My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2015 Planning Commission Packets
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
2015 Planning Commission Packets
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2018 10:20:07 AM
Creation date
3/21/2018 10:15:56 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
336
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Resolution 1021-15 <br />Page 2 <br />i <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing regarding this <br />request on March 18, 2015; and, <br />WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal <br />Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be <br />satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. <br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the <br />criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are not <br />satisfied and finds there to be insufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at <br />2704 County Road 10, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: <br />1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding signage limits is for aesthetic reasons, and <br />the sign code was recently amended to lower sign height limits for this specific reason. <br />2. The Comprehensive Plan focuses on improvements to the County Road 10 corridor, and <br />even thought the applicant is trying to keep the business successful with the additional <br />signage, allowing taller signs is not part of the desired look of the corridor. <br />3. The applicant is requesting this variance because the building now has additional tenants <br />who need their business information on the sign. <br />4. The property is part of the County Road 10 commercial corridor and has no unique <br />circumstances that cause a practical difficulty. The sign could be made wider and would not <br />need a variance, but the applicant does not want to do that because of the high cost. <br />5. The additional sign height would make the applicant's ground sign that much taller and <br />inconsistent with the adjacent business's 6 foot tall monument sign. <br />6. The variance requested is the minimum variance the applicant feels is required to provide <br />the suitable amount of signage for his and his tenants businesses, and alleviate the <br />applicant's practical difficulty. <br />7. The Planning Commission may impose conditions upon the premises as may be necessary <br />to comply with city standards and to minimize the effect of such variance upon other <br />properties in the neighborhood. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.