Laserfiche WebLink
Comprehensive Plan Designation: City Center <br />Zoning: B-4, Downtown Business District <br />Surrounding Land Uses: . <br />North: Main Street Village Apartment/Condominium <br />South: County RD E2 — Donatelle Plastics <br />East: Main Street — Main Street Village commercial <br />West: Railroad tracks — NB Public Works garage <br />SPECIAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS <br />Section 9-041 (4) outlines the procedure for obtaining approval or amendment of a <br />Comprehensive Sign Plan. This section requires the following findings (staff responses in <br />italics): <br />A. That the sign plan provides sound identification, reduction of clutter, and aesthetic <br />enhancement. <br />The proposed graphic area and height of the sign are comparable to what is allowed in <br />a general business district (B-3). The sign will provide identification for CU <br />Companies at 500 Main Street, with the other tenants utilizing wall signage under the <br />existing Comprehensive Sign Plan (mainly Risdall Advertising). While staff finds the <br />proposed size to be somewhat excessive, staff suspects this size may be necessary to <br />obtain the wanted visibility from the intersection of 5`" Avenue NW and County Road <br />E2. However, the Planning Commission may want to discuss to total size sign <br />requested and whether or not it should be smaller. <br />Also, the proposed size meets the 10' property line setback from Main Street, which is a <br />private road, but is only 5' setback from County Road E2. Being 25' of boulevard <br />exists at County Road E2, staff finds a 5' setback at this location is adequate. Further, <br />staff has confirmed that that proposed size will be outside the 30' sight visibility <br />triangle. <br />B. That the sign plan is sensitive to and compatible with physical circumstances of the site <br />and buildings. <br />The proposed sign is static, in that the sign does not have any dynamic capabilities. <br />Staff finds the sign to be sensitive to the area and compatible with the physical <br />circumstances of the site and buildings. <br />C. That the sign plan is not detrimental to public safety. <br />Neither Public Works/Engineering nor Public Safety has indicated any objection to the <br />sign. However, there was inquiry as to whether or not the sign meets sight visibility <br />standards. The concern was to ensure that if County Road E2 were ever extended east <br />that the proposed sign would not be detrimental to sight visibility along the corridor. <br />Being the sign will be located outside the 30' sight visibility triangle, this should not be <br />a concern. <br />0 <br />