VN-235 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Tom Thumb Sign August 23, 1984 Page.2 APPL I'CANT' S" RESPONSE T e attached etter from Kaufman Sign Company explains the nonconforming roof sign (_S~ection 9-140) that had previously existed was damaged by the tornade this. past Spring. The a pl'icant was not allowed to replace the roof s:.ign under Section 9-230 (.d~. (See attached letter to Tom Thumb from City Staff). Tam Thumb is now requesting a variance to install a new sign. The applicant feels that the proposed location of the sign is the only other readily available signable area open. to them.. Diagrams a.nd pictures of the existing building are attached. STAFF ~ANAL~YSIS Tom hum. ad a roof sign which is now prohibited under the present code~(Section 9-740).. The roof sign was damaged during the recent tornado.' Tom Thumb was not allowed to replace the roof sign under Section 9-230 (b) and (d), Type I nonconforming signs. The ordinance .states that rep-air of a nonconforming sign is not permitted if the cost of repairs exceed .50 percent of the fair market value of the sign. In this case, what was left of the roof sign was removed after the' storm. A letter was forwarded to Tom Thumb stating that the New Brighton Sign ordinance did not allow-the roof sign to be replaced.., Tom Thumbs-feels the proposed sign is the only signing option left to them. The proposed sign requires a variance because it projects away from .the signable surface more than 18 inches.. Under Section 9-130 (h) the facia from which the proposed sign is hanging can be considered. a signable area. However, the sign will project .approximately 24 inches below the facia. It is unfortunate that Tom Thumb .lost their roof. sign as a result of the tornado this Spring. Other alternative signable areas have been suggested, ie. the blank brick walls on the front of the building. Lettering on the facia is another alternative. The applicant's response to posting a wall sign on a front wal l~- of t-tae building i s that the sign will be continually blocked by vehicles parked in front of the store. It may be that a wall sign posted on the brick wall on the front of the building will be less viable than the sign presently proposed by the applicant. However, the applicant has not demonstrated unique and unusual circumstances-and undue hardship for the variance; 1,). There do exist signable wall. areas that are visable from Silver Lake Road and the parking lot;. 2) A wall sign can be put up in total compliance. with the ordinance and; 3) Tom Thumb has an existing pylon sign out near Silver Lake Road identifying the store.