Laserfiche WebLink
Woog asks if he has figured out how much room for additional signage he would have on the <br /> building. <br /> Anderson indicates that he has not. <br /> Motion by Adams to deny the variance based on the following findings of fact: <br /> 1. The proposed sign is located in a 35-mile-per-hour speed zone, where the <br /> sign area limit is 64 square feet and height limit is io feet. The applicant <br /> proposes to construct a sign that is go square feet in sign area and 25 feet in <br /> height. <br /> 2. The proposed sign would be located in the location of the existing marquee <br /> near the flagpole. The proposed sign would meet the front setback of one (i) <br /> foot,being approximately 12 feet. <br /> 3. Strict interpretation of the Ordinance would not create an undue hardship. <br /> All commercial and industrial properties in the City are held to the height <br /> limitations set in this Ordinance when new signs are being constructed. <br /> While the Oasis sign is considerably taller,measuring approximately 31 feet, <br /> and the BP Sign is 36 feet high, these signs are considered legally non- <br /> conforming signs as they were originally constructed prior to the adoption <br /> of the existing Ordinance. <br /> 4. Strict interpretation of the Ordinance would not be impractical because <br /> there are not any characteristics of the property, such as lot size, shape, or <br /> topography, which have limited development and construction on this <br /> property. <br /> 5. The deviation from the Ordinance would not be in keeping with the spirit <br /> �. and intent of the Ordinance. Section 7.1, Subdivision 1 states that the <br /> purpose of the Sign Performance Standards is to protect the general welfare <br /> and safety of the City by providing a policy of aesthetic development to <br /> prevent signs from intruding on the rural and residential character of the <br /> community. Allowing signs to exceed the height limitation set in the <br /> Ordinance would infringe on the character that the City seeks to protect and <br /> promote. <br /> 6. The variance, if granted, will not create a land use that is not permitted in <br /> the zone. Signs are allowed and permitted in the Downtown Mixed Use zone. <br /> 7. While properties in the vicinity have legally non-conforming signs that <br /> exceed the height limitation of the Ordinance, the proposed height of the <br /> sign is unlikely to have an overall adverse impact on the neighboring <br /> properties. However, the variance if approved, along with the accumulation <br /> of similarly constructed signs, has the potential to alter the essential <br /> character of the locality. The Ordinance is designed to limit the height of <br /> signs so that the character of the community, being rural and residential, is <br /> not compromised. <br /> 8. Reasonable use of the property currently exists under the Ordinance as the <br /> property currently contains a retail-oriented structure with related parking. <br /> Seconded by Derksen. Passed unanimously(Hallan abstain). <br /> Adams states that he believes the sign situation in town is out of control. The sign standards we <br /> have need to be followed. We would be making a mistake by making an exception here. <br /> Williams states that he is having a hard time identifying a hardship for increasing the size. <br /> Anticipates that traffic would be slowed down in the future,but not increased. Is seeing a <br />