HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2003-104CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2003-104
APPROVING SITE PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, DRIVE -AISLE SETBACK
VARIANCE, AND A SIGN VARIANCE FOR A WENDY'S DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT
TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 14370 28TH PLACE NORTH (2002118)
WHEREAS, Wendy's International, has requested approval of a site plan, conditional use permit,
drive -aisle setback variance, and a sign variance for a Wendy's drive-thru restaurant to be
constructed at 14370 28d` Place North, for property legally described as:
Lot 2, Block 1, Circle Star Business Center, 3 d Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called public hearing
and recommends approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by
Wendy's International, for approval of a site plan, conditional use permit for a drive-thru
restaurant, drive -aisle setback variance, and a sign variance for a Wendy's drive-thru restaurant to
be constructed at 14370 28d` Place North, subject to the following conditions:
1. A site plan, conditional use permit, drive -aisle variance, and a sign variance is approved to
allow construction of an approximately 3,100 square foot drive-thru restaurant, in accordance
with the plans received by the City on September 5, 2002, and revisions received on
December 6, 2002, except as amended by this resolution.
2. A variance is approved to allow less than 10 -foot drive -aisle setback to the building, based on
the following findings:
a) A hardship would result if the variance were not granted. Due to the location of the
parcel on a corner with three front yards, the larger front yard setbacks limit the amount of
space available to develop the property and meet all requirements.
Resolution 2003-104
File No. 2002121
Page 2
b) The parcel has frontage on three streets, which requires a front -yard setback from three lot
lines. The applicant has attempted to meet the setbacks where possible, however, is not
be able to meet the setbacks for the corners of the building without encroaching into the
required drive -aisle width and fire lane. Due to the circular shape of a drive-thru and
rectangular shape of the building, the setbacks cannot be met on the corners of the
building.
c) The drive -aisle setback variance is necessary because of the larger front yard setback
requirements for this property and to allow a drive aisle with adequate turning radii for
emergency vehicles. The building meets all other setbacks.
d) The circumstances surrounding the variance request were not self-created, but rather are
an existing condition from when the property was platted.
e) The proposed improvements would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land in the neighborhood. The proposed setback would still provide some separation
between the building and the drive aisle.
f) The proposed improvements would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property, endanger public safety, increase congestion of the public streets,
increase the danger of fire or substantially diminish property values in the neighborhood.
g) The variance is the minimum action necessary to eliminate the hardship. The applicant has
revised the plan to meet the drive -aisle setback to the building in areas where the setback
can be met.
3. A variance is approved to allow two menu boards where one is permitted by the Ordinance,
based on the following:
a) The variance is requested to allow normal operation of the drive-thru. Allowing a pre -sell
board could help increase the efficiency of the drive-thru, which is a unique condition to
the property. However, there is no hardship due to the particular physical surroundings,
shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcel of land involved that would
require a larger menu board than the 32 square feet currently allowed.
b) The need for menu boards is unique to properties with drive-thru restaurants. While a
pre -sell board could increase the efficiency of a drive-thru operation, a larger than allowed
menu board is not a unique requirement. The applicant could reduce the amount of
graphics included on the menu board to meet the maximum of 32 square feet allowed.
c) The variance request is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Resolution 2003-104
File No. 2002121
Page 3
d) There is a hardship caused by the Ordinance by not permitting a pre -sell board to allow
more efficient operation of the drive-thru. However, there is no hardship caused by not
allowing a larger than allowed menu board. The applicant proposes to install a standard
Wendy's sign package that is much larger than permitted by the Ordinance. The applicant
could design a sign with fewer graphics that meets the ordinance requirements.
e) A pre -sell sign could help increase the efficiency of the drive-thru and would not be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the neighborhood. However, the
proposed size of both the pre -sell sign and main menu board appears to be excessive. The
existing non -conforming menu board sign at the Wendy's on Rockford Road has a
billboard -type appearance. As the proposed menu board would be visible from Highway
55, controlling the size is important from the standpoint of public safety.
I) Because the menu board would be visible from Highway 55, a large billboard -type sign as
proposed could endanger the safety of drivers on the roadway.
g) Allowing a 6 -square foot pre -sell board would be the minimum action required to
eliminate the hardship. There is no hardship to allow a larger pre -sell or a menu -board in
excess of the 32 -square feet allowed. The applicant could reduce the amount of graphics
or text on the menu boards to meet the requirements. Including the pre -sell board, the
applicant would be allowed 38 square feet of total menu board space.
4. The applicant shall reduce the size of the proposed main menu board to a maximum of 32
square feet in surface area and eight feet in height. The signage shall meet the requirements
of Section 21155.03 of the Zoning Ordinance. Sign extensions in addition to the permitted
size are not allowed to be installed on the menu board.
5. The applicant shall reduce the size of the pre -sell menu board to a maximum of 6 square feet
in surface area.
6. Sign permits are required for all signage.
7. Mn/DOT drainage permit may be required. If required, the drainage permit shall be obtained
prior to issuance of a grading permit.
8. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan that meets the
requirements of Section 21105.06 of the Zoning Ordinance.
9. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a financial guarantee and
Site Improvement Performance Agreement for all site improvements.
10. The fire hydrant shown at the northwest corner of the site shall be relocated to an approved
location adjacent to the walkway to the north building entrance.
Resolution 2003-104
File No. 2002121
Page 4
11. Prior to issuance of a building permit, fire flow calculations must be submitted and approved
by the Fire Inspector.
12. Standard Conditions:
a. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
b. Compliance with the Ordinance regarding location of fire lane signage.
c. An 8 1/2 x 11 inch "As Built" Fire Protection Plan shall be submitted prior to the release
or reduction of any site improvement bonds per City Policy.
d. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per
Ordinance provisions.
e. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and ordinances, and violation
thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
kf This approval shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property owner*- - - Formatted: Bullets and Numberina
or applicant has substantially started construction of the project, or unless the landowner
or applicant has received prior approval from the City to extend the expiration date for up
to one additional year, as regulated under Sections 21015.07, 21030.06 and 21045.09 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
ADOPTED by the City Council on February 25, 2003.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF IIENNEPIN) SS.
The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth,
Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the
Plymouth City Council on February 11, 2003 with the original thereof on file in my office, and the
same is a correct transcription thereof.
WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this
day of
City Clerk