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 />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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.