My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 03212000
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2000
>
PL PACKET 03212000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 7:36:06 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 7:35:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
27
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 2000-2004
SP Name
PL PACKET 03212000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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
16 <br /> DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP <br /> • MINNEAPOLIS PILLSBURY CENTER SOUTH BILLINGS <br /> NEW YORK 220 SOUTH SIXTH STREET GREAT FALLS <br /> SEATTLE MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA $$402-1498 MISSOULA <br /> DENVER TELEPHONE: (612) 340-2600 BRUSSELS <br /> WASHINGTON,D.C. FAX: (612) 340-2868 FARGO <br /> DES MOINES WILLIAM R.SOTH HONG KONG <br /> ANCHORAGE (612)340-2969 ROCHESTER <br /> LONDON FAX(612)340-2644 SALT LAKE CITY <br /> soth.william@dorseylaw.com <br /> COSTA MESA VANCOUVER <br /> March 1, 2000 <br /> Michael J. Morrison <br /> City Manager <br /> City of St. Anthony <br /> 3301 Silver Lake Road <br /> St. Anthony, MN 55418 <br /> Re: Sign for Nativity Lutheran Church <br /> . Dear Mike: <br /> You have asked for my advice regarding the identification sign for Nativity Lutheran Church. I <br /> have reviewed this with Kim Moore-Sykes and believe that I understand the background. I have also <br /> reviewed the Planning Commission minutes of February 15 and the Planning Commission's questions of <br /> whether under the circumstances it would appropriate for the City to consider a variance for the sign. <br /> As I understand it, the sign is non-conforming and the church wishes to make alterations which would <br /> make it easier to maintain and give it a more updated appearance. Apparently,they are not changing <br /> the dimensions or location of the sign, and the footings, electrical wiring and base would remain the <br /> same. Kim concluded that under Section 1400.08, Subd. 15, they could replace an existing business <br /> identification sign so long as the sign has the same dimensions, is in the same location and is not a <br /> prohibited sign under Section 1400.07. <br /> Under Section 1400.07, Subd. 4, signs within the public right of way are prohibited. Kim <br /> thought the right-of-way was 15 feet on the church side and that the sign therefore was not in the right- <br /> of-way. She later learned that the right-of-way on Silver Lake Road is 33 feet wide on the church side <br /> of the road, and that the sign was 4 feet into the right-of-way. <br /> You and the Planning Commission have,raised the question of whether the City should consider <br /> a variance for the alterations to the sign. If the sign is considered to be a non-conforming structure, it <br /> . may be continued only so long as it remains otherwise lawful and complies with the provisions of <br /> Section 1660.02. Under this section, it may not be "enlarged, extended, reconstructed, replaced or <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.