Laserfiche WebLink
93 <br /> DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP <br /> • <br /> Michael J. Morrison <br /> March 1, 2000 <br /> Page t <br /> moved, except to change it-to a conforming use." As I understand it,the sign is being altered, but it is <br /> not being enlarged, extended, replaced or moved. It is not clear whether the sign is being <br /> "reconstructed". If the City concludes that it is not being"reconstructed", it could be deemed to be <br /> permitted under Section 1660.02, Subd. 1. If this is not clear, however,the City could always <br /> consider a variance. If this is done,the issue would be whether it would constitute a hardship to <br /> relocate the sign to move it off the right-of-way. <br /> Whether the City determines that a variance is needed or not, if the sign will continue to be <br /> located.in the right-of-way,I would recommend that an agreement be entered into with the church in a <br /> form similar to that which I prepared for the Hobart Swan property, to provide the church with a <br /> license to continue the sign in the City right-of-way under certain conditions. This would make it clear <br /> that the City would have the right to require the church to move the sign if it deemed that it was a safety <br /> hazard or if it otherwise was in the City's best interest to have the sign moved for widening of the road, . <br /> snow storage, etc. In such an agreement,we can provide that the church would indemnify the City for <br /> any claims related to the presence of the sign in the right-of-way as we did with respect to the Hobart <br /> Swan property. <br /> I hope this answers the questions you had,but if you have any further questions, please let me <br /> know. <br /> Very truly your , <br /> 4 <br /> William R. Soth <br /> WRS/ms <br /> • <br />