HomeMy WebLinkAbout[07] Variance Request (McDonalds)CITY OF SiT.JIxSiCIrH Planning Commission Agenda Item 7
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
November 4, 2013
Variance, McDonalds
Administration
PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission and City approved a
development plan for the construction of McDonalds at the intersection of CR 133 and CR 75. The
development plan included an advertising sign that was within the Ordinance provisions.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on October 7, 2013 to consider a variance to allow
a pylon structure thirty feet in height. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission tabled
action on the application to request the applicant to consider a sign other than pylon as approving such
would be precedence setting.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Representatives for McDonalds have provided a new design that
constructs the base of the sign with brick, leaving the only variance the height of the sign. The applicant
should be required to submit a landscape plan around the base of the sign.
ATTACHMENTS: Request for Planning Commission Action
Revised sign illustration
Planning Commission Worksheet
REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Formulate the findings of fact either
recommending the City Council approve or deny the variance on the maximum height of a sign.
This page intentionally left blank
4 u
O opa
V � 6
7
t7 Bp
Y
m .n
Fm m
FE
N N G
Cd
C
O
m
c:o
h
58 V
( CO �� O
�4 =
�n
� � M
M
� � H
� _ r
C �
M IA
� 01
00 O
r h
� r
r
m
z
A w
Z
H �
� a
Q
Z H W
O
� O
u �
Z
Q
N
c
u C
O
U
Q O� Z
0 If
L �_� 317, _ <J p
so m II
W Q H Q
U� �'' fn Z Q
Ir
r N N O W H w� W�Z x O W �� �j��� O F N
�i 0 m w m 0 0 0 0 U r z N n c
<LL m °� z w w� �C4 o
J w w w w o W W ��tai�n (n `t 3w m w OW O U FU OToN�e
LLI °°W�� Ovf) �a z �? 7 Z =� DII J cN
N O K O O 00 U Z� Ww N W F WF D O 3O NOQ ri,o p
0 m m °ww� U o� w w LL� aNa�L wU o°
mw?< 90 ° aZ2 OC) amQ
N a x x m WU >¢g 2¢ j c°0Z Wowma> alL R
x x ON J
$0 x x D Q�= a Inic° O �U W
2v 70 �Q O �o x JO MJZ_w a'EWL w W W opp~
0 0DN a WQQ¢wl~�OLLUOOQO 10 W
aW O 0LLa �u- WOOwxa'Uw t
Cr Z CL W UZ - aU�`nOZa
300 cn QS`Qv�-iwa ~~w m wHaU< e
m U / JZ IL0cn w Z— (t R
- )wa W
h
O Z
2w O O EL
w o °wup W 0 U ,
z " N¢F O Q W
w o�� a WIL0UZin
o � h a
3 N z a W?° QOU W�zOWOZ�
N o� o sH u
W w w m3W ~w ozC'jU 6
N N u zm J x OwZ W Q WQ W 00
B 9 W
< 2 <g zLL� W W Q� O�U? e
5 w 5 o L)ig 5 x a�0 GO W (wjm 0Yw
z° z z z U)z �° �O� o�LLZUUF O
L) N w r W 0 (=joY km�mam s
cr a m 8> cr O�OU f #
a g ° W w y° Q� m�acn 1' 3
J w ..I J Q m m J
QW O w m U F a p ° � < O ° e
y
O a w Z W u� Z- m = tl W
C9 w 0 0 uj < Q a
3 N m N 3 cn cn
W ED 6 x�� �0(.)Z' U — .Z/L9- Z
O w x Oo a as ?i :rLLw o�W'�w� ¢ cp s�ss O
8 X x ° S �a x x y� �° � Q FW- F W
t� N < fv aJb ro tv x > tv u - F-
x° x x ^ x x r x ^ a° N g uw U Q � s
r N� m 6 b ix, �! °N c �o� a a�m (<) W, Lu O
a
co `r - N � a F in
Lu
w-- Q� = @)
- x g aN &A S
.ZL� d a
r
N O
w an
CO
_ all
` i:z Z �� z
� i I
r
_ o
N 0 W u Z
0 Z in
_ U- c.) �; o
° = a a
LU
o c -
< Z In
g s O
U
Q C G
J! (9 N w
-''_ i Z
.9 /L 6 -,9 .Z/ L Z-IZ - —'-„9 o
.9 /£ 0 -1 ll a
V I�
City of St. Joseph
Planning Commission — Variance
Findings of Fact — Suppordug(Denying a Variance
A variance may be granted only when it is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control
and consistent with the comprehensive plan and where the strict enforcement of the City Zoning controls will result
in practical difficulty. A determination that a "practical difficulty" exists is based upon the following criteria as
defined by MN Statutes, Section 394.27.
1. The proposed use is allowed in the zoning districts in which the subject property is located? YES or NO
2. The variance will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control(s) YES or NO
3. The variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? YES or NO
4. The variance may be granted if there are Praedical Difflculdes in complying with the official control(s):
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner? YES or NO
b. The plight of the landowner is due to the circumstances unique to the property owner, not created by the
land owner? YES NO
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality? YES or NO
d. The need for variance involves more that economic considerations? YES or NO
The Planning Commission should consider each of the elements listed above. If any one element is voted "NO"
by the majority, then the criteria for granting a variance, per MN Statutes, Section 394.27, has NOT been
meet and the variance as requested should be denied
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK