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 variance, <br /> a hardship must be identified. He asked the term of Mr. <br /> Movies' lease; representatives stated there is an existing <br /> ten-year lease. Filla explained that if the City were to <br /> allow the Mr. Movies' sign situation, 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 I ease, 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 1 ess <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 initial 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 difficul t to locate signs so they are visible . <br /> from the front as well as the sides of the buH ding, <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 <br /> of the building. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.