Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />SEPTEMBER 22, 1993 <br />plan showed the potential for two buildings totalling <br />12,400 square feet. The building being proposed would <br />total 15,400 square feet, for a net increase of 3,000 <br />square feet. Jones felt the proposal followed the <br />parameters of the original approved site plan, and <br />indicated that he could not identify any negatives by <br />approving the request. <br />Scalze pointed out that there is a billboard on the <br />site, which is a non-conforming use, and stated that <br />typically the City tries to bring a property into <br />conformity at the time requests are made for a site. <br />Scalze felt this was an opportune time to bring the <br />mini-storage site back into conformity. <br />Jones reported that Two S Properties acquired the site <br />in 1989. At that time Naegele already had an easement <br />right for the billboard on the site. Naegele has a <br />long-term lease for the billboard which expires in 2020 <br />or 2030. Two S Properties is paid $50 per month for <br />the lease. <br />Jones reported that he understands the concerns of the <br />City, but as a property owner he must look at the <br />potential value of the billboard. Jones stated that it <br />was his understanding that billboards capture thousands <br />of dollars per month in revenue, and the long-term <br />value of that sign would be substantial since the lease <br />extends out so long. Therefore, Jones felt it <br />unreasonable to request any concessions with the sign. <br />Jones pointed out that Two S Properties is requesting <br />to complete the final phase of development of the <br />mini-storage facility. That final phase is in line <br />with the existing site plan which was approved for the <br />site back in 1983. <br />Morelan asked how the billboard became non-conforming. <br />Scalze reported that the billboard was originally <br />conforming. However, the City amended its Sign <br />Ordinance and billboards are no longer allowed uses. <br />Scalze felt the mini-storage property was enjoying a <br />right by having the billboard that other properties in <br />the City are not allowed. Scalze stated that she <br />viewed the request for PUD amendment as an opportunity <br />to delete a non-conformity. <br />LaValle felt that the location of the billboard did not <br />impact any residential or commercial property, and <br />indicated that he did not have a problem allowing the <br />completion of the final phase of a project. LaValle <br />asked if the City would have any exposure in requiring <br />the billboard to come down. <br />Page 5 <br />