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 />"'S' '" I 'J".. I "K'" ...!-tU=-.I\.;)U.l' u.LLL.L~'1J <br />03/27/90APRu02'~98w 09:04AM PET, BELL.CONV,JENS~ <br /> <br />~uv... <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 Council acts upon this request. If the Council then denies <br />th~ request, my client can either seek an injunction against the enforcc;meut of this paragraph in the <br />CUP or purchase a new sign, which will take six weeks to build ot! site and install on site, and then <br />sue for damages. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />My cIi~t does not want to be in a position where its only recourse is litigation for damages. <br />If the City dclries my cIient~s request, and al10ws my client to proceed to operzte without having to <br />purcbase a new sign while litieation is pending. then in the event my client prevails in court, the City <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 instaU 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 aDd a height in conforrnan<X with the new sign ordinance, that would also be: acceptable <br />to my client. The OIlly 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 ~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 />~()J~ <br /> <br />Bruce D. MaJkerson <br /> <br />cc: Doug Kennedy <br /> <br />IS4QBDM <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.