2020.09.15 Planning Commission - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Nonconforming Use Variance Request – Valtinson Sign (388 Cleveland Avenue) Planning Commission Report; 9-15-20 Page 3 Application Focal Points:  This is not a typical variance application given the myriad of facts presente d to the City with this request. As they come up in the analysis, special facts Council and the Planning Commission should be aware of include: 1. The record indicates the wall sign facing the freeway was likely approved when the building was completed in 2003, but that approval was arguably incorrect. Zoning (both then and now) specifically defines signs that face I-35W or I-694 as “freeway signs,” and freeway signs were not an allowed sign type in the B- 1 district in 2003. When two provisions of code conflict (i.e. you can have wall signs facing roads but you cannot have signs facing a freeway), the more restrictive provision applies. In this case, the sign appears to have been permitted in violation of code, so staff would consider it to be legal nonconforming. 2. The building/land in question has always been on land zoned B-1: Neighborhood Business. The zoning name and applicable sign standards clearly indicate there is no intent to have such business advertise to an Interstate audience (Freeway signs are not allowed and signs are limited to 36 square feet even 20 feet in the air). 3. This application is seeking a change in sign type: wall sign to ground sign. Had a ground sign been proposed in 2003, it is questionable whether the same oversight on prohibited “freeway signs” would have occurred. 4. MnDOT is constructing a sound wall that will obscure the legal nonconforming sign. It is reasonable for the landowner to want to maintain the legal nonconforming sign. 5. “Billboards” (i.e., signs that direct attention to a business, commodity, service, or entertainment not exclusively related to the premises where the sign is located) are not allowed in the B-1 district.