Laserfiche WebLink
Nonconforming Use Variance Request – Valtinson Sign (386 Cleveland Avenue) <br />Planning Commission Report; 8-18-20 <br /> <br /> <br />Page 8 <br />(cont.) 4) Is the HEIGHT variance being sought solely to improve the value of the <br />property? <br />Staff Analysis: No. The variance is being sought to retain current signage. <br />Criteria met. <br /> <br />SIZE <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 />General Variance Standards <br />1) Is the SIZE variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of <br />the Zoning Code? <br />Staff Analysis: The intent of the zoning code with regards to B-1 (Neighborhood <br />Business) properties is to allow for businesses that cater to the surrounding <br />neighborhood. Indicators of this in the sign code include no allowance for <br />Freeway signs, and the fact that ground signs, even when 20’ high, cannot exceed <br />36 square feet. <br />The current sign is legal nonconforming which provides it protection for things <br />like repair and replacement, but legal nonconformities cannot be expanded. <br />Furthermore, if the zoning code only allows a B-1 sign to be 36 square feet when <br />twenty feet in the area, it is hard to justify doubling the sign size because it is <br />being raised an additional 12 feet. Criteria not met. <br />2) Is the 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 />size 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 e <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: While wanting to elevate an existing legal nonconforming <br />sign above a new sound wall is reasonable, wanting to double the size of the <br />sign seems unreasonable when one considers the maximum size at 20 feet tall <br />is only 36 square feet. Criteria not met.