fumisbed information on this application, which is to the best of my knowledge true and
correct. I also eertilY that 1 am the owner or authorized agont for the above mentioned property and that all coIlB1rUction
wi rot to all existing state and loca1laws and w.iU proceed in accordance with submitted pl.ans. I am aware that
iJ 't can be revoked for just Clluse, Furthermore, 1 hereby agree that the City Official or a designee may enter
n pwperty to pe ed inspectiON.
c~ .jo-\-d-dB
Date:
r~-
Sign Permit Application
Page 2 of2
For Permanent Sigfta.ge Only:
Class of Work: 0 New
Job Cost: dk l51 oc:o .
o Addition
o Alteration
o Repair
o Demolition
Ate you currently licensed as a Sign Contractor?
Total Number of Signs:
A)l~ "fNO
MUST INCLUDE A fICTURE OF SlGNAGE ON BUILDING WITH DIMENSIONS OR SURVEY
Wlm SIGN DRAWN ON IT TO SCALE FOR MONUMENT OR FREESTANDING SIGNAGE
I
.
Illuminated
DNo
Note: Please complete the following section by indicated tho terms listed above in the coluIXU1s provided for
each sign. Ifmore columns are noeded, use an additional form.
Sam Ie Si n 3
T Wall
uanti 1
Faee Plastio
Frame Plastic
Su ort Buildin
Clasll Business
Illuminated * NO
Len b 4 eet
Width 4 eet
S uare Feet 16 s are et
Itlu'ltfbuzJ1o't} Re:!luiremen'4: - ~ ~l ~f
11 Specification all to electricity needed & illumination calculations are required. ~~"* ~
"Will th~ sign include an electronic changeable copy sian or readetboard? Cl Yes 1(No lfyu, please
provide details to include: Source and Illumination SpecificatioDs.
I herwy apply for a Sign :Penult and I acknowledge that the Information abo'Ve Is complete and accurate; that
"'0 be in confonnar1ce with the ordtuancel and codes (){ the City; that 1 understand this is not a pemtlt
and r b Dot to start withont a. pennitj that the work will be In accordrou:e with tbe a:pproved. plan in the case
of w which requit"CII review and approval of plftJ1S.
lo~ f - ~a68
Date
Building Official Signature
Date
Sllecial Approvals:
I< MonuffleJtt &Free
Standing Signs
ONLY unless noted
Date Routed
Approved
Building Official
Public Works SupeJ:Visor of/;
Wastewater Superintendent *
City Engineer '"
Other
....
!
....
IJ)
;...
....
CD
J
I
~
c
a ~.~ O.S
(tl ~ B .." a.
-,: ~ 1:J 0( '"
:.;: ~:-<: Q ".
.g ~t ~ g
~ lii- f3
ti<':l:~"OCII
.. to
::J ./(1)
{g.. .,'
-0
~: ~
f
O'J
.."
.....0
o
~.
i.
:m .
8
8
....
~
r:l CIvil"".'"
€I Layer.
621 116ads
sa Road ~,b.l.
!a cnylTown.hlp Umlt.
o TOW~shlp/R~ng.
o So:rlions
o Q~art.r Quarter-.
S1I SlIbdivl$lona
o SulldlvlBan u bal.
o Blaek!
o !lock Lob.l,
S1I'LblS
o Lbt ub.15
L~,.~~~~..: ~.~:~ ..6
o ,l.dd~ Ubd.
o Railroad
o DIt<hu (counM
o I'I'~. (CO~nty)
o PiriclJlbot, (County')
o To~ns
o Torr.n.. Lob.1s
o Shor.lond A~'
o Wat4lr
o Solla
OSOGlAbtll
Ia Zoning
o ESt
e ...ndu",
o Ambulanc. Zoft..
o ~ Zones
o Potu %on..
Ia 200$ AlIlilollmaporv
iil lAp"'" t
, . \
,
Wright c J ,tv, MN
r:~. J) [if ~
~ ~ Mop P Selrch J.i'l Comp S..rch @J ~.,ult5 .fil ConI? R....lt; ~ R.port
R 6J.f AR.t>.PfOf4. Itr11~O~ &~ Sc'I":L~ln"~~_..i;;:~
fJt-tAP
6 InN
!:
iE~;i Th:..if!~09~~~oi;
MealUra flt.e.~tt.
L.~t"
388.5 i~ot tT Araa:
0.011 !.~.~~_.~
'IJ'f' ~61~3~, \94161 [~.~N.._. ~=~:T.;\ ~~ Clo... n
Zo~.
\Ill cu.O
tJJlSd~
~
(:)
@l iuml1\al"/
iliA !JJ
,." NIA~
PorcellD 10 18000e12oo
$.~"""p/Rn9 ~1Z0'<=i
Propwty M<\......
Dbtrltt:
Brloi'r.,. Du,orIpt/vn
Albotnato II) NfA.
ct... m . COMM lAND Ii e,oc,s
MtU!i'" 0.00
s.~ Twp'l~ R.ng.-<l23 ullFv.mo LANO NWl/401' ~Wl/4O: W16~0$ OP 530RDS 01" N31RDS EXc
e4GOFT EX TIt O€& Iff eKJlz.834
(Note: Nolle be u.ed en "'Ofl d().;um..~)
.tn_noem.nbr
<(;f St.n;h acro.. mulllple tt>~~\I.. with G~ldep.~
lA81 Olt. W1Q;1d: 1011512006 1;O~:~ I\M
7$' uoonl corrently onllr1.
.l.~~:.~,.'
... .. .1,,;(
o
f
f
1
, ,
. r?: '
@
rf--"'"
" 0
I~\
. ~0 :t\
~ .\r;J!
( I -... r;i\
~' .--'- \;.h t
,--, ;':::'11
~''''':'''.:;
~"\1':'\ (
,.. \}:-\
.. . i:.::',
~ ~~)'i
..... ]': i
1l ;r.....j. : 0
a .~< ",;
\;\~T;r~;:~~~ril"'~~~~' ljJ
I;~;: :.I:"~:~' ~~'_.'il~"'~~~i'" 8l'!:~..~I.m'.[~ :-~l~.~'I.:~.g{BoT~'rl-':''E::t::ml:::'~:I'''~I;l'.'i' ::;;~. ; r.l~
:,;.' ;.:'l'JJ'.,,')-': : N.~"'''';'' ."'1-->, j~. ')-' t/l:I' tr',-:i:'.'l' ':'.~'I_:.;r:>.jg;::/;i'!:.:;"l " /;1' ,p' ,;,:.:sr ,If;.g<, i I"
:..:;. :!ti~. ii4 ~ .,.tf~., ";~lr, .;.~. ,);!~- .,,,,~ '~. ,..~' :':~ki::.~,....:tl'."M.' ',tf ,,~g !~ : ~
~. >~~ IZ . . lJ~. t;:. '? .,;j;~ ~; e' ."'~ ',;1f!ii"! I':~ ':' .;iI r'f~~';i' , ·
~ :'<t:' ". .'. ." ';'r:~': . .' .,~~!51g
f. :\,;,' ", " . .. , '... .'.. ;').. :~, " , .. . .~ :..ti ~:~
, ' . . . ~ " .
Ix;':""
, . ,":. I ~~.1 I :L::,.~:.,:::~;;~'~;\.~:~:;,:.:-:,;~:~;~.:.:~;:;~S:T ':~yii:~, .,(;;2;/;>;'~.s::/i~:~0::X~ } .:,.,: :,:: ::,~:~:;:
~
LAMAR' --:- ST. CLOUD, MN .
DRAWING NUMBER
64-9278
~
ALTERNATE CUBED FOUNDATION PERIMETER
IONS:
~ A325
I hereby certify that this plan, specI-
ficatIon. or report w~s prepared by me or J
under my dIrect supervisIon and that I am
a duly Registered Professional Engineer under
~r~th'SW'~
. RegistratIon No. 21673
M A992
rM AJ5
Date
r:-r /FT.
)feN MEETS .,
WAL BUILDING CODE
::EO AND EXPOSURE "c"
WITH AWS
PRODUCTIVITY FABR/CA TORS
09
1'4'. x' 48' eM, 30'\1:
DRAWN BY:
R. SCOTT
12' HAGL siGN
60 (IF REQUIRED) .'
rinfDOt iP 17191-02 (1082)
LEAVE A BLANK BE'TV\IEEN WORDS
A
p
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
L
A
N
D 71-
o STKmAo~i~~
W 1^1.I\II\ll.hltlJI..11 c:'
~ -J
N em m'1'E i:lP
E l-i. 1....1 I .I:~~I u. u,l
R~
"fIlLIl"HOHll
P~QPErtTY \..OCATION:
l~ -1U U^ \(~,^. ,,+ J
7. HIC;HINP,( 8. OOllNTY
a. SIGN ME.S$AGE:
'" I' ..
\/fJ....j I()LJ...~
.
10.
LANDMARK$:
12.
13.
13,..
14.
is.
17.
STA)e;. OF MINNESOTA
18. LOCATION SKETCH SPAOE:
(Submit sketch property 5:':~roPOS&Y
...... ,.,,,",, ",. ~:'1; ~y~ ::><' V /
, .1-\f A(~
N ~~ 1 \D~'4 .
I o~/
<tD !o&""
'---"
-~'iP
b~\"'-~~'
~~.
,(:3" ii
;B
~--
p.,
tN
.....9
~
11. AOVmN~ MEA (Include btJ1-;" & trlm):
Li <I '0 (I') I~
HEIGHT ~ WloiH SQUARE: F\i:1;;;T
lllumlnalll'lg OGv\OII;..a._Yell NoD
PlutaMCl from etnwr of hlghWllY to ('lurnt (:Orner or diWICl)
Ft. 1
~lgl1tofVlll.Y ah1liln fllta . ft.
ApprO)(. DlhI device will b~~d "
T~ D*\'Ice ~
[)SINGLE. [] 81DE I'lY "V' TYpe 0 BACK TO BACK
FACe aIDE
111. LMdo~llr. l.Arl~(Jrd ~r f1~bmll !.tbI~~ng Ul/& (If !)l'Opltrty ar ~Ign Item
~h.If ,d~K~~ 'I]. ~ 'd-(J,,;gfff. DYH,\AlterAtmoh~
I, . gned. horaby dtoelar& that lid 6tat~rnanta'h9l1lln IllW lT1I$ a~ completE!. wtlh the ~m<I foTD8 anti Elffoot Il' though glv_n ul1llef
. he .pt tM ulTlns and cl)ndltlr;>l'le of tf1. ..gula1l:<?!lS af the comnmt.!oner of Tr'..n'l'pCtfWlon aM fuUy Qgrol to comply t1>t~ Ytfth to
. . of the MlnnHota DIIIl. nt of T~nspl;lr1alll)n.
1\
ADWRllSlNc:J DJ:lVlOE pllftMl
Parmlelllon II hlreby gfllnttd rer tho oon9llUctlon of the devloo &I d.,ecrtbtd In ~ ll.11o'le Ipp\iel:lllon, Hid ~VI09 to be In
~ooordanc:6lN1thlh. regul8.lIl;)lW 118 5et1Qrth In lhQ Commlar40nllr of Transport.tlon'~ f8guluUone 1\nd ~ lawr. of 1M 8la~ of
MlnnotJOIa. Su'P~ct \D Local orrllnaoa.
6PEC1AL REOUIRSMENi8: DtlIvk* must M ....c\Gd wlt/1ln 120 (I1:lY" or perm~ v..ill btl voldttd. P"rmIt numblr mulit PB lIIMx..d
to diWIca together with pemtoo nem.. It III lIIlClmssedlY undlltetood fullt thl& pAnnlt III condltlorHId upe>n malntllUlnCG or the
lI.vlce In lis original or to II fJatiafllolory oondft!Qn.
ThJt; p<<rm~ expIre. on JI.ln9 30, 20 n9
FOI'\. OlalRISU"ON O~ES,
Sl!ii ~R$1i SIOIr.
[r 0- 0 't J (' ;Z;;:'i- -
page 1 of 2
Tori Leonhardt
From: Carie Fuhrman [cfUhrman@nacplanning.comJ
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 3:31 PM
To: Tori Leonhardt
Cc; 'Alan Brixius'; Jon Sutherland; 'Adam Nafstad'
Subject: RE: Relocation of Billboard
TorI,
The proposed sign appears to meet the Ordinance requirements. (For oonfirmation, please remind the applicant
that the sign must meet the setbacks of at least 20 feet to the side and rear property lines, but also be within 100
feet to the rlght-af-way of 94). Otherwise, it looks okay from a planning standpoint
Thanks, Tori.
Carie
Carie Fuhrman
NORTHWEST ASSQCIA TED CONSULT ANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202
GoldBn Valley, MN 55422
Phone:'763.231.2555
FaoslmUe: 783.231.2561
~n@nacolanninQ,com
From: Carle Fuhrman tmallto:cfuhrman@nacplannlng,com]
Sent: Wednesday, Aprll aI, 2009 1:22 PM
To: 'Alan R. Brixius.
eel 'Tori Leonharde
subject: RE; Relocation of Billboard
AI.
I rel/iewed this application and it appears to meet the requirements: property is zoned 8"31 Highway Commercial;
sign Is proposed to be 672 SF In araa; 30 feet in height; 36 feet long; 1,375 feet to ar;ljecent Franklin sign; and
62.46 feet to 94 ROW.
The only inconsistency that I found was with the requirement that the sign must meet the setbacks of the Zoning
Dlstrlot, which is 20 feet from the side and rear lot lines: The site plan Indicates that the sign will be 20 feet from
the SW corner of the property, and also 20 feet to the side and rear property lines, which technIcally isn't
posslble...lfthe sign meets the 20 ft setbaok requirement to the side and rear property fines, it would be 28 feet
from the property corner, which would put it 70. 74 fe~t from the ROW of 94 instead of 62.48 feet (which meets the
requirement of being within 100 ft to 94).
Is it okay for the city to Issue the permit?
Carie Fuhrman .
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS,INC.
4800 Olson MemorIal Highway, Suite 202
Golden Valley, MN 55422
Phone: 783,231.2555
Facsimile: 763.231.2561
Page 2 of2
cfuhU1Jlln@naCplannlng,corn
-------.....~-----
------~-----------------_.-
From: Tori Leonhardt [mailto:tleonhardt@Cl.albertville.mn.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 2.5, 2009 5:06 PM' .
To: Alan R. Brixius; Carle Fuhrman; Adam Nafstad
ee: Jon Sutherland
.. . Subject: Relocation of Billboard
Attached Is an application from Lamar Signs to relocate and existing non-oompliant billboard to Mike Potters
Property. I have also attached a better aerial picture, and an aerial showing exIsting billboards along 194.
Jon,
Footing detail for the sign and wind load calculations Bre forthcoming.
Tori fi. Leonnarlt
Certifiea CPermit rtecfi:nician
City of jl(6ett:rJilIe
(j)irect.. 763-497-3384 e)j; 103
Pax; 763-497-3210
<EmaiC: %onfiart{t@ci.at:6ertvi/I.e.mn. us
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
BRIDGET MILLER CITY CLERK
PO BOX 9
5959 MAIN AVENUE
ALBERTVILLE MN 55301
Notice of Filing of Order
State of Minnesota
Wright County
District Court
Tenth Judicial District
Court File Number: 86-CV -09-3598 I
Case Type: Civil Other/Misc.
LAMAR ADVERTISING COMPANY, Lamar OCI North Corporation vs Dayton
Holding Ine, STEPHEN NELSON, City of Albertville
You are notified that an order was filed on this date. Copy enclosed.
Dated: July 23, 2009
La V onn Nordeen
Court Administrator
Wright County District Court
10 2nd Street NW Rrn 201
Buffalo MN 55313-1192
763-682-7539
cc: JESSICA BETH RIVAS
PATRICK JOSEPH COLE
A true and correct copy of this notice has been served by mail upon the parties herein at the last
known address of each, pursuant to Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 77.04.
MNCIS-CIV-139
STATE
Notice of Filing of Order
Rev. 12/2002
1263838.1
~~T~i[Q)
~IGc5(~TY. MiNNESOTA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
DISTRICT COURT
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: OTHER CIVIL
File No. CV-06-7846
Lamar Advertising Company, and
Lamar OCI North Corporation
d/b/a Lamar Advertising of St.
Cloud, Minnesota, Inc.,
Plaintiffs-Petitioners,
ORDER ALLOWING ALTERNATIVE
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
v.
Dayton Holding Inc., and Stephen
Nelson,
Defendants,
and
City of Albertville,
Additional Defendant-Respondent.
The Alternative Writ of Mandamus in this matter is allowed, returnable at a hearing of
the District Court for Wright County to be held before the Honorable ~!e.f!A A. NtJfI.{ on
DC$bd 2f1- ,2009, at 'f,.JtJ 4 .m., at the Wright County Judicial Center, 10
,
Second Street NW, Buffalo, MN 55313. Service of this Order, the Petition and the Writ is
directed to be made by delivery to: defendant-respondent City of Albertville, City Clerk, Bridget
Miller, 5959 Main Avenue N.E., Albertville, MN 55301.
BY THE COURT:
.~A,~
Judge of District Court
55124.
lAG [b@ lID
~
:~. MINNESOTA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
DISTRICT COURT
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: OTHER CIVIL
File No. CV -06-7846
Lamar Advertising Company, and
Lamar OCI North Corporation
d/b/a Lamar Advertising of St.
Cloud, Minnesota, Inc.,
Plaintiffs-Petitioners,
AL TERNATIVE WRIT OF
MANDAMUS
v.
Dayton Holding Inc., and Stephen
Nelson,
Defendants,
and
City of Albertville,
Additional Defendant-Respondent.
TO: Defendant-respondent City of Albertville, City Clerk, 5959 Main Avenue, Albertville,
Minnesota 55301.
GREETINGS:
WHEREAS, it manifestly appears to the court by the petition of plaintiffs-petitioners
Lamar Advertising Company, and Lamar OCI North Corporation d/b/a Lamar Advertising of St.
Cloud, Minnesota, Inc. ("Lamar"), that Lamar alleges:
1. Lamar is a Delaware corporation that owns and operates outdoor advertising and
logo structures in more than 40 states and is doing business in Minnesota with a registered
address at 1025 Rook Road, Sauk Rapids, Minnesota 56379.
2. Defendant Dayton Holding, Inc. ("Dayton") is a North Dakota corporation with
its principal place of business located at 7656 128th Street West, Apple Valley, Minnesota
2.
3. Defendant Stephen Nelson ("Nelson") is the owner of Dayton Holding, Inc. and
currently resides at 7656 128th Street West, Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124.
4. The City is a Minnesota municipal corporation located in Wright County,
Minnesota.
5. Dayton and Nelson (collectively "Defendants") own real property in Wright
County located at 5701 Mackenzie Avenue, Albertville, MN, Wright County, which is legally
described as Lot 2, Block 4, Green Haven Estates (the "Subject Property"). The presence of the
Subject Property in Wright County confers jurisdiction on this court to decide this dispute.
6. In addition, jurisdiction and venue are appropriate in Wright County because the
City and the Subject Property are located in Wright County, Minnesota.
A. Billboard Lease Agreement Between Defendants and Lamar.
7. On March 27, 1998, Defendants entered into a lease agreement with Nelson
Outdoor Advertising ("Nelson Outdoor") to lease the Subject Property to Nelson Outdoor on
which Nelson Outdoor could place and operate a billboard advertising structure (the "Lease
Agreement"). Attached hereto and incorporated into this Amended Verified Complaint as
Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Lease Agreement. ,
8. At some point after the execution of the Lease Agreement, Nelson Outdoor sold
the billboard advertising structure to DeLite Outdoor Advertising, L.L.C.
9. On April 1, 2001, Lamar acquired the stock of DeLite Outdoor Advertising,
L.L.C. and DeLite Outdoor Advertising, Inc. Through this acquisition, Lamar became the
successor of the Lease Agreement as the Lessee and owner of the billboard advertising structure
("Billboard"). Lamar also acquired: (1) the sign permit from the City to operate the Billboard at
the Subject Property; and (2) the sign permit from the State of Minnesota to operate the Billboard
3.
at the Subject Property. Since the acquisition, Lamar has paid an annual fee every year,
including 2009, to the City for the sign permit and to the State of Minnesota for the state sign
permit. Attached hereto and incorporated into this Amended Verified Complaint as Exhibit B is
a true and correct copy of the Stock Purchase Agreement between Lamar Advertising Company
and DeLite Outdoor Advertising, L.L.C.
10. The Lease Agreement was for an original ten-year term and automatically renews
from year to year: "This lease shall be for a term of (10) years beginning on completion of
construction or May 1, 1998, whichever is later and shall automatically renew from year to
year."
B. Defendants Bring An Eviction Action Against Lamar And Court Determines Lease
Agreement Is Valid And Automatically Renewed For 2008-2009 Lease Term.
11. In February 2009, Defendants brought an eviction action in Wright County, Court
File No. CV-09-0104 to evict Lamar from the Subject Property claiming that the Lease
Agreement was a ten-year lease term that terminated on May 1,2008.
12. On February 23, 2009, the district court determined that the Lease Agreement did
not terminate on May 1, 2008, but automatically renews from year to year. The court
specifically found that Defendants had received
a rent check on or about April 23, 2008, prior to the expiration of
the original ten year term. He did not tell Lamar that the lease was
ended. He did not return the check until after May 1 st, specifically
on June 27, 2008. His inaction caused the lease to renew
automatically, for a year, until May 1,2009.
13. The court further determined that because Lamar has a valid Lease Agreement,
Defendants' eviction claim failed. The district court dismissed the case and entered judgment.
Attached hereto and incorporated into this Amended Verified Complaint as Exhibit C is a true
and correct copy of the district court's Order Granting Judgment of Dismissal And Judgment.
4.
14. After the eviction proceeding, Defendants did not provide Lamar with a written
termination of the Lease Agreement. According to the terms of the Lease Agreement, the Lease
Agreement automatically renewed on May 1, 2009 for another year.
C. The City Grants And Then Improperly Attempts To Revoke Lamar's Building
Permit To Relocate Lamar's Billboard On The Neighboring Property.
15. Despite the automatic renewal of the Lease Agreement, the deteriorated
relationship between Lamar and Defendants led Lamar to execute a new Sign Location Lease
with the neighboring property owners Michael J. and Heidi B. Potter (the "Potters"), which was
to commence pending receipt of all applicable permits for Lamar's Billboard. Thus, Lamar
applied to the City for a building permit and a sign permit to move the Billboard to the
neighboring property owned by Michael J. and Heidi B. Potter (the "Potter Property").
16. On March 25,2009, the City received Lamar's Building Permit Application, Sign
Permit Application, and a check for $445.58 for the fees associated with the applications to move
the Billboard to the Potter Property.
17. Lamar's Building Permit Application specifically requested that Lamar be
allowed to relocate the Billboard from the Subject Property to the adjacent Potter Property. In
Lamar's Building Permit Application, under "Description of Work," Lamar stated that the
Billboard was "to be relocated to a conforming location approx. 500' to the East - so this is a
replacement site and we will move existing sign." In addition, Lamar included an aerial picture
depicting the relocation of the Billboard from the Subject Property to the Potter Property.
Attached hereto and incorporated into this Amended Verified Complaint as Exhibit D is a true
and correct copy of Lamar's Building Permit Application, Lamar's Sign Permit Application, and
Lamar's check to the City.
5.
18. Lamar's Building Permit Application and Lamar's Sign Permit Application
complied with and met the City Code requirements.
19. On April 9, 2009, the City approved Lamar's Building Permit Application and
Lamar's Sign Permit Application. Thus, the City issued a Building Permit to Lamar to relocate
the Billboard to the Potter Property (the "Building Permit") and the City issued a Sign Permit to
Lamar to operate its Billboard at the Potter Property (the "Sign Permit").
20. In addition to issuing Lamar a Building Permit and a Sign Permit, the City also
provided Lamar with emails from the City stating that Lamar's Building Permit meets the City's
Code requirements for billboard advertising signs. Attached hereto and incorporated into this
Amended Verified Complaint as Exhibit E is the approved Building Permit, the approved Sign
Permit, and copies of emails from the City regarding the approval of Lamar's Building Permit.
21. In reliance upon the City's issuance of the Building Permit and the Sign Permit to
Lamar, Lamar's Regional Manager Mark Sherwood told Nelson that Lamar planned to remove
the Billboard from the Subject Property by April 30, 2009.
22. In reliance upon the City's issuance of the Building Permit and the Sign Permit to
Lamar, Lamar removed the catwalk and the lights from the Billboard in preparation to relocate
the Billboard to the Potter Property pursuant to the Building Permit and the Sign Permit.
23. In violation of the City's Code and Lamar's due process rights and without the
requisite authority, the City notified Lamar on April 21, 2009 via a letter that it was revoking
Lamar's Building Permit and Sign Permit for the Potter Property.
24. In its letter, the City explained that it had just discovered that it had already issued
a building permit to Dayton to remove and replace the existing billboard advertising sign on the
Subject Property on May 27, 2008. The City further explained that because it had issued two
6.
permits to different parties for the replacement of the same sign on two properties and both
billboards cannot be constructed due to the 1,000 foot-spacing requirement between billboards, it
revoked the "building/sign permit issued to Lamar Advertising on April 9, 2009 as being in
violation ofthe City's zoning ordinance."
25. Under the City Code, only the City Council can revoke a permit that has been
approved and can only do so after affording the permittee a hearing and after determining that
the permit violates the City Code. The City Code expressly provides: .
F. Revocation of Permit: The city council may revoke any permit granted herein after a
hearing for violation of provisions of this chapter, or applicable laws and regulations of
the United States or the state of Minnesota, upon thirty (30) days' written notice of such
hearing to the permittee. The city council, within ten (10) days after conclusion of the
hearing, shall notify the permittee of its decision, and may, where appropriate, notifY the
permittee what he can do to retain the permit, and the permittee shall, in thqse instances~
have thirty (30) days therefrom in which to comply with the requirements of the city
council, if compliance would bring the advertising device into lawful conformity with
this chapter.
26. After receiving the City's April 21, 2009 letter, Lamar put the City on notice that
Dayton did not own the Billboard, but Lamar in fact owned the Billboard and had not granted
Dayton permission to seek a building permit to remove Lamar's Billboard. After receiving such
notice, the City did not retract its purported revocation of Lamar's Building Permit and Sign
Permit.
27. The City's purported revocation of the Building Permit and Sign Permit is
unconstitutional under the Takings Clause unless the City pays just compensation to Lamar. The
City's purported revocation of the Building Permit and Sign Permit was done in direct violation
of the City Code and deprived Lamar of its property rights in the Building Permit and Sign
Permit, and the Potter Property, and deprived Lamar of its ability to honor its advertising
contracts for the Billboard.
28. Due to the City's improper attempt to revoke Lamar's Building Permit and Sign
Permit to relocate and operate the Billboard at the Potter Property, Lamar was forced to keep its
Billboard on the Subject Property. Thus, Lamar reinstalled the catwalk and the lights on their
Billboard.
29. As noted above, Lamar was still operating the Billboard pursuant to the City and
the State of Minnesota sign permits that Lamar had acquired for the Subject Property in 2001.
30. As noted above, the Lease Agreement had automatically renewed because it was
not properly terminated by the Defendants.
31. Thus, pursuant to the terms of the Lease Agreement, Lamar tendered rent for the
lease term of May 1,2009 through May 1,2010, on April 28, 2009. Lamar did so by sending a
letter to Defendants stating that the Lease Agreement has automatically renewed and enclosed a
rent payment of$6,478.01 for the lease term of May 1,2009 to May 1,2010.
32. Despite the fact that Defendants had not provided Lamar with a written
termination of the Lease Agreement and despite the fact that the Lease Agreement automatically
renewed, Defendants improperly returned the rent payment in violation of the Lease Agreement
on April 30, 2009.
33. On April 30, 2009, Lamar resent the lease payment along with another
correspondence to Defendants explaining that the Lease Agreement had automatically renewed
D. Without Any Notice To Lamar, Defendants Commit Self Help And Forcibly
Remove The Billboard Replacing It With A Billboard Owned By Defendants.
pursuant to its own terms and conditions and that Defendants failed to take any action to properly
terminate the Lease Agreement.
7.
34. Without providing any written or oral notice to Lamar, Defendants hired an
outside company to dismantle Lamar's Billboard on the morning of Saturday, May 16, 2009 and
erect a new billboard sign owned by Defendants in its place.
35. Lamar discovered Defendants engaging in illegal self-help tactics and physically
removing the Billboard on Saturday morning because Lamar's Sales Manager just happened to
drive by the Subject Property and notice a crane and a company removing the Billboard.
36. Upon learning that Defendants were illegally removing the Billboard, Lamar's
Vice President and General Manager Emil Radaich contacted the Wright County Sheriffs
Department for assistance in maintaining its possessory rights under the Lease Agreement. The
Sheriff s Department informed Mr. Radaich that this was a civil matter and Lamar would have to
enforce its rights in court.
37. Thereafter, Mr. Radaich went onsite and witnessed this outside company
dismantling Lamar's Billboard, placing Lamar's Billboard on the ground, and replacing it with a
billboard owned by Defendants.
E. Defendants' Self-Help Eviction On A Saturday Morning Interferes With The Lease
Agreement, Lamar's State Sign Permit, Lamar's City Sign Permit, and Lamar's
Advertising Contracts With Third Parties.
38. In addition to a valid and binding Lease Agreement providing Lamar with
possessory rights to have the Billboard on the Subject Property, Lamar also has a state sign
permit for the Billboard that allows Lamar to place advertisements on the Billboard through the
Minnesota Department of Transportation. Lamar's state sign permit was valid through June 30,
2009 and Lamar has applied for renewal of this permit.
39. As noted above, Lamar also has a sign permit from the City to operate the
Billboard at the Subject Property.
8.
40. In connection with the valid and binding Lease Agreement and the state and City
sign permits, Lamar also has two advertising contracts for the Billboard in which companies pay
a monthly installment to advertise on the Billboard.
41. The first advertising contract is for a one-year term that began on November 25,
2008 and ends on November 24, 2009, wherein Gruber's Quilt Shop ("Gruber's") pays a
monthly installment of $1,500.00 to advertise on the Billboard ("Gruber's Bulletin Contract").
Gruber's Bulletin Contract is location specific because the Billboard is the only sign located
before the exit to the Albertville Outlet Mall. Gruber's specifically advertises at this location to
capitalize on and market to the patrons going to the outlet mall.
42. The second advertising contract is for a three-year term that began on January 1,
2008 and ends on December 31, 2010, wherein Red Roof Inns, Inc. ("Red Roof Inn") pays a
monthly installment of $1,545.00 to advertise on the Billboard for 2009 and will pay $1,590.00
in 2010 ("Red Roofs Bulletin Contract"). Red Roofs Bulletin Contract is also location specific.
Under the Red Roof s Bulletin Contract, Red Roof Inn has to approve a substitute billboard if the
location is lost during the contract term.
43. Without oral or written notice, Defendants wrongfully evicted Lamar from the
Subject Property on May 16, 2009, and have caused substantial damage, including wrongfully
removing the Billboard, wrongfully interfering with Lamar's possessory rights under the Lease
Agreement, directly. causing Lamar to lose revenue and profits from the Billboard, and tortiously
interfering with business contracts and relationships that Lamar has. established for this location
, and its Billboard on the Subject Property.
NOW, THEREFORE, YOU are commanded, immediately upon receipt of this writ, to
commence condemnation proceedings with respect to the property rights that were taken away
9.
J from Lamar without just compensation, or to show cause before this court, at a hearing to be held
at the Wright County Government Center, on ~ dlo ,2009 at I.'?::D
.v.m., why you have not done so, and that you then and there make return of this writ with your
certificate of such return or having done as you are commanded.
Witness the Honorable W, \ttvl p.. N\ot-\'\, judge of this court, and seal
, rdl
thereof this 2J1 day o~, 2009.
Court Administrator of
Wright County District Court:
By: ~ 7-/L
Its: ~ [QlU1 Ad4,yi{nisboY
1263835.1
-'
~'<.t, _
'~,J,t: \i;~;,,~
'" "ic .tt .~
, ., "
~.;, ..
fi".. '.
"''tIo<-:~~
.~,
''lc.,' ..,I.', -".,
~~~
'"<Of f
.t .
~
~
..,.
'"
/j'"
10.