CC PACKET 01101989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 • 1 Concern That Statutory Hardship Might Not Be Possible Under City Sign 2 Code Prompts Councilmember to Suggest Rewriting City Ordinance 3 Councilmember Marks assured the other Councilmembers that he wasn't 4 going to vote against the requested variance because he agreed that the 5 revised signage represented "a very good compromise and a tremendous 6 improvement over what the City would allow for that particular building 7 and location. " However, he said, from all he had learned from years of 8 association with the Planning and Zoning Institutes, he didn't believe 9 it had been satisfactorily proven that the requirement that "a 10 particular hardship to the applicant would result if the strict letter it of the regulations are adhered to" was applicable to this variance 12 request. 13 Councilmember Ranallo recalled that it might have even been . during 14 Councilmember Marks' tenure on the Planning Commission that the City had 15 established the precedent of allowing one larger than allowed sign at 16 the Apache Medical Building rather than to have numerous signs on the 17 building identifying the businesses and offices inside that structure. 18 Councilmember Marks said that was probably true and he still agreed with 19 that decision even though he had since learned that sign had also 20 probably not qualified for a hardship under the state statutes. He told 21 the Mayor that just because an allowed sign could not be easily read 22 from the highway, causing a loss of business for the tenants, was not 23 a hardship at all under the state statute interpretation, which meant 24 that "the nature of the land is such that reasonable use of that 25 property is not possible. " The Councilmember added that "reasonable 26 use" under that interpretation did not mean "exclusively for financial 27 gain. " 28 Councilmember Marks indicated he expected legislative action to clear 29 up that interpretation this next session, but thought it might be a good 30 idea for the City to rewrite that portion of the sign code to meet the 31 statutory regulations and still not weaken the ordinance. 32 Mr. Childs pointed out that the Sign Code was not part of the City 33 Zoning Ordinance and asked Councilmember Marks to see if, he could find 34 out during the next Planning and Zoning Institute whether St. Anthony 35 had to apply the statutory conditions attached to zoning ordinances to 36 the Sign Code. The Councilmember said he would see what he could find 37 out during the seminar which he and the Assistant to the City Manager 38 were scheduled to attend in January. He said he still thought the City 39 should be looking at its interpretation of "hardship" but made the 40 motion to grant the variance request before the Council that evening. 41 Council Action 42 Motion by Marks, seconded by Ranallo to grant the request from R. L. 43 Investment for a variance from the sign regulations of the City Code 44 which would allow the installation of a free standing sign at 3055 Old Q 45 Highway 8 in accordance with the specifications for a 9 foot X 5 foot, 46 4 inch sign with a three foot tall base (overall height of 8 feet, 6