Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 24, 2001 <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst asked ifMr. Riehle was telling the Council that it was a marketing tool. He <br />stated 27-inch letters would be able to be read beyond 600 feet. <br /> <br />Mr. Riehle stated the hardship justification was done in conjunction with Mr. Mike <br />Cronin. He noted they went through the county assessor and the assessor thought the <br />name should be on the water tower. He added Guidant needed to paint it or take it down. <br />He stated it was not an economic hardship. He noted they needed a variance because of <br />the height. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst asked about the 60-day response requirement. Mr. Parrish responded the <br />Council needed to make a decision tonight or have the applicant waive the requirement. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem stated she was not saying she would never approve this, but felt she <br />needed additional information on the long-term result of any precedent set by this <br />decision. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski asked where the city had another structure that tall. She <br />stated they would not allow another to be built. She questioned what precedential value <br />this decision might have. She noted Guidant would not have to come before the Council <br />if it were just painting the water tower. She added she did not see what problem there <br />would be with putting their name on their tower in a decorous way. She stated it was the <br />only private water tower. <br /> <br />MOTION: <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a <br />motion to approve the monument signage on Lexington Avenue for the reasons <br />and conditions contained in the staff report. The motion carried unanimously (5- <br />0). <br /> <br />Mr. Lynch stated Councilmember Aplikowski was correct that this was the only private <br />water tower in Arden Hills. He noted the city would want to control any water towers <br />built in the future. He added that antennas were structures that go through an approval <br />process. He stated the Council would have control and authority over signage at the same <br />height on any other structure. He noted buildings did not reach that height because of an <br />ordinance limitation. He added he was not advocating for the sign. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst asked if a deferral for 60 days would be a hardship. Mr. Riehle responded <br />only from the standpoint of weather. He stated Guidant wanted to do this in conjunction <br />with the signage on Lexington Avenue to announce the purchase of the property. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated he was very uncomfortable with the decision since he did not feel he <br />had enough information. He noted Guidant was a great corporate citizen. He added he <br />was struggling with this issue. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson stated it was not an issue ofletter height, but one of the height of <br />the structure. He noted the city had other tall structures. He added taking this action <br />made it harder for the council to say no to other signage on high structures. He stated that <br />