Laserfiche WebLink
Nonconforming Use Variance Request – Valtinson Sign (386 Cleveland Avenue) <br />Planning Commission Report; 8-18-20 <br /> <br /> <br />Page 7 <br />HEIGHT <br />Variance <br />Analysis: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />General Variance Standards <br />1) Is the HEIGHT variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent <br />of the Zoning Code? <br />Staff Analysis: The zoning code cannot foresee an after-the-fact barrier being <br />erected in-between an existing sign and a roadway, so provided the height <br />increase is the minimum necessary to provide visibility above the new sound wall, <br />the request would seem to be in harmony with the intent of code. Note that if the <br />size variance is not granted, a lesser height extension should instead be considered <br />to accommodate a 36 square foot sign. Criteria conditionally met. <br />2) Is the HEIGHT variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? <br />Staff Analysis: The comp plan sets broad policy goals for the City which are not <br />directly related to signs. However, provided Council finds a variance request for <br />height is justified based on the other review criteria, the sign would be considered <br />to be consistent with the City’s goals for proper development, and therefor <br />consistent with the plan. Criteria conditionally met. <br />3) Has the applicant established that practical difficulties exist on the site? <br />a. Does the applicant propose to use the property in a reasonable manner <br />not permitted by the zoning ordinance? <br />Staff Analysis: Wanting to elevate an existing legal nonconforming sign <br />above a new sound wall is a reasonable request. Absent a variance to height, <br />the existing legal nonconforming sign could be seen by no one. Criteria met. <br />b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to this <br />property that were not created by the landowner? <br />Staff Analysis: The landowner is not responsible for the new soundwall being <br />erected adjacent to the highway which is a unique impact uncommon to other <br />B-1 properties. Criteria met. <br />c. Will the HEIGHT variance, if granted, alter the essential character of <br />the locality? <br />Staff Analysis: No. A sign is currently present on the property facing the <br />highway. Provided the proposed electronic display meets all code standards <br />and is not used as a billboard, character will not change. Criteria <br />conditionally met.