2020.08.18 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7 A roll call vote was taken. Approved 7-0. 2) Variance and Site Plan Review: Request from Lauris Valtinson for two variances to accommodate a replacement sign above the new MnDOT sound wall on I-35W for the business at 388 Cleveland Avenue SW. One variance seeks to exceed the 20’ sign-height maximum by 12 feet, and the second variance seeks to exceed the 36 square foot size maximum by 27 square feet – PID 32-30-23-14-0016. Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola reported Lauris Valtinson acquired the property at 386 Cleveland Avenue in 2015 which included a legal nonconforming freeway sign facing I-35W. With the new sound wall now going up, Mr. Valtinson is seeking a way to keep the legal nonconforming sign visible once the wall is up. Staff reviewed several comments from the public noting their objections to the replacement sign. Staff provided further comment on the request and recommended denial of the Variance and Site Plan Review, based on the following findings of fact: 1. The request does not meet any of the three conditions outlined in Section 8-460(2) to qualify for a change to a legal nonconforming use. 2. The request is not in line with the intent of the zoning code as B-1 signage is not intended to face the freeway, and is not intended to be sized for anything more than a local street. 3. B-1 signs, even 20-feet in the air, are not allowed to exceed 36 square feet, and the proposed additional 12 feet of height does not justify a near doubling of the sign size. 4. The plight of the landowner is not unique as they are subject to the same restriction that all other properties with legal nonconformities face: the inability to expand the nonconformity. Commissioner Biedenfeld asked how neighboring communities were addressing visibility to businesses along the I-35W corridor. He understood that one community had worked with MnDOT to get a clear portion of sound wall for visibility purposes. Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola commented he was not aware of any precedent being set by neighboring communities. He explained the City Attorney reported there was no Minnesota Case Law that comes into play regarding this request. Commissioner Frischman offered historical perspective from this neighborhood and explained the neighbors have been very vocal and passionate. She indicated this neighborhood included a residential and business area. Her hope would be that the neighbor’s concerns would be considered with this request. She stated this residential neighborhood had been dramatically impacted by I- 35W and surrounding businesses. Chair Nichols-Matkaiti questioned if the request had special considerations given the fact it was adjacent to the R-1 zoning district. Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola reported this did not impact the sign request. He noted the sign would have light coming off of it, but would not be pointing at the adjacent residential neighborhood.