HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2015-210CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION No. 2015-210
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW SIGNAGE TO BE PLACED ABOVE THE
ROOFLINE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4425 STATE HIGHWAY 169 (2015050)
WHEREAS, 612 Signs has requested approval of a variance to allow signage to be placed above
the roofline; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as: All of Lot 3, and that part of Lot 2, Block 1,
Berg Second Addition which lies West of the line described as beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 1,
Berg Second Addition; thence South parallel with the West line of said Lot 2 to its intersection with the
South line of said Lot 2 and there terminating, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called public meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by 612 Signs for a variance to allow
signage to be placed above the roofline for property located at 4425 State Highway 169, subject to the
following findings and conditions:
1. The requested variance is hereby approved to allow signage to be placed above the roofline on the
existing clock tower, in accordance with the application received by the city on June 1, 2015, except
as may be amended by this resolution.
2. The requested sign variance is approved, based on the finding that all applicable variance standards
would be met, as follows:
a) The variance permitting the signage is consistent with the office uses listed for this land use
classification in the comprehensive plan.
b) The applicant has established that there are practical difficulties in complying with the
ordinance. "Practical difficulties" means that:
1) Permitting the existing clocks on the tower to be replaced by illuminated wall signage
on the building allows the property to be used in a reasonable manner.
2) The plight of the landowner is unique as the subject clocks were part of the original
building construction that was not created by the landowner.
3) The variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality; this
office building subdivision and surrounding area are fully developed.
Resolution 2015-210
(2015050)
Page 2
c) The purpose for the variation is not based exclusively on economic considerations; but rather,
the variance is requested to make improvements to the building to make it more usable for the
current and future occupants.
d) Granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land
or improvements in the neighborhood. The applicant is proposing the replacement of the
existing clocks, one of which is non-functioning, on the tower for additional wall signage.
e) The proposed wall signage on the tower would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent properties, nor would it substantially increase congestion of public streets, increase the
danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
f) The variance requested is the minimum action required to address or alleviate the practical
difficulties and to allow the occupants to improve the usability of the building and to provide
usable space for signage.
3. A separate sign permit is required prior to the installation of any signage. Prior to the issuance of
any sign permits, the existing unused freestanding sign shall be removed.
4. Any signage placed on the clock tower shall count against the allowable five percent of wall signage
for the east wall elevation.
5. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per ordinance
provisions.
6. The variance shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property owner or applicant
has commenced the authorized improvement or use, or unless the applicant, with the consent of the
property owner, 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.
ADOPTED by the City Council on this 28th day of July, 2015.
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
July 28, 2015 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