HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2001-415CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2001-415
APPROVING VARIANCE TO THE SIGN REGULATIONS TO ALLOW TENANT WALL
SIGNS ON TWO STREET FRONTAGES FOR A MULTI -TENANT RETAIL BUILDING
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1400 COUNTY ROAD 101. (2001102)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Oakwood Square, LLC. which requests
approval of a sign variance to permit tenant signs of two sides of a building, where the
ordinance would only allow wall signs on one side of the building on property legally
described as follows:
Lot 3, Block 1, Oakwood Square
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called public
meeting 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 Oakwood Square, LLC. for a sign variance to allow tenant wall signs on two
building walls on property located at 1400 County Road 101, subject to the following
conditions:
1. This resolution approves a variance to allow a two -foot by 18 -foot, two-inch sign on
the north side of the building located at 1400 County Road 101, similar to that shown
on the west side of the building in accordance with the plans and application received
by the City of August 1, 2001, except as amended by this resolution.
2. The variance for tenant wall signs on two building walls is approved with the finding
that the applicable variance standards are met. Specifically:
a. The situation is a particular hardship unique to this property because all the
buildings in the Shopping Center fiinction as one property and all use the same
access points. The approval of limited signage on the north side of the building is
necessary to attract and direct customers to the business from County Road 6.
Resolution No. 2001-415
2001094
Page 2
b. This situation is unique to this property because most shopping centers are
developed with the primary retail buildings on a single property. If this shopping
center had been proposed on one property, the building would have had two
frontages. In addition, all the access points into the hopping center are used
equally by the tenants' customers.
c. The request for the variance is related to continued viability of the center in an ever
more competitive retail environment.
d. The alleged hardship is caused by the Zoning Ordinance. This property was
originally developed prior to the existing sign ordinance and was platted with one
building on each properties with the ability to have tenant wall signs on the north
and west sides of each building. The subsequent change in the ordinance provided
a hardship not anticipated for this particular property when it was developed.
e. Approval of the sign variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or be
injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood.
f. The proposed sign would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to any
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or
impair property values within the neighborhood.
g. A two -foot by 18 -foot, 2 -inch tenant sign would be the minimum action required
to eliminate the hardship. This amount of signage would allow the corner tenant
visibility from County Road 6, and still meet the intent of the ordinance to ensure
the public is not unduly distracted by disorderly or unnecessary use of signage.
3. The total signage on the north wall shall not exceed two -foot by 18 -foot, two inches.
4. The applicant must obtain a separate permits prior to the installation of any signs.
5. The proposed signage on the building shall conform to the Zoning Ordinance in all
other regards. No additional variances are approved or implied in this action.
6. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals
per Ordinance provisions.
7. This approval shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property
owner or applicant has substantially started constriction 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 Section 21030.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
Resolution No. 2001-415
2001094
Page 3
Adopted by City Council on October 9, 2001.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) 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 October 9, 2001 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