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 />e <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />, , <br /> <br />-..' ,,' ,', <br />f. <br />~ ' <br />J <br /> <br />In the process of preparing the inventory, building permit records were <br />reviewed to determine if any of the non-conforming signs were constructed <br />with a permit. It became readily apparent that many of the signs were con- <br />structed without permits and it was impossible to determine when the signs <br />were erected. <br /> <br />It should be noted that none of the non-conforming signs were constructed <br />after the adoption of the revised sign ordinance in 1974. <br /> <br />This problem has been reviewed with the City Attorney and he has provided <br />the attached opinion. The Attorney briefly revievls a history of the sign <br />ordinances and concludes: <br /> <br />"Because of the number of different criteria which apply depending <br />on the date of erection and because the City does not have records <br />concerning the erection dates, it is my opinion that it will be <br />very difficult for ,the City to uniformly enforce its code as it <br />applies to nonconforming signs. Given the limited number of such <br />nonconforming signs, it would be reasonable for the City Council to <br />choose tograndfather all signs existing on a given date in 1981, and <br />thereafter strictly enforce the sign code as to new signs. II <br /> <br />As pointed out by the Attorney, the Council could, by ordinance, allow <br />all non~conforming signs erected prior to 1981 to remain indefinitely <br />or could allow them but require they be removed by a certain date. ,If <br />allowed to remain, the signs could be maintained, but could not be extended <br />or intensified as provided by Section 11.090 of the City Code. <br /> <br />Another option could be to immediately pursue the enforcement of the <br />ordinances to correct non-conforming signs. However, as indicated by the <br />Attorney, it would be very difficult to uniformly enforce and to defend in <br />court. <br /> <br />It is recommended that the Council adopt an ordinance allowing all non- <br />conforming signs erected prior to April 1,1981, to remain indefinitely. <br /> <br />Att. <br /> <br />~ ":-~A 0 F w ~ ~ S ~~,.J ~NS\ BE qrJj')Vu&o- <br />).\ Be~ [)GJ=',N.{ I 1 <br />') _A)W~T I) Mf71~~.. . <br />, B J ~ S G-rjJ.rAJ 0<< /'fGvJ ov/rJESLJ' <br />_ 0 JrJ~T is mp<Yv:J€ '.,p W,N!? <I. <br />W~T ro <!-~ Sdfr-J!- ' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.