Laserfiche WebLink
DORSEY & WHITNEY <br /> A P.wrwa"—twct. otwo Psiomas-o Cos► "cws <br /> 350 PARE A`-EXUE 220 SOUTH SIXTH STREET 201 nest AVENUE.S.w.,SUITE 340 <br /> NEW TORY.NEW YORK 1002¢ ROCHE <br /> N STE R,MINNESOTA 35902_ <br /> (212)415-9200 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-1498 (507)286-3156 <br /> 1330 CONxECIICLT eVEA-UE.N.w. 612) 340-2600 1200 FIRST INTERSTATE CENTER <br /> WASBINOTON,D.C.20036 TELEX 29-0605 BILLINOS.MONTANA 59103 <br /> (202)857-0700 (406)252.3800 <br /> PAX(612)340-2868 <br /> 3 ORACECHUBCH STREET 507 DAVIDSON BUILDL`RO <br /> LONDON BC3V OAT,ENOLAAD GREAT PALLS,MONTANA 59401 <br /> 44-71-929.3334 (406)727-3632 <br /> 36.RUE TRONCHET WELU"R.80TH 127 EAST FRONT STREET <br /> 76009 PARIS.PIIANCE (814 540-2986 MISSOULA,MONTANA 59802 <br /> 33-1-42-r.6-59-49 - (406)72l-6025 <br /> 35 SQUARE DE I{EEUS M9 601 ORAVD. SUITE 3900 <br /> 9.1040 May 25, 199 3 D BRUSSELS,BELGIUM 25 `9RS MOINES,IOWA 50009 <br /> 32-2-504-46-11 - (515)283-1000 <br /> Mr. Thomas D. Burt <br /> City Manager <br /> City of St. Anthony <br /> 3301 Silver Lake Road <br /> St. Anthony MN 55418 <br /> RE: Sign Ordinance <br /> Dear Tom: <br /> • You have explained to me certain situations where the owner of a business <br /> seeks to use an existing sign for new information identifying a different business at <br /> that same location. As I understand it, in many such cases the location of the sign <br /> would not change and there would be no change in the size or nature of the sign. I <br /> assume that in many of these cases the business is merely seeking to change the copy <br /> on the face of the sign or the business being identified in the sign. <br /> I understand the current practice is to consider this as an entirely new sign, <br /> which is subject to all the requisite approvals. I further understand that in some <br /> cases the existing sign is nonconforming, either by reason of its age or because a <br /> variance was previously granted, and that there is then a question of whether a <br /> variance is required to change the sign. <br /> If we turn to Section 1400.15 regarding nonconforming signs, the situation in <br /> question probably falls under paragraph 3 of subdivision 2, where there is a <br /> reference to the sign being "replaced". If you look at the other paragraphs in that <br /> same subdivision, they refer to structural alteration of the sign, relocation of the <br /> sign, or a new primary sign being erected. If the copy on a sign is changed, e.g., the <br /> name of the business, I am not sure the sign has been "replaced". The copy has been <br /> replaced, but the physical structure has not. <br /> It seems to me that the changing of the copy on the sign or the name of the <br /> business on the sign might be something you could allow without requiring a new <br />