pf_03151 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

., ". .. ~;.. ..;.~. ... c . .-:;. " e LAW OFFICES OF e ., PETERSON. BELL Be CONVERSE 1800 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING 10 I EAST FIFTH STREET ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101 224-4703 (612) ERWIN A, PETERSON ROBERT C, BELL WILLARD L, CONVERSE ROGER A, JENSEN KURT F, WALTHER W. TIMOTHY MALCHOW MARTIN J, COSTELLO DAVID S, ANDERSON WILLIAM M. DRINANE April 16, 1981 Mr. Steve North Assistant City Manager City of RoseviUe 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Re: Signs -- Nonconforming Uses Our File No. M 1-600 Dear Mr. North: You have advised me that the City's Staff has recently completed an inventory of signs which do not conform to the City's sign ordinance (Chapter 14). Apparently these signs were variously erected prior to the City's first comprehensive sign ordinance in 1959, subsequent to that ordinance but prior to the recodification of the sign ordinance in 1974, and subsequent to that date. The City has little, if any, information concerning when each of the specific signs were erected. You seek advice on the proper procedure to be followed in dealing with these nonconforming signs. There appears to be at least four classifications of nonconforming signs, each being governed by a different code section. 1. Signs erected prior to the 1959 sign ordinance are governed by Section 11.060, which states: "Any nonconforming use of land involving a sign may be continued for a period of 30 months from and after May 21, 195~, whereupon such nonconforming use shall cease." Nonconforming signs erected prior to the 1959 date should have been removed in 1962. I believe if the City has taken no action to remove those signs for over 18 years, it would be legally impossible for the City to do so at this time. 2. Signs erected after 1959 which were in violation of the then existing code, were prohibited and should not have been erected. No nonconforming use ~@