Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves two east‑facing wall signs for Anchored Orthodontics, 6–1
Summary
The Minnetonka Planning Commission on Sept. 18 approved a variance allowing two wall signs on the east elevation of 17809 Hutchins Drive for Anchored Orthodontics, subject to conditions requiring removal of nonconforming and temporary signage; the vote was 6–1.
Get email alerts on the Signage Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Minnetonka Planning Commission voted 6–1 on Sept. 18 to grant a variance allowing two wall signs on the east elevation of 17809 Hutchins Drive, the clinic occupied by Anchored Orthodontics.
Staff recommended the commission approve one sign on the north elevation and one on the east elevation, saying the zoning code ties sign allotments to street frontage and that two signs on a single face is inconsistent with the ordinance. Ms. Raines, a city planner, told commissioners the property is about 1.2 acres with a 9,300‑square‑foot building originally constructed in 1979 and currently occupied by three medical tenants, and that one east wall sign was permitted in 2014 while a painted north wall sign is unpermitted.
Applicant Dr. Molly McMahon, who identified herself as the owner‑operator of Anchored Orthodontics, argued the east elevation offers the best visibility for passing traffic and said the landlord provided a letter agreeing to remove the painted north sign. “Trashing Dentistry by Design's current sign is extremely wasteful,” McMahon said, urging the commission to weigh a human element alongside code compliance. Her husband and co‑owner, Kevin McMahon, added that the business has invested in the site and that better street visibility is important for wayfinding and customer access.
Commissioners split over precedent versus practical visibility. Several members said they were sympathetic to the new small business and persuaded by testimony that the east face is more visible from the primary traffic flow; others warned about setting a precedent that erodes the sign code. Commissioner Waterman called the question and moved to approve the applicant’s requested configuration—two east‑facing signs—with conditions; his motion was seconded and carried 6–1 (Commissioner Brink opposed).
The approval includes conditions referenced in the staff packet. Staff told the commission they expect nonconforming and temporary signage to be removed as the permanent sign is installed and suggested a compliance hook tied to final electrical/permit inspections or a target removal date for temporary banners. The resolution and staff record will note those conditions; appeals of the planning commission decision must be filed in writing with city staff within 10 days.
The commission also recorded options it considered: (1) adopt staff’s recommended north+east configuration, (2) approve two signs on the east elevation (the option the commission chose), (3) deny the variance, or (4) table the item. The decision will be forwarded as the commission’s recommendation to the city council where applicable per the application process.
Commissioners and staff said they expect the applicant to coordinate with the landlord and other tenants to implement the agreed changes to the existing signage.

