HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2000-377CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2000-377
APPROVING VARIANCE REQUEST FOR DAYS INN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 2945 EMPIRE LANE NORTH (20094)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Minnesota Sign Co. which requests approval
of a sign variance to permit two 96 -square foot signs on one pylon for property legally
described as follows:
That part of Lot 4, Block 1, Plymouth Freeway Center.
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 Minnesota Sign Co. for a sign variance to permit two 96 -square foot signs on
one pylon to be located at 2945 Empire Lane North, subject to the following conditions:
1. This resolution approves a variance to permit a total of two signs on one pylon on Lot
4, Block 1, Plymouth Freeway Center in accordance with the plans and application
received by the City on June 13, 1999, except as amended by this resolution.
2. The variance for two signs on one pylon at 2945 Empire Lane North is approved with
the finding that the applicable variance standards are met. Specifically:
a) The applicant is requesting a variance in order to replace a existing sign with a new sign
of the same size. The current sign has deteriorated past the point of repair. Since the
proposed sign is the same size as the existing sign, it would not increase the
nonconformity. If the variance is not granted, the Days Inn would construct a new
freestanding 36 -foot tall 100 -square foot pylon sign on their property. This would
create added signage that would be visually intrusive and could adversely affect the
aesthetics of the surrounding parcels.
Resolution 2000-377
(20094)
Page 2 of 3
b) The existing 192 -square foot sign consists of a 96 -square foot Days Inn sign and a 96 -
square foot Perkins sign. The proposed new Days Inn sign would improve the
aesthetics of the pylon by replacing an existing sign that has deteriorated past the point
of repair. The change would not increase the nonconformity.
c) Since there is an existing sign affixed to the twin pole on this property, a new sign of
similar size would not increase the value of the parcel of land.
d) The hardship is caused by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is requesting the
variance to allow continued use of signage on a shared pylon.
e) Given that there would be no difference in size, granting the variance to replace the
existing sign with one of the same size would not be detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood.
f) The proposed 96 -square foot Days Inn sign would differ only in shape from the
existing sign. Therefore, the proposed 96 -square foot sign would not impair an
adequate supply of light and air to 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) The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. The
variance would allow the applicant to replace the existing sign rather than requiring
them to build a second freestanding sign, which may create a situation that is
distracting to motorists and could adversely affect the aesthetics of the surrounding
parcels.
3. The applicant must obtain a sign permit, prior to any replacement of the existing sign.
4. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals
per Ordinance provisions.
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 21030.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
Resolution 2000-377
(20094)
Page 3 of 3
ADOPTED by City Council on August 8, 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 August 8, 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