**[0:00]** [Music] **[0:18]** [Music] **[0:29]** [Music] **[0:53] Chair Ann Curts:** I call the December 20th 2023 Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting to order good evening the first item of business is the approval of the agenda any changes from staff? **[1:13] Alex Sharp (Planner):** Madam chair, there are no changes for tonight, thank you. **[1:15] Chair Ann Curts:** Commissioners? **[1:15] Commissioner Schindler:** Move approval. **[1:16] Commissioner Scanland:** Second. **[1:17] Chair Ann Curts:** Moved by commissioner Schindler and seconded by commissioner Scanland. Any discussion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying Aye. (Aye). Opposed Nay. Motion carries. The next item of business tonight is 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. Do I have an approval for the minutes in the regular meeting? **[1:39] Commissioner Schindler:** So moved. **[1:40] Commissioner Scanland:** Second. **[1:41] Chair Ann Curts:** That was moved by commissioner Schindler and seconded by commissioner Scanland. Any discussion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying Aye. (Aye). Opposed Nay. Motion carries. That brings us to number four and we do have a public hearing tonight with Wings Credit Union ordinance Amendment. So tonight I will open—we will now open the public hearing for agenda item 4a. The Affidavit of publication for the notice of public hearing is available for inspection in the planning Department. Everyone wishing to speak at this public hearing should be sure to fill out the attendance roster. Please include your name and your address so that accurate records can be maintained. We will begin the procedure with a brief presentation by City staff followed by a presentation by the petitioner of the hearing. Upon the conclusion of the presentation, City staff will be asked to comment on the proposal's conformance with pertinent regulations and policies. After that, comments will be taken from the general public. Planner Sharp? **[3:10] Alex Sharp (Planner):** Thank you Chair Curts. As noted, this is a public hearing; however, as the Planning Commission has reviewed this item on two separate occasions through the variance application that I'll go through shortly, staff is recommending that an action be taken this evening. The action being requested by the applicant is to amend ordinance PD 290 plan development 290 Zone 3 to allow a 20-foot tall 80-foot sign. You'll have more—a more detailed action towards the end of the report. Excuse me. As I noted, the applicant applied for a variance for the sign previously, was reviewed by the Planning Commission at two separate meetings, and ultimately, due to the provisions and the ordinance, was unable to be recommended for approval by the commission. The applicant withdrew their application and during that process was encouraged by the Planning Commission to come forward for a text Amendment. So there is clearly some form of support, and that is where this item is before the Planning Commission this evening. I'll go over kind of the brief overview of the site and stuff still but move through this relatively quickly. The site is 14985 Glazier Avenue. It is Wings Credit Union headquarters and a branch location is the highlighted Parcels noted here. The sign location is proposed in the northwest corner. It will be redone. We do have—with the realignment of 147th—we do have a staff map with that, that is also being used by the applicant to locate their newly proposed sign that has been agreed on lightly by both parties and meets setback requirements. So you don't see anything in your ordinance provision about that 13 feet. One of the key aspects of this application is that it only affects zone three of plan development 290. Zone 3 is in the red highlighted area or boxed-in area that you see here that essentially affects six different properties. Those properties are owned by Wings and Nystrom Associates. So it is the Wings Financial Credit Union—or sorry, they changed the name—it's Wings Credit Union, Wings Mortgage, and Commons One. The amendment would not affect any other properties in the limited business zone, so it is tailored just to this and would not affect other properties within that plan development zone. The properties within plan development 290 Zone 3 were notified of the public hearing as per process. This is a photo of the existing sign just for reference. It is slightly smaller and slightly less height than what is permitted in the zone. The zone allows for up to an 8-foot high sign and 40 square feet for single tenant, 60 square feet for multi-tenant. Because they could vary within this building that they do have multi-tenants, it's always been put that they could have up to a 60-foot sign. What is being requested is a 20-foot tall 80-foot sign. One of the things I'm going to do is go through quite a few signs here, and for some of the smaller ones within the plan development, I'm not going to go through the area because many of them were put up before we have some of the good records to tell how large and how tall these are. We know that they are—from a visual examination, I've walked by most of these signs—8 feet or less and they are relatively small in that 30 to 40-foot area. But one of the things that I wanted to go through with other larger signs, such as this one, is how the sign area is calculated. So the way that our sign ordinance requires that staff evaluate a sign area is by drawing a box around it like this. So this red box is the area that we end up drawing, and the reason why we end up having to do so is because this digital medium goes all the way out to the end. If the sign digital medium ended here, we could take this entire edge off. You'll see examples of where we can do that in other signs and how they can end up looking differently based upon their area, but wanted to start noting it with this sign early. This is the diagram that I had noted previously. This is for the proposed location for the sign. It is something that will still be worked on and, I would say, finalized with our city engineer and the applicant; however, it would meet the 13-foot setback and at this time there is no discussion of that needing to be any closer or anything along those lines. So we have kind of a location for the proposed sign that at least at this point meets everyone's requirements. You've seen these before; these are the signs that are more difficult to find the area of, with the exception of the Cowboy Jack's and American one, and that is because the Planning Commission granted a variance to allow that sign several years ago. That one only is—or that one is only 22 square feet though it is quite small and it is not even a full 8-foot tall; it's only around 7' 2" tall. Most of the signs throughout the district though are around that 8 feet in height and then somewhere around a 4x8, so 32 square feet maximum size area. Most of these within the district do not meet the larger 40 or 60 square feet. You will see some such as the ones at Commons 1 that do start to get a little bit larger, but they're still only at that 40 to maybe 50 feet and 8 feet in height. So most of the signs within this district had not chosen to utilize their full size that they were allotted, and when they were allotted sign design at the time that they were installed was likely different. Because of that inability for staff to have those records and the applicant's request being something slightly larger than these anyways, we've got a lot of detail on some of the larger signs and that scope in between the 8 and 20 coming up. So we'll start with something that looks very, very large. Menards' sign is 23 feet in height; it's 102 square feet. That red box shows you the area that it's calculated. It looks significantly more massive than what the area would account for, and the red box is supposed to come right up underneath the letters, but there you can see there's a little bit of a swoop there that is part of their design. If that swoop was not there, our box would actually go up right to the bottom of the letters and they'd be allowed slightly larger. This is a retail business-based zoning district; it is allowed 24 feet high and 110 square feet. Abdala was right on the cusp of us switching over to digital signs, so we don't have a good old paper copy of it, but we do have the records from what we put into the permit software. So this was a 15-foot height and 108 square feet. It is similar in many ways to what Wings is looking at doing, minus Wings was finishing the base out versus having that raised off the ground and but does include the digital and static combination. You will notice that it is slightly larger. Industrial zones are the same as retail business; they are allowed to have the 24-foot tall 110 square feet. Mister Car Wash is very similar in area though very different in style. So the Mister Car Wash sign—I've got some photos of it taken recently as well to try to give you some perspective on it—it is 20 feet tall, so the applicant's height request, but significantly wider than what Wings is seeking. It is approximately 85 square feet and again that is calculated by doing this box. So when staff evaluated this, we did not need to get a full sign size of what that box actually was, and the reason being is they're allowed to go up to 110 and so we already knew by taking the 8x12 that they were under that and we were able to proceed with approval. In order for the calculation purposes for this exercise, we've had to try to approximate based upon the scale of the sign on the drawing, so we've done as best as we could but it's not perfectly 85. Starbucks—this was an existing sign from an existing gas station. It was there prior to the site. It is a retail business-based zoning district, so it would be allowed the 24 feet in height. Where it is non-compliant and why they chose to retain it is you'll notice just how close it is to that property line, and so in this case the applicant decided that it was more important to be very, very close to Cedar than it was to get the size and height that they would otherwise be allowed. AmericInn was reviewed by the Planning Commission two years ago. AmericInn has had a number of issues with trucks, semi-trailers that are staying at the site hitting their sign. They sought to go slightly higher; they're already one of these signs that was put in at a time frame before our sign ordinance existed. So their existing is a 26-foot 4-inch tall sign at 149 square feet and they were looking to go to 28 and even larger. It was not supported by the Planning Commission unanimously and they withdrew their application. With that one, I'm going to pause for just a moment. You will notice that there are several other signs throughout the community that are taller than 24 feet. Some of these are from eras before we had a sign ordinance established. One of the better examples that I was able to locate today was Famous Dave's along 147th; that one is quite large and quite tall—we don't have good records on that. Others, such as the one at Regency Centers, which is Chase Bank where the Perkins is located out front of another example is Fisher Marketplace. They can get conditional use permits or amend their plan development to allow for those bigger taller signs. That is close to what we're doing here with the bigger taller sign with PD 290. So Fisher Marketplace followed all of the regulations of getting a conditional use permit for a shopping center sign. These signs are typically taller and include multiple tenants as part of the reason. You'll notice that down also in Cobblestone. Since they weren't as pertinent to this discussion about a single user slash not a multi-tenant mall type site, we don't have photos of those but could provide them. This is a very recent sign of Lens and Byerly—20-foot in height, 65 square feet in area based upon where the box ends up being located, and that does include the wasted space between the two spots. So it's similar to Wings how their box has some wasted space—negative space is probably the better word for it—between the digital and the logo. Think Bank across the street: 24-foot in height, 36 square feet, looks quite massive and then when you put the box around it ends up being relatively small. Peno Center is an existing legal non-conforming; we do not have good records as to its full area, estimation at 56 square feet. And I believe last but not least, Apple Valley Liquor, our own, so that I can pick on us just a little bit here: 20-foot in height, 12-foot width, 95 square feet. Again, allowed that 110 and including that static and digital image. In this case, because the Apple Valley Liquor extends over to the sides, the box goes beyond, similar to how you saw how Wings was calculated. There are other ways that cities calculate sign area; however, this has been the consistent way that the city of Apple Valley has done it since the beginning of our ordinance. One of the things I wanted to provide the commission with was a table of comparable communities. Rather than go through all of this in great detail, my summary is essentially in office we're fairly consistent on height, we are somewhere on the low end probably on area. In terms of retail zoning, I put this caveat in your report: it's difficult to put this many asterisks in a table. This was taken for community zoning districts that are not Highway adjacent, so it was not their Highway commercial. We don't have the 65 mph roadways, so what I was looking for was downtowns, and that's where Rosemount's varies drastically and why I have that asterisk there. But there are several of these that are affected when you are within distance of a highway. You'll notice that in the notes and just want to make it very, very apparent because that could skew the data if you were just use those Highway zones and so I was trying to find very comparable data. One of the other lessons that I can see from the table is that the sign height at around 20 feet is consistent with a lot of these more retail spaces. As I noted at the very beginning of this, Wings is an interesting mix: it's their corporate headquarters, but it also happens to be a retail location with a branch, so there is a dual use there. And I think that's the question being posed before the Planning Commission is what is appropriate somewhere at that 20 range with their retail or not. I've got the exact Amendment language here if you want to review it. Essentially, it is just affecting that zone three and want to emphasize that, as this could be seen by the Planning Commission as a Wings campus and therefore wanting to stand out. This could be seen in a number of different ways; it's a policy level discussion at this point. We do have a recommended action, and essentially what the recommended action is this evening from staff is that an action be taken. One of the things I was trying to emphasize through this action in your staff report is that the Planning Commission must act on the application as submitted; however, that does not limit the Planning Commission from—let's say if there was a concern with acting on that or were to not pass—the commission could then make a recommendation and would be strongly encouraged to do so about what would be supported. Of course, the commission could support this outright and no need for that caveat. With that, happy to go back to any photos, answer whatever questions I'm able. The applicant is present and I'm sure would like to be able to present their case as well. **[18:24] Chair Ann Curts:** Sure. Commissioners, do you have any questions for Alex? Go ahead, Commissioner Pruitt. **[18:29] Commissioner Pruitt:** Yes, thanks Madam chair. Alex, if you could expand just a little bit on the notifications that were sent out? I think you commented early in the presentation about notifying those in PD 290 Zone 3. Were the adjacent properties also notified? And more, I guess I'm wondering about the applications—there weren't a lot of details here with Aspen Dental, Jersey Mike's, Panera—those are adjacent. And did they seek—I wasn't involved when they had sought approval of signage that was denied—were they notified and what was the end result? They put smaller signs in, I assume? **[19:15] Alex Sharp (Planner):** Chair Curts, Commissioner Pruitt, I'll start with answering the question of the notification. When you are amending a zone such as what we are doing, the only notification requirements is to the properties within that sub-zone. So only zone three was notified. If we were required to notify additional properties, other PD amendments that the commission would work on such as Clover Life Spa would have required notification of every property within Cobblestone. So that is why we do it this way; we are not legally required to notify those properties and it is against past practice at least to reach out and attempt to notify when we're not legally obligated to do so. Secondarily, the background on Aspen Dental is because of the way their logo is set up, they have a high point—they were getting a lot of negative space counted in their box. They needed to essentially shrink down that 'A' and it was only for their building wall signage that they were seeking that variance. **[20:01] Commissioner Pruitt:** Thank you. Yep, I appreciate it. **[20:38] Chair Ann Curts:** Any other Commissioners? Commissioner Scanland. **[20:39] Commissioner Scanland:** Madam chair, could you bring up the Byerly's/Lens? Well, now I need to remember which order they were in. I think it's back there it is. So that's an example of 20 feet, as was the Mister Car Wash if you need to. It's hard to get perspectives on these. Then the—with the pillars are basically at 10 feet then if I'm looking here correctly? **[21:05] Alex Sharp (Planner):** So this pillar goes up to 14' 11". **[21:08] Commissioner Scanland:** Oh excuse me. The width—what I meant, there and then the height is 20 overall. I'm just concerned with what we're looking at here at 20 feet might be a little strong in the height. I don't have a concern with the width, and width isn't dictated on code. I'm just looking right to give something to go off based on what they're presented here. I had a concern with the 20 feet, especially using this example here which I think gives us some pretty good perspective of height. So my question then would be, what would be considered agreeable over and above the—you know, it's currently coded at—we're currently at 8 feet max, correct? **[22:04] Alex Sharp (Planner):** Correct. **[22:05] Commissioner Scanland:** So yeah, I mean are we looking at 16 or 18 feet? It just seems to me that it needs to be not as high. **[22:11] Alex Sharp (Planner):** Chair Curts, Commissioner Scanland, there isn't going to be a perfect correct best practice planning 101 says "you shall do this" when you're dealing with the two feet like that, or any frankly probably anywhere in between those two. There probably isn't going to be something perfect. It's about the community of Apple Valley, what we've done, what we see, and what you set as policy. **[22:42] Commissioner Scanland:** Right. To retain that and—you kind of brief—you kind of go through that in your report, which was thorough in terms of not having signage—correct term what use—having signage that interferes with others within the commercial group that, you know, one sign gets mixed into the other. And I understand what Wings is doing here with wanting to bring more visibility to the campus and I'm supportive of that. I just like I said, I'm a bit concerned with the height. I had some—my colleagues here had some feedback on to what might be more acceptable to that or if they think 20 is appropriate. So I'm thinking maybe the 16-18 as a reference. **[23:36] Commissioner Scanland:** I think 20 feet is an overkill. I think it's too high. Personally, in that area, I'm even looking at where the columns are for 14 feet and I think 14 feet is—I think 16 to me is too high. I think it's 14 feet if you look at the pillars like that. David, what are your thoughts? **[23:46] Commissioner David:** Madam chair, you know, I also feel that 20 seems a little bit too much, but I mean I could live with 16. Higher than that's probably about as—Alex, what was the 16? The car wash? Forgot which one. **[23:59] Alex Sharp (Planner):** Peno Center is 16 also. **[24:14] Commissioner David:** The applicant is present. **[24:16] Chair Ann Curts:** Sure, yes. It would be good to hear their perspectives and the purpose behind the 20-foot choice. Yep, we'll get there, absolutely. **[24:28] Commissioner David:** So this is 16 feet high. What are your thoughts on that? **[24:34] Commissioner Schindler:** Yeah, seems excessive. I guess I wondered a little bit about—you know, currently the sign seems concealed by landscaping, but when you see them wide open, it seems pretty large. I mean that's on a higher speed highway out there when you see the Lens and Byerly's and it's still extremely noticeable. So I would concur 20 seems large for that area. **[24:52] Chair Ann Curts:** Applicant would you—I don't remember your last name, I'm so sorry. Tom Schanke. Would you like to be—I think coming up the challenge that we've got is—wait till you get to the mic here. **[25:12] Tom Schanke (Wings Credit Union):** Challenge that we've got is design of the sign itself. As you go up and go wide, the proportionality of it is something that we have to play with. So you know, can we fit it into 16 feet? Can we fit it into 14 feet? You know, we can always do something. **[25:31] Chair Ann Curts:** Alex, can you bring us to their sign please while he's talking? Thank you. **[25:35] Tom Schanke:** Sorry Mr. Sh—apologies. I should have done that. Going the wrong way... perfect thank you. So you know, proportionately right now if we were to stay within existing code, I believe we could put a—what's the total sign square footage? 60? So we could put a 6-foot tall 10-foot wide sign on that property. It would be approved by City staff and off we go; there's no issue with it because it meets code. We don't want to do that. As a quick note, that would only be the copy area, correct? So we can put it on top of a base that's a lot wider. We think this is a very good representation of things that we've done in communities like Otsego, Maple Grove, Lakeville, Northfield, Rochester, Baxter—these are all—this is our new sign style. The signs that we have in Baxter and Rochester are 40 foot tall. You know, granted they're on much more higher density and speed roadways. We're looking for a 20-foot tall limit. You know, this is the representation of the sign at that limit. Really it kind of comes down to: do we really like to have the 80 square feet? And then we can play around with the design. If the commission is, you know, against 20 foot, I guess that's your prerogative. I can't argue with that other than to say that I'm not sure what a 20-foot sign in that position blocks the view. I mean, it blocks the view of our building more than blocks anything, and it doesn't really create any sort of traffic issue relative to its position on the corner at an angle. And we think it's a nice looking sign compared to, you know, maybe some of the things that were done back in the day that were much higher than this at 24 feet—you saw some examples. I'm not going to belittle anybody else's sign, but I think we've done a pretty good job of creating a sign here that fits our new look. We opened our new Branch today and I don't—I sent Alex a picture late in the afternoon, I was going to see if we could get it in—but the inside of that Branch really fits to this type of a sign in the look and the design, and we're just trying to keep that consistent. **[28:22] Chair Ann Curts:** Commissioner Schindler. **[28:23] Commissioner Schindler:** Madam chair, if you were to say, say you designed it to be 18 feet, what would that change? **[28:38] Tom Schanke:** I'd have to refer back to the sign vendor. We'd have to play with the width, and it really kind of comes down to the maximum sign area. So if you approve the 80 square foot and you say "We'll approve a 16-foot or 18-foot tall sign," then we—but we'll give you 80 square feet—then we've got to play with that. **[29:01] Commissioner Schindler:** Okay, thank you. **[29:02] Chair Ann Curts:** Commissioner Scanland. **[29:03] Commissioner Scanland:** Madam chair, I have a question in terms of what's been presented on a couple of different pictures here, and maybe the sign vendor has to step in and talk about this. The representation that you're showing on the screen right now shows the sign supposedly at 20 feet—about maybe a little bit halfway up the evergreen on the left. And then if I look at the one in the staff report, it's nearly as tall as the evergreen to the left. So there's a scaling differentiation here that's not—it just seems... **[30:04] Alex Sharp (Planner):** I—that yeah, go ahead. That's likely due to updated graphic material piece here. Please note that the slight berm that you're seeing here would not be there. This is representative of approximately where the existing sign is. Lots of things would change with the realignment of that corner. This is trying to show a 20-foot largely at-grade sign, and that is what it would be. So visually roughly that would look like about that, right? I'm just trying to get a perspective on it, and there's—I don't believe many of those trees will be able to be retained at this time. So those as a visual reference may not remain. But I believe that the intent was to have it at large—largely at grade, correct? With whatever the finished grade is. Correct. **[30:46] Commissioner Scanland:** Obviously a different angle, because in the staff report the sign's above the building height. You look at this one, there's no comparison between the two. That's what's kind of thrown some of the discussion off, I think. **[30:59] Chair Ann Curts:** But Mr. Schanke, I have a few comments. I think the first time this was presented, I think I asked you then: what is imprinted underneath the digital board? Like "Apple Valley 4th of July"—what was all that again below that? **[31:26] Tom Schanke:** So where it says "Apple Valley 4th of July this weekend"—that and below that where it says "decorative slats open air flow"—that's going to be nothing. That's just going to be—if you drove by the Lakeville sign out at Pilot Knob in County 46 I think it is—that's this is that sign, except that sign does not have the reader/digital reader board. So below that reader board, the digital reader board is just a blank blue panel, and then those are slats—they're I believe they're 6 inches wide—just for the air flow. Middle slats. **[32:17] Chair Ann Curts:** Got it, got it. And I know that you want this sign primarily, you said at the first meeting, was for applicants and people coming in to—visibility where they're coming into. In my opinion, I believe the Wings building is probably one of the tallest in Apple Valley and I can see Wings from afar as I won't see that sign from afar until I get up there. Also I just drove by that area and to me, when I'm driving, I don't really visually see that top of it; to me, if you brought it down, it's more visual to the person in the car than it is not. I just would like to see it a little bit lower in my opinion. Like I said, can I ask you if that we did come to that agreement of lowering it to a different size, would you be in support of that? **[33:14] Tom Schanke:** You know, we're at this stage of the game, we'd like to get the sign done. I'll go back to the 80 square foot. If you maintain the 80-foot sign and you say that we need to stay at the 16-foot level then, you know, if that can be done tonight... I think that Alex was saying that you would have to decline the amendment and then make a recommendation to approve a 16 by 80, correct? So if you would do that, I think, you know, we'll move on. **[33:43] Chair Ann Curts:** I'm going to bring Mr. Benetti into this. Can I ask you that question? If we lowered it and if we went to say 14 or 16 feet, do they still get that amount of square footage or does that change perspective? **[33:57] Tim Benetti (Community Development Director):** Madam chair, members of the commission, you have the right to offer any recommendation back to our council members for final decision making. So what you determine or decide tonight, if it meets the approval of the applicant, that would be fine; that can be done. But remember we still have this—the action before you tonight is to approve a 20-foot height with an 80-square-foot. So there's nothing wrong with denying that then making a subsequent motion... Or Sharon, do they—can they just amend and the original action motion, or should they just take action one and do a subsequent? **[34:39] Sharon Hills (City Attorney):** Madam chair, yes, you would act on the application. If it fails for recommended approval, you may make a motion making a recommendation of what you would support, and then that would go to council for their consideration. But they would act on the application, but they then have your group recommendation as to what you do support. **[34:52] Chair Ann Curts:** Understood, thank you. Does that make it then, if it goes lower, does it make it wider necessarily or does it just make less of that airflow to get that square footage? **[35:16] Tom Schanke:** We've got to play around with it a little bit and see. It's hard. I would say probably just drops down—design element drops down, letters drop down—it doesn't necessarily make it wider right off the bat. I mean, well maybe slightly, but not proportionately let's put it that way. **[35:36] Chair Ann Curts:** Okay. Commissioner Scanland. **[35:37] Commissioner Scanland:** Madam chair, I don't have any issue with the design which we don't really have a say in. There is no concern with there and what you're doing with your new branding and understanding of that. You've mentioned some of your similar signs to that. Do you have any of those examples with you that can bring up at all to help us a little bit? And I think the going back to what was just discussed here... **[36:06] Tom Schanke:** That was in our first presentation. **[36:08] Commissioner Scanland:** Okay. If our concern is if we drop it down to between 16 and 14 feet, is that going to change the need for the 80 feet, or how does that work? **[36:19] Tom Schanke:** We would just like to keep the 80-square-foot sign area. **[36:23] Commissioner Scanland:** Okay. Then what you're saying, and I'm looking at this here, the 80 foot like Alex has explained is the red outline. So basically all you're going to do is drop it down accordingly, whether that's 4 feet or 6 feet, and move on. Preferably stay at at least the 16-foot level. **[37:06] Tom Schanke:** I think that clarifies the concern maybe that we have. We'll do it there. And the width that wouldn't be changing, it was just going to be the height. **[37:16] Chair Ann Curts:** Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Schanke? Okay, thank you. Thanks. Alex, can we have you again? I guess I have a question on motion. So if we make motion on the first one, but on the second motion if there's—if it was a deny, can we hold off on that to decide on the square footage or should we have to go through—do you understand what I'm saying? **[37:46] Tim Benetti (Community Development Director):** Madam chair, it needs to go to council because the clock is ticking. **[37:51] Alex Sharp (Planner):** Yes, but if the commission can provide a recommendation this evening, I think that with the amount of meetings that it has been at, it would be respectful to try to move this along if possible. **[38:13] Chair Ann Curts:** Totally. Just wanted to ask that question, so thank you. Okay, do we have any sort of discussion more or completed and someone want to make a motion? Go ahead. **[38:23] Commissioner Schindler:** Madam chair, I was just going to say that I would be comfortable with keeping the 80 square foot, and I would be okay with 16. That's my opinion. Obviously, I think I'm comfortable with 16. **[38:43] Commissioner Scanland:** I'm also okay with going to the 80-foot, and I guess just looking at since we've discussed 16, 14—compromise, just split the difference and say 15 feet. **[39:09] Chair Ann Curts:** Input, Commissioner Pruitt? **[39:10] Commissioner Pruitt:** Yeah, I mean just basically looking at adjacent properties—and I appreciate that the group and the planning department prepared and provided us with the adjacent cities' zoning sign sizes—I think 80 foot seems a little more consistent in fitting with surrounding communities. Sign height certainly 20 feet seems extreme in my opinion. I would be okay with either 14 or 16 and I would prefer 60 square foot, but it sounds like everybody is okay with the 80. **[39:46] Chair Ann Curts:** Anybody willing to make a motion? Could you bring those up Alex please? I just think keeping it at an even number... don't get dizzy. **[40:12] Commissioner Scanland:** Madam chair, I recommend denial of an amendment to chapter 155 appendix F Article 2 of the Apple Valley city code revising section A 2-5 A6 to allow the installation of a freestanding ground sign with a maximum height of 20 feet and a total signage area not to exceed 80 square feet. **[40:47] Commissioner Schindler:** Second. **[40:48] Chair Ann Curts:** The motion was made by commissioner Scanland and it was seconded by commissioner Schindler. Is there any discussion on this? If not, all those in favor signify by saying Aye. (Aye). Opposed Nay. That motion carries. **[41:00] Commissioner Scanland:** Madam chair, I recommend approval of an amendment to chapter 155 appendix F Article 2 of the Apple Valley city code revising sections a 2-5 a6 to allow the installation of a freestanding ground sign with a maximum height of 14 feet and a total signage area not to exceed 80 square feet. **[41:40] Chair Ann Curts:** Do I hear a second? **[41:41] Commissioner Pruitt:** I'll second that. **[41:42] Chair Ann Curts:** Any discussion? Okay, that was made by commissioner Scanland, the motion, and seconded by commissioner Pruitt. Now any discussion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying Aye. (Aye). Opposed Nay. Motion carries. So this will be brought then to the City Council in January for discussion. Okay, again we appreciate Wings and hopefully this will be okay. Thank you for your time. I guess I have to close the public hearing. How do we do that? Missed that. Is that okay still to do? Just close it? Okay. If there are any further comments, I will close this public hearing. It is the policy of the Planning Commission not to act on an item on the same night of the public hearing. The Planning Commission will weigh all comments and information received tonight in its deliberations at future meetings. This item will continue to appear on future Planning Commission agendas until a recommendation on the petition can be forwarded to the city council. And just to notify that there were nobody present for comments. Okay, that brings us to number five. We have no land use tonight. Number six: other business, and I will ask upon Tim Benetti for that. **[43:35] Tim Benetti (Community Development Director):** Thank you madam chair, members of commission. Just a reminder your next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 3rd at 7:00 PM followed by Wednesday, January 17th, 2024. Again, that's beginning of the New Year. We also have Council on the 28th and January 11th respectively. This item will be on the January 11th agenda—the Wings sign issue from tonight. Just also want to wish each and every one of you a very Merry Christmas, safe travels, happy holidays, and let us know if you need anything from now until the next meeting. But we hope to see you next year. **[44:13] Chair Ann Curts:** Thank you, same to you. **[44:15] Commissioner Schindler:** Move we adjourn. **[44:20] Commissioner Anin:** I'll second that. **[44:21] Chair Ann Curts:** Motion to adjourn was made by commissioner Schindler and seconded by commissioner Anin. Any other further discussions? If not, we approve, say Aye. (Aye). This meeting has been adjourned. **[44:33]** [Music]