HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2000-355CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2000-355
APPROVING VARIANCE FOR CHESAPEAKE COMPANIES FOR ADDITIONAL WALL
SIGNAGE ON A BUILDING LOCATED AT 15545 34TH AVENUE NORTH (20086)
WHEREAS, Chesapeake Companies has requested a variance to allow wall signage on three
building elevations where the Zoning Ordinance permits signage on two elevations on property
legally described as follows:
That part of Lot 2, Block 5, PLYMOUTH HILLS, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southerly and easterly of the following described line;
Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 2; thence on an assumed bearing of South
01 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds East, along the easterly line of said Lot 2, a distance of
69.03 feet; thence continuing southeasterly 59.69 feet along said easterly line of Lot 2, on
a tangential curve, concave to the northeast, having a radius of 116.49 feet, and a central
angle of 29 degrees 21 minutes 24 seconds, to the point of beginning of the line to be
described; thence South 59 degrees 08 minutes 36 seconds West, radial to the last
described curve, a distance of 21.14 feet; thence South 88 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds
West , a distance of 159.43 feet; thence South 00 degrees 13 minutes 50 seconds West, a
distance of 202.34 feet to the south line of said Lot 2, said line there terminating.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said 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
Chesapeake Companies for a variance, subject to the following findings and conditions:
Resolution 2000-355
(20086)
Page 2 of 3
1. The variance to allow wall signage on three building elevations where the Zoning Ordinance
permits signage on two elevations is approved in accordance with plans and application
received on June 16, 2000.
2. This resolution is approved with the finding that the applicable variance standards have been
met. Specifically:
a. The hardship is based on the fact the staff encouraged the applicant to provide signage on
the 34th Avenue building elevation, but the applicant would like signage on the Highway
55 and parking lot elevations. Signage is needed on 34th Avenue because this is the front
of the building (as defined by the City Center guidelines) and most customers will
approach the building from 34th Avenue. However, the building is visible from Highway
55 and the main entrances would be located on the west building wall, which faces the
parking lot. Consequently, the signage is essential on those building elevations.
b. The conditions surrounding this variance request are somewhat unique to this parcel,
because of the shape of the lot and the access to the site. Furthermore, the building
entrance is not on the street, which necessitates additional building signage to direct
patrons into the building. This condition is not applicable, generally, to other properties in
the CC districts.
c. The purpose of the variance is not to increase value or income potential. The purpose of
the variance relates simply to the need to provide clear building identification on this
multi -tenant building.
d. The hardship is caused by the ordinance because the City Center district standards
encourage building signage on the public streets, but does not provide for additional
signage on building elevations that face parking areas. In this instance, the parking lot
functions as a front, therefore necessitating building identification on that elevation.
e. The variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
neighborhood.
f. The proposed wall signage would not impair light or air to adjacent property, increase
congestion on the public streets, increase the danger of fire or substantially diminish or
impair property values within the neighborhood.
g. In order to provide signage that clearly indicates the proposed use to the traveling public,
a wall sign is required along each street and at the building entrances on the west
elevation. Furthermore, the total proposed wall signage of 177 square feet is less than
what would be allowed for one (east) wall elevation. Furthermore, the applicant is
proposing to limit the future pylon sign to 70 square feet where 100 square feet is
permitted.
Resolution 2000-355
(20086)
Page 3 of 3
3. A sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of any signage.
4. This approval shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property owner 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 Section 21015.07 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Adopted by the City Council on July 25, 2000.
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 25, 2000 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