Laserfiche WebLink
<br />...;- <br /> <br />.~ <br /> <br />r. <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. DR INANE <br /> <br />May 4, 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: Non-Conforming Signs <br />Our File No. M 1-599 <br /> <br />Dear Mr. North: <br /> <br />At your request I have prepared, the enclosed amendment to the City's sign <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />The new Sections 14.035 through 14.037, cover the phaseout of non-conforming <br />advertising signs. I felt it best to make a statement of policy in Section 14.035, <br />so that if this ordinance is ever reviewed by a court, the City Council's rationale <br />for the ordinance will be clear. <br /> <br />I distinguish between advertising signs in residential districts and advertising <br />signs in nonresidential districts. The Supreme Court case upon which the <br />ordinance is patterned, dealt specifically with a phaseout of billboards in <br />residential districts. The court implied that it might treat a phaseout of <br />billboards in nonresidential districts differently. There have been no cases on <br />that subject. By treating the residential and nonresidential districts in separate <br />ordinances and by giving a longer phaseout period for nonresidential districts, a <br />successful challange to the nonresidential phaseout would not affect the <br />ordinance dealing with residential districts. The longer phaseout period for <br />nonresidential advertising signs will give the owner more of a period to recoup <br />his investment and therefore h~ ,agr_eate.r chance of standing a court test. <br /> <br />I have also amended the definitions of business signs and nonbusiness signs to <br />clear up an ambiguity in the previous language. It is now clear that both signs <br />advertising the name of the business and a commodity sold, must be located on <br />the premises. In the previous language, it could be argued that the limitation to <br />the premises only applied to the commodity. <br /> <br />Finally, the new Section 14.180, grandfathers all non-conforming signs in place <br /> <br />.....@ <br />