My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02977
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2900
>
pf_02977
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 12:26:44 PM
Creation date
12/8/2004 1:55:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2977
Planning Files - Type
Conditional Use Permit
Address
2105 SNELLING AVE N
Applicant
FRANCHISE ASSOCIATES
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />03/27/9'" APR'" 1212' ': 98" M: 04AM"PET ~'KBELL, CONV, JENSElU:..!\.;)Ul~ uU..L.UJ^l'.I) <br /> <br />P.4/4 <br /> <br />Mr. Robert Bell <br />March 27, 1998 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />continue to use the existing sign until the Councilscts upon this request. If the Council thc:n denies <br />the request, my client can either seek an injunction against the enforcanent of this paragraph in the <br />CUP or pw-chase a new sign, which wi11 take six weeks to build off site and install on site, and then <br />sue for damages. <br /> <br />My client does not want to be in a position where its only recourse is litigation for damages. <br />lfthe City denies my client's request, and allows my client to proceed to operz.te without having to <br />pW'Chsse a new sign while litigation is pending. then. in the event my client prevails in court, the Ciry <br />will not have exposed itself to a damage claim ($18)000) for the new sign. If the City prevails, my <br />client would then proceed to purchase and install the new sign within six weeks of final adverse <br />judicial decision. <br /> <br />If the City would prefer amending the CUP to allow my client to use the existing sign face <br />at a setback abd a height in confozmancc: with the new sign ordinance, that would also be acceptable <br />to my client. The only continuing non-confomrity would be sign size. The sign is 150 square feet <br />and the ordinance requirement is 100 square feet. Given the Wlique facts of thi.s situation, the City <br />would not be s:etting an adverse precedent. <br /> <br />If you have any other ideas as to how to resolve the issues, I would be interested in <br />discussing them with you- <br /> <br />Please advise. <br /> <br />Very truly yours, <br /> <br />~OJ~ <br /> <br />Bruce D. Malkerson <br /> <br />cc: Doug Kennedy <br /> <br />IS462BDM <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.