Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies variance for projecting sign at Blue Lime Apartments on Lake Street
Summary
The Minneapolis Zoning Board of Adjustment on July 17 denied a request to increase the allowed area of a projecting sign at 2922 Aldridge Avenue S (Blue Lime/Blue Lime Apartments), adopting staff findings that practical difficulty was not shown. The vote was 6-0.
The Minneapolis Zoning Board of Adjustment on July 17 denied a sign variance request for 2922 Aldridge Avenue S, known as Blue Lime Apartments, rejecting an application to increase the allowed area of a projecting sign from 20 square feet to about 31.9 square feet.
City planner Fatima Olukoga presented staff’s recommendation to deny the projecting-sign variance, telling the board the application failed the required “practical difficulty” finding under the district’s sign rules and noting other compliant options—such as wall signage—were available.
The variance application sought a projecting (blade) sign on the corner of Lake Street and Aldridge Avenue South. Staff said a canopy sign on the property measures about 35.5 square feet and meets code, but the projecting sign exceeded the CM3 district’s 20-square-foot limit. Olukoga said the size, layout and scale of the building and lot were not uncommon for the Mixed-Use Community (CM3) district and that the applicant had feasible alternatives to the variance.
Applicant Trevor Butkowitz, project manager for SDDI Signs, said the applicant and recent property owner, Widener Apartment Homes, needed better visibility from Lake Street. Butkowitz said the building is large, described occupancy at about 80 percent with over 85 vacant units, and asserted “75% of this property is hidden from Lake Street.” He also cited traffic counts on Lake Street and Aldridge of “18,000 to 22,000 cars per day” (as stated in the application) to argue projecting signage improved wayfinding and safety for residents and visitors.
Board members discussed illumination, visibility and whether the site’s configuration qualified as a unique hardship. Board member Hutchins raised a concern about illumination and bird-safety glass, and noted that a flush-mounted wall sign would be acceptable, saying that the projecting nature of the proposed sign was central to the determination. Another board member asked staff to clarify that a neighboring CM4 district allows projecting signs up to 48 square feet, but staff said that difference did not establish the practical-difficulty finding needed under CM3 standards.
A board member moved to adopt staff findings recommending denial; the motion passed on a 6-0 roll call. The clerk recorded the yes votes by Board member Callahan, Board member Eichholtz, Board member Grama Korch, Board member Hutchins, Board member Ingram and Board member Smikharova. The board advised the applicant to consult staff on next steps.
The board’s decision leaves the applicant able to pursue compliant wall signage or to revise and refile; staff advised the applicant to speak with planning staff about options.
