Laserfiche WebLink
~U~-29-1997 1~:17 CITY OF R~MSEY 612 427 554~ P.06×09 <br /> <br />under Section 21-3(f)(7). Section 21-2 of the ordinance defines a legal <br />nonconforming sign as a sign which lawfully existed at the time of passage of <br />the ordinance but which does not con'form to the ordinance. Universal's sign <br />which is in dispute in this action is a legal nonconforming sign. <br /> <br /> A windstorm on May 15, <br />supporting posts off at the base. <br /> <br />1996, blew the sign over, breaking the <br />The upper structure of the sign remained <br /> <br />intact. UnK;ersal removed the debris from the site and began installation of <br />new supports. The City building official issued a red tag stop work order since <br />a building permit had not been applied for or issued. The City has refused to <br />allow Universal to re-erect the sign. <br /> <br /> Section 21-7 of the ordinance states "Whenever a legal nonconforming <br />sign shall have been damaged by fire, flood, explosion, earthquake, war, or <br />an act of God and the damage of the sign and/or structure is 50% or more of <br />its fair market value as estimated by the building inspections department, the <br />reconstrubtion shall comply with all provisions of this article." The chief <br />building officer for the City has de[ermined that the sign was damaged by an <br />amount greater than 50% of its fair market value. Universal has obtained a <br />preliminary valuation analysis dated July 31, 1998, of the sign. The market <br />value estimate is based on the assumption that the sign was in place as it had <br /> <br /> 2 <br /> <br />I <br />1 <br />! <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />