CC 01-29-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 29,2001 5 UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Cases 1. Case #00-34, Metro Community Credit Union, 3533 North Lexington Avenue, Sign Variance Mr. Lynch explained Metro Community Credit Union was requesting approval of a sign variance for an additional wall sign at 3533 N. Lexington Avenue. He stated in June, 2000, Metro Community Credit Union made application for two permanent wall signs at their new location within Arden Plaza, located at 3533 N. Lexington Avenue. The sign permit application was approved for only one permanent wall sign, as stated in the Sign Ordinance. For each exterior entrance per business within a strip mall, one permanent wall sign was allowed, by Ordinance. The applicant was told that a variance application was required for the additional wall sign. The previous tenant at this location had two wall signs. The building juts out in this area, creating two different faces to the building and the need for two wall signs, facing in both directions. The applicant was requesting that an additional sign be permitted as it was for the previous tenant on the other face of the building, even though there was only one exterior entrance for this tenant. Staff could not find a record of a sign permit for the previous tenant or any variances granted in the past at this location. Mr. Lynch explained in order to grant a variance, findings of fact must be identified to prove that an undue hardship existed. According to the criteria, staff made the following findings: 1. Hardship - A hardship was defined by the physical characteristics of the land that created a need for a variance from the Ordinance. A hardship could not be based on economics. The circumstances of this tenant were not unique and the property could still be put to a reasonable use without the granting of a variance for an additional wall sign. Also, granting a variance was not in keeping with the intent of the Ordinance to, ".. . encourage effective and orderly communication by reducing clutter. . ." and "... for an attractive and orderly environment by reducing visual clutter. . . ". It could be determined that no undue hardship existed, creating the need for the variance. 2. Materially Detrimental - The granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or zone. However, if permitted, other businesses within the mall with only one exterior entrance would also have the right to apply for a variance, adding to the number of wall signs on the overall building, not meeting the intent of the Sign Ordinance. 3. Special District Regulations - The Metro Community Credit Union was located within the B-2 Zoning District. The regulations of this section did not apply to this district. Mr. Lynch stated the staff recommended denial of Planning Case #00-34, variance for a second wall sign for Metro Community Credit Union, located at 3533 N. Lexington Avenue, for the following reasons: