Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br /> <br />=- <br /> <br />Arden Hills Council 9 october 13, 1992 <br /> <br />Mark Osojnicki, an owner of Mr. Movies, asked if the length <br />of the variance could extend as long as Mr. Movies occupied <br />the space. Attorney Filla explained that if a nonconforming <br />use is allowed, typically the intent is that it be a <br />temporary situation with a limited duration. Mayor Sather <br />advised that in the past, other nonconforming sign <br />situations have been made to comply or requests for <br />variances have been denied because there has not been <br />justification for allowing them to remain even temporarily. <br /> <br />MOTION: Hicks moved, seconded by Mahowald, to approve the <br />request for a sign variance, relative to 1160 West <br />County Road E, with the conditions that: <br />1. The variance will terminate when Mr. Movies' <br />existing ten-year lease expires, or when Mr. <br />Movies vacates the property, or when any tenant <br />changes occur within the entire building at 1160 <br />West County Road E, whichever occurs first. <br />2. Prior to termination of the variance, a signage <br />plan for the entire building is to be submitted to <br />the City for reconsideration. <br />.- 3. The use of the existing pylon sign in front of <br />1160 West County Road E is to be limited to <br />--- exclusive use by TCF bank until the variance <br />terminates and a new signage plan is considered. <br />Based upon the rationale that: <br />1. The leasing arrangement between the owner and the <br />tenants relied upon signage allowed by the City in <br />the past. <br />2. Allowing the sign nonconformity for a limited time <br />will recognize Mr. Movies' investment in existing <br />signage. <br />2. This compromise will lessen the nonconforming <br />signage situation at 1160 West County Road E. <br />Motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> <br />REOUEST TO PURCHASE CITY PROPERTY <br /> <br />Administrator Person reported the City has learned of a <br />developer's interest in purchasing a parcel of City-owned <br />land, which has been used in the past as a lift station but <br />is now abandoned. She explained that some of the issues <br />which need to be discussed are the costs involved in <br />removing the lift station, and determination of a current <br />property value, park land fees, development fees, etc. She <br />asked for direction from Council as to whether they are <br />. interested in selling the property, and if so, who is to ',,' <br />negotiate the matter with the interested buyer. ; <br />~i <br />Attorney Filla noted that this type of sale is not SUbject~:r <br />to the usual public contracting laws and does not require ,u, <br />submittal of sealed bids. He suggested investigating how <br /> <br />J <br />