2020.08.18 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

8 Chair Nichols-Matkaiti opened the Public Hearing at 8:28 p.m. Daniel Mattson, Albrecht Sign Company, discussed the requested sign with the Planning Commission. He described how the new sound wall would impact the applicant’s business. He noted the sign height was being requested in order to keep the business visible. He indicated this sign would have a photo-eye that would drop down its brightness in the evening hours, which would meet City Code requirements. He explained the requested height was due to the sound wall and not for any other advantage. Commissioner Biedenfeld discussed the current sign visibility versus a revised scaled down sign that met City Code requirements and how visibility could be improved. Mr. Mattson stated compared to the wall sign, there would be greater visibility, but noted a wall sign was not an option. Lauris Valtinson, the applicant, explained his understanding when talking to the sign company was that the exact dimension of these signs at this height was being proposed for visibility purposes. It was noted the sign had to be 15 feet from the sound wall. He commented further on the proposed sign height and size. He reported he was not trying to get a bigger sign, but rather was requesting an equivalent sign given the fact it had to be 15 feet further from the freeway. Further discussion ensued regarding the ideal viewing distance for the proposed sign. He indicated he spoke with the neighbors regarding the light that would be coming from the sign and he explained to the neighbors that there would be no light wash going onto adjacent properties. Commissioner Nelsen inquired if dynamic display signs were allowed in the B-1 zoning district. Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola reported dynamic display signs were allowed as long as certain conditions were being met. Commissioner Frischman questioned what the current readability was of the existing sign. Mr. Mattson explained he had not completed the calculations on the current sign. He noted the current sign was a wall sign and did not compare to the proposed sign. Commissioner Frischman stated she was struggling with the fact that the conversation was focused on the readability and the need for a bigger sign when its clear the current sign did not have good readability from the freeway. Commissioner Biedenfeld agreed he too was struggling with the need to go with a larger sign for readability purposes when the current sign could not be read from the freeway. Mr. Valtinson commented on if it was necessary to go between the 36’ and 53’. He stated if he was going to spend money on the sign, he wanted people to be able to see it. He explained when he spoke to the sign company readability was discussed along with sign height and sign placement. He reported his business has been in New Brighton since 1986 and he would like to remain visible after the sound wall was installed. He questioned if it would be better for him to have the sign one foot lower and 36 square feet in size. Mr. Mattson stated if the sign were lowered one foot it would still be 10 feet higher than the sound wall. He explained a 36 square foot sign would only allow for one line of copy that was readable. He did not believe this would be the best way to move forward with the sign.