Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 29,2001 <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />1. Undue hardship did not exist because the applicant did not meet the spirit and intent of <br />the Ordinance; <br /> <br />2. The circumstances of the request were not unique to the property; and <br /> <br />3. The property could still be put to a reasonable use without the granting of a variance. <br /> <br />Mr. Lynch stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Case #00-34, <br />variance for a second wall sign for Metro Community Credit Union, located at 3533 N. <br />Lexington Avenue, for the following reasons: <br /> <br />1. The hardship was attributable to the physical surroundings of built structures and <br />topography that block views of this portion of the building; <br /> <br />2. The design of this portion of the building required two signs for visibility from either <br />entrance onto the property; <br /> <br />3. The proposed sign aesthetically matched the surrounding tenants and did not negatively <br />impact the area. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski arrived at 7:23 p.m. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson stated he had difficulty determining what the hardship was in this <br />instance, <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem stated it appeared clear to her that the signs would face two separate street <br />entrances to the property. She stated this was a unique feature to this property, and without the <br />sign a person looking for this business would have difficulty locating it. <br /> <br />Sherry Kangas, 3533 North Lexington, Metro Credit Union, stated the problem was that the sign <br />could not be seen from County Road E. A person had to get into the parking lot and then look <br />back to see the sign. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant stated it was impossible to tell what business occupied that comer because <br />of the uniqueness of the building. He agreed with the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson indicated he still had a concern regarding the signage issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Lynch indicated with respect to the staffs perspective it was confusing that there was <br />continuing differences of opinion. He stated staff should probably be directed to change the <br />Ordinance rather than trying to fit each instance into the Ordinance. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem indicated the Planning Commission was aware of this item and did plan to <br />address the Sign Ordinance this year. <br />