My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2020.08.18 Planning Commission
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Planning
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2020
>
2020.08.18 Planning Commission
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/18/2021 10:57:36 AM
Creation date
2/16/2021 3:02:13 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Nonconforming Use Variance Request – Valtinson Sign (386 Cleveland Avenue) <br />Planning Commission Report; 8-18-20 <br /> <br /> <br />Page 13 <br />(cont.) <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 />4. At twenty feet tall, signs in the B-1 zoning district are still limited to 36 <br />square feet in size. <br />Size Increase Denial: <br />5. The wall sign being replaced with the proposed ground sign is legal <br />nonconforming to zoning, and expanding legal nonconformities is not <br />allowed. <br />6. The restriction on expanding a legal nonconformity is uniform to all <br />properties within the City, so there is no unique or special plight <br />differentiating this parcel from all other B-1 parcels to justify a variance. <br />Height Increase Denial: <br />7. The overall height increase of 12 feet as requested by the applicant would <br />only be necessary to accommodate the final dimensions of a 63 square foot <br />sign. <br />8. As the variance to sign size is recommended for denial, the requested overall <br />height increase variance must also be denied. <br />Height Increase Approval: <br />9. Meeting sign size requirements and only exceeding height to the minimum <br />degree necessary is in harmony with the intent of the comprehensive plan and <br />zoning code given the facts of this case. <br />10. Gaining the ability to retain existing legal nonconforming signage following <br />erection of the new MnDOT soundwall is a reasonable request from the <br />property owner. <br />11. The landowner was not responsible for construction of the new sound wall <br />that will obstruct the existing legal nonconforming sign. <br />12. Replacing the existing sign with a conforming sign above the sound wall will <br />not impact the character of the locality. <br />13. The requested height variance is requested to retain existing signage, and is <br />not being done solely to increase the value of the property. <br />14. The applicant’s sign consultant has identified 25 feet to the bottom of the sign <br />as the minimum height needed for a sign to clear the wall for visibility.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.