My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03151
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3100
>
pf_03151
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 12:46:25 PM
Creation date
12/8/2004 3:54:53 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
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 />'. <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />LAW OFFICES OF <br /> <br />PETERSON. BELL Be CONVERSE <br /> <br />1800 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING <br />101 EAST FIFTH STREET <br /> <br />ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101 <br />224-4703 (612) <br /> <br />ERWIN A. PETERSON <br />ROBERT C, BELL <br />WILLARD L, CONVERSE <br />ROGER A, JENSEN <br />KURT F. WALTHER <br />W. TIMOTHY MALCHOW <br />MARTIN J. COSTELLO <br />DAVID S. ANDERSON <br />JAMES C. ERICKSON <br />WILLIAM M. DRINANE <br /> <br />July 7, 1981 <br /> <br />Mr. Steve North <br />Assistant City Manager <br />City of Roseville <br />2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Roseville, Minnesota 55113 <br /> <br />Re: Our File No. Ml-599 <br /> <br />Dear ~1r. North: <br /> <br />This is a follow-up to my June 25, 1981, correspondence con- <br />cerning the proposed ordinance regulating billboards. <br /> <br />In light of the new statute requiring the city to pay "just <br />compensation" if it adopts an ordinance requiring removal of <br />billboards visible from an interstate highway, the City Council <br />may wish to amend the proposed sign ordinance by adding a pro- <br />vision exempting such signs from the phase-out requirement of <br />the ordinance. I have prepared a revision of the proposed V <br />ordinance adding Section 14.038, exempting advertising devices <br />covered by the new statute from the phase-out provision of the <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />It would make no sense to require the phase-out of those adver- <br />tising devices over a three year period in that the city would <br />be required to pay "just compensation" under Chapter 117 after <br />that three year period expired. <br /> <br />By exempting such advertising devices from the phase-out pro- <br />visions of the ordinance, no new advertising device could be <br />erected along the interstate highway because of the provision <br />of Section 14.030, and if the City Council ultimately chooses <br />.to remove the preexisting advertising devices along the inter- <br />state highway system, under the new statute it can do so by <br />commencement of condemnation proceedings under Chapter 117. <br /> <br />RAJ/rb <br /> <br /> <br />truly, <br /> <br />LL & CONVERSE <br /> <br />....@ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.