My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-04-2009
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
03-04-2009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2018 6:05:53 AM
Creation date
8/28/2018 6:05:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Minutes
GOVBOARD
Planning Commission
DOCTYPE
minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
Mounds View Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />5. Planning Cases <br />March 4, 2009 <br />Page 2 <br />A. Planning Case VR2009-001; Consideration of a Variance for Increased Wall <br />Signage for Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) located at 2213 County Road 10. <br />Community Development Director Roberts stated KFC located at 2213 County Road 10 has <br />applied for a variance for increased wall signage. KFC remodeled their restaurant in 2008, and <br />as part of this work, the contractor installed several new exterior signs. The contractor did not <br />get a permit from the City to install the new signs. City staff discovered the new signs after the <br />contractor had installed them and then the contractor applied to the City for a permit for all the <br />new signs. During the review of the sign permit application, the City determined that KFC had <br />too much signage on their building. There are a total of 193 square feet of signage on the <br />building and the ordinance allows for a maximum of 100 square feet. <br />Community Development Director Roberts explained the different signs and their square <br />footage. He stated the City has approved sign variances for several businesses including <br />Totino's, which the City approved in 2008. He stated for the city to approve a variance, the <br />applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property. <br />Director Roberts stated that it was not the fault of the applicant that the contractor did not apply <br />for a sign permit. This was because the owner's contractor failed to apply for the permit. <br />Chair Stevenson stated the commission would take into account the applicant applied for the <br />permit after the contractor had completed the work for the signs. He stressed that anyone that is <br />doing any work within the City should check the city codes. Chair Stevenson also stated this <br />property has enough merit and uniqueness for this amount of signage. He felt the existing signs <br />are not a detriment to Mounds View. <br />Commissioner Cramblit stated it is arrogant of a contractor to complete the work and then apply <br />for the permit. He indicated the expression panel signs on the building do look nice but asked if <br />they need to be there. <br />Commissioner Miller asked when the original building was built if there was a permit pulled for <br />signage. She wondered if there was this amount of signage on the original building. <br />Community Development Director Roberts stated he did not believe so but did not check and the <br />new additional signage is part of a corporate image. <br />Commissioner Rundle questioned why the contractor did not check with the City about sign <br />permits. <br />Community Development Director Roberts stated the corporate contractor did the remodeling <br />work and they did not check. He stated the applicant representative could talk about this issue. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.