My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 10-26-1992
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCP 10-26-1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:09:15 PM
Creation date
11/6/2006 2:40:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
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
<br /> . <br />Arden Hills Council 8 October 13, 1992 <br />Attorney Filla commented that in order to grant a variancel <br />a hardship must be identified. He asked the term of Mr. <br />Movies' 1 eas e; representatives stated there is an existing <br />ten-year lease. Filla explained that if the City were to <br />allow the Mr. Movies' sign si tua ti on, it would be allowing a <br />nonconforming use to exist. He suggested either some type <br />of agreement to terminate the nonconforming use which is <br />tied to termination of the lease, or a variance conditioned <br />upon tenancy of Mr. Movies. He commented that one element <br />in this case is the fact that the City allowed the Mr. <br />Movies signs by permit, and leasing arrangements relied upon <br />those permits. He reminded that economic hardship on the <br />part of the applicant is not sufficient reason for the <br />granting of a variance. <br />Councilmember Hicks asked if the hardship in this case might <br />be the fact that the Mr. Movies signs were allowed by the <br />City in the past. Attorney Filla remarked that if a City <br />erroneously allowed something in the past, that is not <br />sufficient reason to continue allowing it. <br />The applicant stated that prior to the sign ordinance, . <br />previous tenants had even more signage than is proposed now. <br />Attorney Filla commented that if Council wishes to grant a <br />variance, the justification for doing so could be 1) The <br />property owner, when leasing property, relied on a signage <br />which was permitted by the City in the past, therefore the <br />situation was not self-created, and 2) The signage plan <br />being proposed now, though nonconforming, is less <br />nonconforming. <br />Filla added that a variance could be structured to terminate <br />upon expiration of Mr. Movies' lease, or upon their vacation <br />of the property, whichever is first, at which time a new <br />signage plan for the entire building would need to be <br />submitted for consideration by the City. He said this <br />arrangement would give Mr. Movies adequate time to recover <br />the ini tial cost of their existing signage. He explained <br />that the cost of a sign is typically amortized over a <br />certain period of time; in this instance, it would be <br />reasonable to expect the sign to be amortized over the <br />period of the initial lease. <br />Chuck Markham, an owner of Mr. Movies, stated that because <br />of the structure of the building and the roof overhang <br />design, it is difficult to locate signs so they are visible . <br />from the front as well as the sides of the building, <br />therefore the sign on the east side of the building is very <br />important. He stated he would be willing to relinquish use <br />of the pylon sign rather than lose the sign on the east side ,f <br />of the building. 1 <br /> , <br /> ~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.