Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the transcript, here is the formatted version with speaker names identified. **Note on Personnel:** While the prompt provided the City Council list, the speakers in this transcript are members of the **Planning Commission**. Based on the dialogue, the identified Commissioners are Scanlan, Sandahl, Mahowald, and Pruitt. The staff members identified (Tim Benetti, Brandon Anderson, Sharon Hills) match your provided list. *** [0:00] [Music] [0:49] **Chairperson**: Good evening everyone. I call the October 18th, 2023, Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting to order. The first item is any changes from staff? [1:13] **Tim Benetti (Community Development Director)**: Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the Commission. We have no changes for you at this time. [1:23] **Chairperson**: Okay. Commissioners? [1:25] **Commissioner Scanlan**: Madam Chair, I move approval of the agenda. [1:27] **Commissioner Sandahl**: Second. [1:29] **Chairperson**: A motion made by Commissioner Scanlan, seconded by Commissioner Sandahl. Any questions or discussion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. (Group: Aye). Oppose, nay. Motion carries. Next on the item of the agenda is the approval of the consent agenda. The consent agenda items are considered routine and will be enacted with a single motion without discussion unless a commissioner or a citizen requests to have any item separately considered; it will then be moved to the land use action items for consideration. 3A: Can I get an approval for the minutes of September 30th, 2023, regular meeting? [2:10] **Commissioner Scanlan**: Madam Chair, I recommend approval of the consent agenda as outlined in staff report. [2:19] **Commissioner Sandahl**: Second. [2:22] **Chairperson**: Motion made by Commissioner Scanlan and seconded by Commissioner Sandahl. Any discussion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. (Group: Aye). Oppose, nay. Motion carries. That brings us to 3B: Ordinance amending plan development. And I see that Kathy Bodmer is not here. [2:43] **Tim Benetti (Community Development Director)**: Madam Chair, Kathy's not here, but I'm here to answer any questions if you have any at this time. [2:50] **Chairperson**: Okay. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Benetti? So then we just approve to have it carried over for next meeting, correct? [3:00] **Tim Benetti (Community Development Director)**: That is correct. This is just setting a public hearing. Normally, this is just a routine process to start. You authorize the setting of a public hearing for a later date. [3:14] **Chairperson**: Do we vote on it? [3:16] **Tim Benetti (Community Development Director)**: You can. [3:18] **Chairperson**: So somebody has to make a motion on it? [3:20] **Tim Benetti (Community Development Director)**: Well, it was part of the consent agenda. [3:22] **Chairperson**: It's part of consent, so it's already done. Thank you for that clarification. That brings us to item number four, which is no public hearings tonight, and then we go to number five: the land use action items. Wings Mortgage sign setback variance, presented by Alex Sharp. [3:57] **Alex Sharp (City Planner)**: Good evening, Chair, members of the Commission. As stated, this is for a sign setback variance for Wings Mortgage. The applicant is requesting a 7-foot variance from the required sign setback to allow a sign 6 feet from the property line where 13 feet is permitted at 1525 Glazier Avenue. Site is located as stated at 15250 Avenue. It is the new location of Wings Mortgage. You'll also recognize it as the—I'm going to blank now on whether it's Commons One or Two, but I'm going to say Two building. Wings recently remodeled it and is going through brand changes as well, which is prompting the sign changes. The actual sign location is here highlighted in red. It is on the south side of the site. The site is zoned PD 290, Subzone 3. PD 290 allows for office-type users, retail-type users; specifically, Subzone 3 refers to the limited business sign code, which is what the sign ordinance is based upon. The reason why I state that is because that sets the sign's height, setback, and size requirements. This is the existing sign. The existing sign was erected at some point in the 1980s and was set back at that 6-foot distance from the property line. It is a V-shaped sign and was formerly used by Wings Mortgage as they refaced it when they took possession of the building. What Wings would like to do is completely remove that existing sign, and when that sign is completely removed, it takes away a potential legal non-conformity status, and therefore any new sign would need to meet the required 13-foot setback. The proposed sign meets all other requirements, so it meets all of the size and height requirements of the code, but they do want to replace it at the exact same location as the proposed sign. So, here's an elevation of the sign, and then here's the site plan that shows us a little bit better. So the sign is set back 6 feet from the property line, is outside of the 5-foot drainage utility easement, and they are looking to place it in the same location as the existing sign. If you recall back to that photo of the existing sign, the reason why they are looking to take it out completely is the base is deteriorated a little bit and is not meeting the aesthetic features that Wings is seeking with it just being a plain cinder block base versus their current proposed sign. In terms of establishing whether a variance should be permitted in this case, one thing I do want to note is while there are other signs within this district, the reason why you couldn't amend the plan development district to allow for a lesser setback is this sign code doesn't actually refer to the plan development; it is going back to that general limited business code. So it would affect a significant number of properties more than just the properties in PD 290. In 2018, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended and City Council approved a sign setback variance for what used to be Old Chicago and American. As you can see, MidCountry Bank is significantly closer than the 6 feet. You've got Fit Academy, Henry W. Anderson Mortuary—all of these signs in the district are significantly closer than the 13-foot. I can't give good reason for why that has occurred; most of these signs are quite old, but it is contained within your draft findings as to why this sign and why staff has recommended approval of a setback variance. When evaluating a sign variance, the City Council, staff, and the Planning Commission must consider these factors. I'm going to go through them quickly as the commission is quite familiar with them, but I would like to note that these are different than the "practical difficulties" required through the state for a zoning variance. These are specific sign ordinance variances that are specific to the City of Apple Valley code. They are our guiding principles, but they are not as stringent as the practical difficulties code requirements, so the Commission and City Council has slightly more leeway. All of these conditions must be met: Special conditions must exist; those special conditions cannot be created by the applicant; the literal interpretation of the code would prevent the property owner from having rights commonly enjoyed by other properties within the same district; it would not confer any special privilege and would not have an adverse effect or appearance on the surrounding district. Provision two in that is not applicable to this sign. In your report, I've got a draft resolution with these findings. These are a summary of those findings: Essentially, special conditions do exist. The sign was erected prior—quite some time ago—and then with that parking lot, pushing that sign back would actually put it below the grade of the mound with the retaining wall and into that parking lot, taking out parking spaces. Those conditions were not created by the applicant in this instance; it was constructed prior to their ownership. The literal interpretation actually would deprive them of rights commonly enjoyed. As you saw, every other sign in the district is not quite meeting that 13-foot setback. The granting of the variance doesn't convey any special privilege; it's actually further back than some of the other signs within the zone. Similar to other setbacks, I can't find any that are significantly further away than what the sign is being proposed, so I don't see a special privilege at this time. And then, this is slightly subjective, so if there are additional comments from the Planning Commission, there are no adverse effects from the appearance of the sign on any surrounding property. With that, I open it up for questions from the Commission. The applicant is present this evening as well if there are specific questions for them. [10:09] **Chairperson**: Thank you, Alex. Any questions from the commission? Hearing none, I'll hear a motion. [10:13] **Commissioner Scanlan**: Madam Chair, I recommend approval of a 7-foot sign setback variance at 1525 Glazier Avenue, Wings Mortgage, subject to conditions in the draft resolution. [10:17] **Commissioner Sandahl**: Second. [10:19] **Chairperson**: Thank you. Motion made by Commissioner Scanlan and seconded by Commissioner Sandahl. Any discussion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. (Group: Aye). Oppose, nay. Motion carries. Thank you, Alex. That brings us to number 5B, and again we have Wings Credit Union sign height variance by Alex Sharp. [11:12] **Alex Sharp (City Planner)**: Thank you again, Chair. As stated, this is for 14985 Glazier Avenue, the neighboring property, also for Wings Credit Union. The applicant has requested a 12-foot variance to the maximum sign height to allow a 20-foot tall sign where a maximum height of 8 feet is permitted at 14985 Glazier Avenue. This is the site. The specific location of the sign is up in the northwest corner along the intersection of Glazier Avenue and 147th. The site is zoned PD 290, Zone 3. Again, I noted this in the prior presentation, but the underlying zoning for this site is limited business, which only allows 8-foot tall monument signs. It does not allow for the 20-foot tall pylon signs. Pylon signs within retail business zoning districts, which you can kind of see just poking out on the left side of the map here, are permitted in other districts but not specifically in a more office-type use. This is the existing sign location, and before we move on, I do want to note that the location of the sign is not something that we can evaluate at this time. We know that there are going to be some right-of-way changes and a future roundabout in the area, and so it is premature to do a full evaluation of the sign at this time because of that future roundabout and right-of-way needs. So the location of the sign will likely be altered. As you can see, the existing sign is around 6 feet tall, and it is of a monument style, which generally means that the base is touching the ground. What is proposed is for a 20-foot tall, 10-foot wide sign, and that is where the variance comes in as only 8 feet is permitted. They are looking to include a digital message board, but that would be permitted within the zone. The site plan notes the sign in a couple different spots, but as we're still working through that location item, that doesn't need to be clarified at this time. Right now, where they're showing it is approximately 15 feet back from the property line. What the applicant is seeking to do out of this process is ascertain from the Commission what their thoughts are in the sign height variance, move this forward and not seek action at this time, but continue the item to another meeting. When considering this variance, the Planning Commission is guided to utilize those same criteria as I presented in the prior report. I'm not going to go through each one of them individually, but they are those same criteria with special provisions not created by the applicant. Just for reference, and because you've just seen them, I'm going to go through them very quickly, but here are all the other signs within that district. They are all meeting that 8-foot height requirement and general size requirements. I wanted to be able to provide the Commission with some additional comparisons of sizes of signs that are similar to what is being proposed. The other thing that I would like the Commission to take note of is that most of these signs are along significant roadways. A general rule with signage is the increased speed of a roadway warrants a larger sign; typically, you want to see it from further off when you've got additional traffic and more lanes. This is the Pennock Center Dunkin' Donuts sign; it's 16 feet tall and was the existing sign that was in that location (before it was Liberty Credit). This is a very similar sign that Menards has at 23 feet in height—3 feet taller—but if you go just at the base-to-base, that's 10 feet wide and then goes out to 12 to 13 feet wide. It's a very similar sign to compare. This is Abdallah at 15 feet in height and 8 feet in width. Mister Car Wash—unfortunately, I don't have updated images of that yet, but that's a 20-foot tall sign, 12 feet wide. You also notice that the style is of that pylon nature that was noted in the staff report. Pylon signs within the city are allowed to be up to 24 feet tall and are only permitted within retail zoning districts and our industrial zoning districts. One of the signs that is pretty comparable—but we don't have as much information on as it was erected quite some years ago—is the Starbucks sign. This was an old gas station sign that was converted when Starbucks went in. It's approximately 22 feet in height and is between 6 and 7 feet in width. As stated, the requested action this evening is for the Commission to receive the staff report, take any public comments—the applicant would like to be able to make a presentation—and essentially take that information into their consideration. We would like you to discuss and provide a level of guidance to be able to guide the applicant as we move forward and then continue this item for action at another Planning Commission meeting. Are there any questions for staff? [17:22] **Commissioner Mahowald**: Madam Chair, what's kind of the timeline on a roundabout again? [18:03] **Alex Sharp (City Planner)**: Commissioner Mahowald, I believe it's next spring, but I wouldn't—this item is not necessarily material to this portion of the discussion. It'll depend on when it can be installed, but once we have plans formalized, we could determine where the sign location could be. [18:25] **Commissioner Mahowald**: Okay, so it is confirmed that there will be a roundabout at that intersection? [18:31] **Alex Sharp (City Planner)**: A roundabout is planned for. I believe that it is confirmed. Brandon, can you weigh in a little on that? [18:39] **Brandon Anderson (City Engineer)**: We have not 100% confirmed that a roundabout is the choice, but we're pretty confident that that's the best solution there. And I'm sorry, is it at this intersection where the sign is proposed? [18:54] **Alex Sharp (City Planner)**: It's slightly further down, but realignment of the entire curvature of the roadway along that south side will occur. [19:10] **Tom Shanki (VP of Facilities, Wings Financial)**: Madam Chair, members of the Commission. Tom Shanki, Wings Financial Credit Union, Vice President of Facilities. I've worked with City staff and the Engineering Department for the last two and a half years on this roundabout program. We've signed a letter of intent with the city relative to a specific plan on how that's all going to lay out. If we can go forward with this type of a sign at that particular point, we're going to follow the dimensions set forward in that agreement that we've signed with the city relative to how that corner is going to be shaved off. There's a certain amount of land that we are handing over back to the city relative to that whole process as well. So the sign is going to have to go back. As you saw in the report by Alex, it's going to have to go back a little bit further to stay on our property versus in the new right-of-way. [20:17] **Brandon Anderson (City Engineer)**: Yeah, I'd confirm what Mr. Shanki said about the right-of-way, although we don't have a final design yet and so we do not have a final right-of-way calculation yet. Due to changes in the Minnesota Department of Transportation's roundabout design guidelines, 147th is a state-aid road, so we have to design it to state-aid standards. We do have to make changes to the geometry, so at this time we don't know exactly the right-of-way impacts to the corridor. [20:47] **Alex Sharp (City Planner)**: Part of the reason that I sought to limit some of the discussion on the roundabout pieces is because we are discussing a sign height variance and I'm trying to limit to that because we are in an early stage and ill-equipped to be able to respond well on the effects of the roundabout at this point. [21:12] **Commissioner Pruitt**: Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Alex, for clarity, I appreciate the visuals for Abdallah Chocolates, Menards, and Starbucks. I think your language here is fairly clear, but for confirmation, none of those are in the limited business zone, is that accurate? [21:40] **Alex Sharp (City Planner)**: That is accurate. All of those are either within industrial zoning districts, retail business, or underlying zoning districts. [21:48] **Commissioner Pruitt**: One additional question: The signed agreement—and appreciate the partnership with Wings—was there any sign height identified in that, or was that left kind of general at this point? [21:58] **Alex Sharp (City Planner)**: I don't believe that agreement involves the sign at all. [22:01] **Commissioner Scanlan**: Madam Chair, Alex, as you just kind of outlined with the last item that we just went through, if we were to go through with this allowing this higher height, that would kind of open up the door within that limited business zone for other businesses to ask for the same thing. Is that a true statement? [22:24] **Alex Sharp (City Planner)**: The purpose of a variance would be that it would be unique to that property. The City Attorney could possibly better speak to whether there is precedent created. [22:49] **Sharon Hills (City Attorney)**: Madam Chair, Mr. Sharp answered, but essentially anybody can ask for anything. They could point to Wings for their basis. Is it a legal precedent? No, but it's a factual one. [23:09] **Commissioner Scanlan**: Thank you, Sharon. The second item that I have—and I don't recall all the details—but over in Cobblestone, over in the southwest corner with the resident Springs... they wanted some specific additional sign heights and we did not approve of that. I'm just looking at things from a consistency standpoint. [23:44] **Alex Sharp (City Planner)**: The primary difference between that site and this site would be that that is a residential property and they were seeking variance to a slightly different section of code, but similar principle. [23:59] **Chairperson**: Right. Thank you. Applicant, Wings? [24:14] **Tom Shanki (VP of Facilities, Wings Financial)**: Good evening. I really don't have—I mean Alex really has laid out a remarkable synopsis of everything. Really why we're here tonight and why we want to do this sign is Wings is growing. I've been with Wings for eight years; when I got here there was about 200 employees in that building, and we're now pushing up towards 700 employees in that building. You all know what it's like to retain and hire new employees; it's tough. We want to have a big presence. We are on the verge of crossing the $10 billion assets line. Once we cross $10 billion, there are significant rules and regulations that come into play where it's going to cause us to need to grow to $20 billion as fast as we can, which means more expansion. I can tell you that the future development of that area is probably looking at more expansion of the campus. We're a very large employer in Apple Valley—maybe the largest, I don't know—and we want to maintain a big presence. We changed our logo as a part of all this. We went to the bottom logo which is a much more readable logo; it's more digitally attractive and useful on mobile apps. You've already seen what we've got today; it's a great sign, we've been on that corner for 23 years, but the proposed sign makes a statement. We've got a lower tenant count now as well; we are probably going to maximize out at the two tenants that we do have in that building, which is Dorsey & Whitney and Ameriprise, and we're going to fill it up. We've been renovating every floor in that building since 2017; we've put in upwards of $20 million into the building and interior improvements in the last five years. This sign really becomes more of an overall movement in Wings and where we want to go. These are some pictures of our locations in Lakeville, Baxter, and Rochester, and you can see the consistency. The two signs that are in Rochester and Baxter are on state highways; those signs are 40 feet tall. We looked around and there's just a lot of big signs around us. We're just here to see what can we push for, what can we get to, and trying to get the flavor of where the Commission stands. [29:08] **Chairperson**: Sure. I do have questions. First of all, I'd like to thank you for Wings having that many employees at Apple Valley. I agree, I believe you do need a new monument. Can you go back to the monument for the proposal? My question is on this design: What is going to be on the bottom part of that? [29:35] **Tom Shanki (VP of Facilities, Wings Financial)**: So, below the electronic message board... the sign vendor is here, he can probably explain it better than I can, but it's a slat material that's just basically see-through. [29:56] **Chairperson**: There will be no graphics or anything like that? Because I was concerned that it was kind of going to be busy with the roundabout and people are going to be not paying attention. I like that better that it's not going to be anything on either side. [30:11] **Tom Shanki (VP of Facilities, Wings Financial)**: I think the minimization of distraction and accidents is the goal of that whole project, and the reason for wanting it that particular height is for awareness and to make the statement. [30:26] **Commissioner Pruitt**: Thank you, Madam Chair. So for clarity, the suggestion is to put this sign in, and then should it be impacted by the growth of a roundabout, would you make a decision to locate it and not put a new sign in until the roundabout was decided upon? [30:45] **Tom Shanki (VP of Facilities, Wings Financial)**: We would definitely work with Brandon and city staff relative to where we're going to place it before we come back to you. I don't know the status of the roundabout, but really on this particular corner, it's just shaving that corner off slightly to make it a right-turn-only in that area. The roundabout is about a block further down to the east on Garrett. [31:31] **Commissioner Pruitt**: One additional question: Is this illuminated 24/7? [31:35] **Tom Shanki (VP of Facilities, Wings Financial)**: Yes, it would be illuminated. [31:41] **Commissioner Sandahl**: This might be a question more for Alex, but could you go back to the picture with all the other signs in the area? That Car Clinic sign—how do we know how tall that one is? Because isn't that one on a non-busy street as well? [31:54] **Alex Sharp (City Planner)**: I don't have that; that's a very old sign. It's been refaced with the digital, but the original pylon was installed likely sometime in the 1980s and we don't have a permit record for that one. It is along 147th; it is also zoned retail business, so it is in that similar type of roadway category. [32:42] **Chairperson**: Okay, thank you. Like I said, I do agree you need the new monument; the other one is too small. So at this point, Alex, we are just making a recommendation? [32:55] **Alex Sharp (City Planner)**: At this point, we are seeking your discussion and any guidance you can provide, and then the item is simply available for another agenda. We are not seeking action at this time. [33:19] **Chairperson**: Okay. No other discussion? Tim Benetti, please. [33:23] **Tim Benetti (Community Development Director)**: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to remind you, you're getting a break in November; you're only getting one meeting on November 15th. We should have a few items on that agenda. We will see if we bring back this same variance sign for your final discussion. Your next meeting after that is Wednesday, December 6th. We have two Council meetings next week; on the 26th, we have no planning items, and Thursday, November 9th, we probably will have the first Wings sign variance that was recommended for approval tonight at that hearing. [34:11] **Commissioner Scanlan**: Madam Chair, so moved [to adjourn]. [34:12] **Commissioner Sandahl**: Second. [34:13] **Chairperson**: Motion made by Commissioner Scanlan and seconded by Commissioner Sandahl. All in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). Meeting is adjourned. [34:55] [Music]