Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION <br />RESOLUTION NO. 884-08 <br /> <br />CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW <br />COUNTY OF RAMSEY <br />STATE OF MINNESOTA <br /> <br />RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR 129 TOTAL SQUARE FEET OF <br />EXTERIOR WALL SIGNAGE FOR TOTINO’S AT MOUNDS VIEW SQUARE, <br />2535 COUNTY HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. VR2008-002 <br /> <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the applicant, Totino’s Italian Kitchen, represented by Steve Elwell, has <br />applied for a variance from the maximum wall-mounted signage allotment for their <br />restaurant space located at Mounds View Square, 2535 County Highway 10; and, <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, Section 1008.09 of the Sign Code indicates that the maximum wall- <br />mounted signage for a commercial building is 100 square feet per business occupant; and, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Totino’s is requesting an additional 29 square feet of signage above the <br />allowed amount; and, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Section 1008.16 of the Sign Code indicates that variance requests be <br />treated as any other variance request as articulated in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of <br />the Mounds View Zoning Code; and, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, the Planning Commission is to review a <br />standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the <br />Zoning Code. <br /> <br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission <br />makes the following finding of facts related to this request: <br /> <br />1. The free-standing restaurant space at 2535 County Highway 10 is in need of <br />additional exterior wall-mounted signage on the south building wall in order to <br />have signage directly facing County Highway 10. <br />2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant <br />of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in that the City has approved <br />similar variances in the past for reasonable sign variance requests. <br />3. The special conditions or circumstances necessitating the variance request do <br />not result from the actions of the applicant. <br />4. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special <br />privilege in that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to <br />improve the function and viability of their business. Neither would such approval <br />confer a special treatment as similar reasonable variances have been granted in <br />the past.