[0:43] Chair: Good evening. I call to order the um Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting for November 15th, 2023. First uh order of business, approval of the agenda. Any changes from staff? [0:56] Planning Manager: Mr. Vice Chair, members of the commission, we would uh respectively request that you uh move item 3A on a consent agenda down to item 6B. We'd like to address a just a quick change or give you a couple of options for one of the uh planned meeting dates for 2024 pleases. Other than that, the agenda should stand as as presented. [1:27] Chair: That is noted. Um, any changes by the commission? Could I have a recommendation? [1:40] Commissioner Sandell: Move to approve. [1:43] Commissioner Mold: Second. [1:45] Chair: Moved by Commissioner Sandell and seconded by uh Commissioner Mold. All in favor indicate by saying I. [Commissioners: I, I, I, I]. Abstain? That passes. Um, the next item item is the uh con uh consent agenda item number three. Um, we just noted one change to that and uh the only thing on that this evening is approval of minutes from October 18th, 2023, regular meeting. Can I get a motion, please? [2:18] Commissioner Mandel: Move to approve the minutes of October 18th, 2023, regular meeting. [2:25] Commissioner Mold: Second. [2:26] Chair: Uh, brought forward by uh Commissioner Mandel and um seconded by Mah Commissioner Mold. All in favor indicate by saying I. [Commissioners: I, I, I, I]. Stain? I. Um, that passes. We're going to move on to our next item that's a uh public hearing item number 4A. I have a brief statement before we open that. Um, as I open we will open the public hearing for agenda item 4A. The um Affidavit of Publication for notice of public hearing is available for inspection in the planning department. Everyone wishing to speak to this uh public hearing should uh be sure to fill out the attendance roster with their names and addresses so that accurate records can be maintained. We'll 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 piece presentation, staff will be asked to comment on proposals in um conformance with uh pertinent regulations and policies. After that, comments will be taken from the general public. Please come to the podium, speak, and address all comments and questions to the chair. Kathy Blackmore is presenting. Thank you. [3:53] Kathy Blackmore: Mr. Chair, good evening Mr. Chair, city council or Planning Commission members. Uh, the petitioner of this request actually is the city of Apple Valley and it is a request to amend the ordinance that establishes or regulates um plan development number 703 which is the Cobblestone Lake area. Cobblestone Lake neighborhood is is located on the Southeast corner of the city, uh roughly 300 acres. Uh, the property is all under a single plan development Zone, PD 703, um with several subzones within it for each individual different um unique development. PD 703 was first established November 8th, 2001, which according to my math is 22 years ago. Um, since that time there have been 20 ordinances updating the PD. So um we're just going back, we noticed a a problem with the, there was a like a an overlap um with one of the ordinances. So we need to clean that up and then we've got just some little minor things: typographic errors, old citation, min edit errors, reformatting, and as long as we're in there we'd like to remove sand and gravel as part of the list of um permitted uses. So first of all with the typos, these are just three examples I pulled, um really small, but as long as we were in there we decided um to go ahead and make those corrections. The second was old citations. So um in 2001 we were still using our smaller code book, the Black Book, and um we had a different reference system for our various chapters. Um, anybody reading the code today that would be kind of confusing, it doesn't relate to anything, so just updating that. Uh, one of the things that happened during the many edits and overwrites was that there was an edit error with the introductory paragraph of the code that needs to be corrected, so this would um correct that problem. And um over time the um the setback standard table, um the end of that has several notes and footnotes um and it they've kind of been um kind of haphazardly updated, so we're recommending kind of reformatting and just reorganizing so that'll make that a little more clear. And then lastly, uh Cobblestone Lake is fully developed. Uh, therefore City staff is recommending that we remove sand and gravel and any and all ancillary uses related to that excavation, hauling, mining, stockpiling, asphalt plants—get rid of all of that out of the code um for now, so just kind of updating it and um making it relevant for today. With that, Mr. Chair, staff recommends opening the public hearing, receiving comments, and closing the public hearing. The Planning Commission um policy is to not take action on an item on the night of its public hearing. Um, we have not received any negative feedback at all from the public on this, so we're not expecting um issues. Um, however if if the Planning Commission feels comfortable tonight that um any outstanding issues or questions can be answered, um then staff would be recommending approval of the ordinance. So with that, I can stand for questions if there are any. [8:20] Chair: I have one question Kathy on um page one where it was talking about purpose you're talking about various low, medium, high density. Yes. Um, would it be appropriate to put our our um latest newest Flex density into that mix too for this? [8:37] Kathy Blackmore: The hesitation that I had—well, our attorney is shaking her head no. Um, the hesitation that I would have is that each of the different um criteria was set up for a specific development within that, within Cobblestone, and none were really set up for that Flex. [9:03] Chair: All right, perfect. That answers my question there. Okay and um I think there's like two commercial properties left to be developed yet? [9:12] Kathy Blackmore: I think that's true too and there's still one lot for the single-family homes that hasn't been built on yet. Okay, yeah, but yes, completely developed. [9:21] Chair: Any questions? Um, Mr. Sandell, go ahead. [9:23] Commissioner Sandell: Mr. Chair, Kathy, um minor questions. Um, should there be an Oxford comma after "limited business"? Oxford comma or is limited—this is very controversial, I used to be an English teacher so I'm all about the O. Okay, anyway I'm just throwing that out there. Um, I we could certainly make that change if it's clear. I would defer to the attorney. [9:58] City Attorney: Mr. Chair, have mercy on you. Yes, there should be a comma. [10:04] Commissioner Sandell: Thank thank you. Um, I don't know what our style format is, but yes. Okay. Um, and my second question is just what does it mean to to have it reserved? [10:08] Kathy Blackmore: Um, that just means there are no rules established for that particular Zone, but we might come back and update it. [10:18] Commissioner Sandell: Perfect. Just curious. [10:24] Chair: Yeah, was there anything from staff? Okay. Um, is there anybody from the uh public that wishes to speak to this? Okay, if there are no more questions from anyone, I'm going to close the public hearing. If there's no further comments I will close the public hearing for item 4A. It is the uh policy of the Planning Commission not to act on an item on the same night as the public hearing. The Planning Commission will weigh all comments, information relative to tonight in its deliberation at further meetings. This item will continue to appear on further Planning Commission agendas until recommendations on the petition can be forwarded to the City Council. With that said, we do have the option to move forward and vote on this tonight, so it's what is the pleasure of the commission? [11:24] Commissioner Mold: I would make a motion to recommend approval of the draft ordinance amending public uh PD 703 Cobblestone Lake. [11:34] Commissioner Schindler: Second. [11:36] Chair: That was uh forwarded by Commissioner Mold and uh seconded by Commissioner Schindler. All in favor indicate by saying I. [Commissioners: I, I, I, I]. That passes and that can move forward for you. So thank you, Kathy. The next item of business this evening is land use action items. The first is item 5A, the Wings Credit Union sign height and area variance, and Alex Sharp is going to be presenting. [12:20] Alex Sharp: Thank you, Chair. As noted this is a sign height and area variance. Uh, Planning Commission reviewed this item on October 18th where staff introduced the sign height variance. Upon additional review, which uh does happen to occur in between when we do two Planning Commission items, staff did find that an additional variance for the sign area would be required for this request. So the original variance was for a 12ft variance to sign height, where the maximum sign height is 8 feet and the applicant sought a 20ft tall sign at 14985 Glazer. The second is for a 20 foot square foot variance to the maximum area allowed for a sign, uh where 60ft is permitted and 80 square ft is sought. As noted on the prior slide, this is at 14985 Glazer Avenue. This is the Wings Credit Union uh headquarters. The actual location of the sign is noted in that northeast corner. The site is zoned Plan Development 290, however uh in PD 290 it refers back to the limited business sign code for all of its regulations, which is where the variance then refers to as well. This is a picture of the existing sign and the applicant has updated uh some of the graphics, but none of their sign size changed or anything along those lines. It was just a uh better graphic that they felt better represented the sign and what they seek it to look like in this area. Uh, as part of the 147th roadway realignment, they did also note that trees are going to be cleared around the site. Some of that would be needed due to the roadway alignment, some of it needs to occur for the sign installation. The applicant has submitted this updated site plan. This is an updated site plan that was done actually by the City in conjunction with the applicant. It was—what the site plan determines is that additional right-of-way along 147th will be needed, and it sought to find a location that was code-compliant for the uh proposed sign. This was developed uh with the applicant and should be a uh location that works for both parties based upon the realignment of the roadway when that does occur. Just as a reminder, the application before the Planning Commission this evening is for sign height and sign size, not related to a setback. So that is why what is being shown here is just that 13 foot required. The provisions for a variance, I will go through them very very briefly, um kind of in summary format. You do have a larger expanded version up before you on the screen and as part of your packet. Essentially, special conditions which need to exist which are particular to the land. The special conditions need to not be the result of the applicant. A literal interpretation of the code needs to deny the applicant rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the district. The granting the variance would not confer any special privilege on the applicant, and the proposed uh variance will not have an adverse effect in appearance on adjacent properties. Number two, as I noted at the last meeting, is not uh applicable to this situation in this case. Staff has recommended findings; an expanded version of these is within your report. Uh, they go into fairly great detail uh due to the nature of staff recommending a denial of the variance. Up on the screen, I do have a very summarized version that I will go through and we can refer back to if you have questions. So staff's recommended findings are that there are uh not special conditions that relate to the sign height and size of the sign. The applicant has not presented those special conditions or any special conditions that would require additional size and height of a sign. The literal interpretation does not deprive them of anything commonly enjoyed by other properties within the district. There are no signs of this size within that district, there are no signs uh of this height within the district. The granting of the variance would confer a special privilege. Additional sign height and size are certainly an advantage in terms of signage. Um, the type of uses that this district specializes in is office and professional office, and oddly Fit Academy as well, and that is a uh that style of sign works for all of those businesses within the area. The proposed sign height uh and this one is a little bit more subjective in nature just by the nature of the type of provision and code, but that it may have an adverse effect on neighboring properties not due to its aesthetics, but due to the fact that it is so much larger and therefore would confer that advantage. When staff brought this forward at the last Planning Commission, uh we were seeking guidance on which way to go with this. I wasn't sure which way uh the Planning Commission was feeling at that meeting and therefore what I've done is bring forward four different potential actions this evening. Two in the recommendation of denial, if staff's recommendation is supported, though recognizing that uh the Planning Commission may see special conditions and all of the provisions did include draft recommendations if you did want to make them in the approval. One note to the items that I do have underlined in both of these is that the Planning Commission should state their findings. I've provided draft ones for the denial uh because I couldn't come up with them on both ends—didn't provide them on the approval—and the commission would need to provide some draft findings so that I could bring that forward to City Council. With that, the applicant is present this evening as well and could answer any questions if you want to go back. I failed to mention I do have all the slides from the prior presentation as well with all the signs from the district, so if you want to see any of those or if that would help in your discussion, just let me know. [19:07] Chair: Commissioners, do you have any questions for Alex? Does the petitioner like to come up? Absolutely. [19:12] Tom Shanki: Good evening. Uh, Tom Shanki, Wings Financial Credit Union, Vice President of Facilities and Administration. The last time we met, a month or so ago, uh I think we had some nice slides and thank you Alex for offering those up, but our what our goal is right here is to make prominent our building and our campus on that site. I think I talked a little bit about the job market and being an attractive sort of a landmark location for the uh uh possible employees. Uh, we've uh gotten some more information since, and I have gotten some more information since and in this year so far today, we've hired 250 people to work at Apple Valley. Now that doesn't mean all 250 have stayed because there's been a very high rate of turnover, people coming in, going out um and that's not I don't think a function of Wings. Wings is a very highly rated organization, but it's just the kind of the exemplary of the of the churn of employees that we get. Being prominent, having some a a good visible look at that intersection would be very helpful for us relative to hiring. Um, it certainly doesn't doesn't hurt the Credit Union relative to uh you know being visible, and yes, I think everything Alex mentioned relative to the ordinance and and way it is written uh for that particular land use is correct. Uh, I wouldn't argue against City staff's findings at all, however what I would argue against is that particular land use ordinance. The way it's written really kind of puts us at a disadvantage compared to a lot of the retail locations around there. If you remember the slide deck we had, there was probably—I can stand at that spot in that corner, I can see eight signs of 20ft tall or 80 square feet or bigger. And I saw—I guess I don't really see, I don't think maybe that that 290 whatever A or whatever it is, um maybe needs to be either updated or relooked at. So I mean, really that's about the only thing I can bring forward. It's a sign that we'd like to have and uh keep bringing people into Apple Valley. [21:26] Chair: Commissioners, do you have any questions? [21:27] Commissioner Schindler: Mr. Chair, and uh yeah I um I don't really have a question. I just um I understand where you're coming from. We we have to go with what the ordinance currently is, you know? So I don't I don't think that we are able to make a change to the—I know we can't make an change to the ordinance or anything. So the fact that it's not the finding—I agree with the staff findings as well and so I have a hard time overcoming that to approve a sign. [22:04] Tom Shanki: I understand what you're saying, yeah, and I think that's why we're here for the variance to the ordinance. [22:09] Commissioner Mold: Another not a question either, but just an observation. I I do think that uh when you look at the current monument, it it is uh dwarfed by the by the building behind it. Um, and and that's that's the difficulty. I I also I get the nature and the character of the signage in plan development 290 and you drive around and it is consistent with that, but the the campus there at Wings Financial is—it's an impressive campus and and that particular sign, the current monument, um doesn't really reflect that. You do have the rooftop signage but you know as as I just drove down uh uh East on 147th Street uh this evening, you know it's it's really dark back there. You get past through the retail and I get it, it's a different district on the on the west side of Cedar on 147th and then the the frontage there along Cedar as you continue East. But uh I don't know, I I I agree that the the the conditions for a variance make it difficult um um to approve, um even though I think it could be a really nice uh benefit um to the site and to the community. I think our hands are somewhat tied by the conditions um in the ordinance to to grant a variance, um so it's a tough tough call for me on that. But um because I do think that that would add something to sort of again um like you say, add some prominence to the building and to the business and have a sign that is suitable for the the campus that it promotes. Um, so that's that's a tough call for me. [23:48] Tom Shanki: Sure. I might add too, part of this is in 2016 we purchased uh Commons 2. Um, the building is in significant state of—it was it was really bad and we ended up gutting that building down to the beams basically. We've gone through Commons 2 and of about 65,000 square feet, we've turned it into a showcase. Um, we have a fully functioning fitness center in there, we have a full Commons area for our staff, fireplaces and pool tables, all sorts of things. The all of the office spaces have been remodeled since uh 2017 uh and they're all state-of-the-art. We started working after we finished Commons 2, we started working on uh 14985 Glazer. We have 125,000 square ft of space in that building. Uh, other than the fifth floor, which um City Attorney will be painfully aware of, um we have not done any remodels to that area just yet, but we started there this year. Uh, but we've remodeled every other floor. Our branch is currently under remodel. We'll be having a grand opening for our brand new branch uh coming in December. And the sign really that we're proposing really fits what's inside the building. I know we haven't changed the exterior of the building, but the inside is completely different. Um, I think City staff would echo that, they were just on a recent on a tour. So we're trying to really boost our image. Um, with grayscale buildings sometimes they put forward a image of that's maybe not as popular to today's workforce and we want to give them that image. We want to promote that this is a new and this is a vibrant organization, and that's where we're at. Thank you. [26:15] Chair: Thank you. Do any of the Commissioners that haven't commented yet um like do so or would you rather wait till after vote? [26:22] Commissioner Perwood: I'll just go ahead Mr. Chair. Um, I I think I feel very similar to everyone else up here. Um, I don't I don't find that it meets the the requirements for uh to to grant the variance. Um, and so as as it as it is right now, that's just kind of the way it is. Um, I'm sure you've looked looked at what a sign would look like if it was if it met the requirements, and uh I wasn't at the the first meeting that we had of this so I didn't get to see those slides, but uh I don't know if you had that an option that met the requirements or— [27:24] Tom Shanki: We've looked at other options, yes. So I mean I I guess that's just where I am at. Thank you. [27:32] Commissioner Schindler: If I if I just—we have looked at other options. The one of the the biggest uh uh issues is the yeah the 8 foot maximum height. Um, we would—I mean 8 foot is really not going to get us where we want to be. Um, so anything that we would put forward to the commission is going to be falling into eight over eight feet. You know 12 foot really as a minimum would probably be what we would be looking for. I mean that scales that probably takes us out of the 80 square foot size and puts us within 60, um but we're still going to be 12 feet and you're still going to be running against the same things that you're running against right now with the the criteria. I don't know what the path forward is if it if it if there's a way to modify the 290. [28:28] Alex Sharp: Chair, perhaps I can add some clarity. So the way that staff was made aware of this sign proposal was a variance application coming in. Worked with the applicant, uh wanted to propose things, see where the commission was at. Um, depending upon where the commission was at, we even uh tried to see whether maybe a sketch plan might be helpful. We've kind of used this as kind of a sketch plan. So this wouldn't be a modification to PD 290, um or there wouldn't be a modification to PD 290 but perhaps staff can work with the applicant on evaluating whether a sign ordinance would be appropriate. What I'm hearing from the commission is that perhaps that may be something the commission wants to look at. That can take a little bit of additional time because that's limited business, so it affects a significantly larger number of properties. But that is something staff could bring forward or work with the applicant on to actually amend the requirements within the limited business district to allow additional signs. At this time, the commission's acting on a variance application just as staff was when we receive that application coming in. That becomes a legal application that we have to process that application. Um, now that we're at this point, we've got that little bit of feedback, perhaps we can look at options for a different path. I'd defer to the City Attorney if I've expressed that correctly because I don't want to go out of line. [29:56] Chair: No, that helps out a lot I think Alex, to to give us a little better vision to go forward. Because we're, you know, we always I think pride ourselves in trying to um find ways to make things happen and uh find a that middle ground. And then we're also this circumstance, it's pretty black and white where we're sitting. So um that I think that—have a clear understanding. We need to close out this and then move then look uh look at what's the next stage from your perspective to to allow to work with the applicant. [30:26] Alex Sharp: The action the evening that the Planning Commission would be acting on is this application. Outside of that, staff will contact and work with the applicant. We are always wanting to do that, it's just legal applications have a set path that we must take. [30:42] Chair: That's correct. So okay thank you, Alex. [30:52] Commissioner Perwood: Yeah uh thank you um Chair. I just wanted to expand on the fact that it is a variance and reading through the five conditions that would allow for granting a variance—and I appreciate the description that's in the uh packet that was shared with the the Commissioners—um that none of those are achieved really. I fully understand the desire um and want to support uh you know the the growth and the development of Wings in the facility there, but um just purely looking at it on a standpoint of the variance request and the five criteria and uh you know it's going to be challenging for me to to approve. [31:34] Chair: Okay, I thank you. I would echo what has already been said so I'm not going to go through and repeat that. Um, just looking from a business perspective I I understand exactly what you're trying to do. You have your branding that you're trying to bring. Uh, the sign would—especially with uh uh traffic coming from uh the north—is giving that visibility on uh Cedar Avenue there and what you're trying to accomplish. And um and um I think by everything that I've heard here this evening, the this route in terms of a variance is probably not the avenue for moving forward on that, but we um but the with Alex's expl uh explanation that um there is an avenue to look at and how to um bring about some uh um common ground between what you'd like and what the city is uh looking at wanting to do also. So appreciate that. With that said, yep with that said uh we have two ways of going tonight. There's uh either to deny—there's a recommendation or for approval. So what is the pleasure of the commission? I do you want someone to just give a motion? Yep, please. [32:41] Commissioner Schindler: Mr. Chair, I move we recommend denial of a variance to allow a 20 foot sign tall sign where 8 foot is the maximum height permitted. [33:04] Chair: Okay, did I have a second? Uh, brought forward by Commissioner Schindler and uh seconded by Commissioner Sandell. Um, all in uh favor of a denial uh indicate by saying I. [Commissioners: I, I, I, I]. And nay for this? Okay. [33:15] Commissioner Schindler: Mr. Chair, I move we recommend denial of a variance to allow 80 square foot sign where 60 square foot is the maximum size permitted. [33:28] Chair: Second? Recommended by Commissioner Schindler and seconded by Commissioner Sandell. All in favor indicate by saying I for— [Commissioners: I, I, I, I]. [33:48] Alex Sharp: Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, yes. So with the motion, the commission does need to state on the record the reasons for denial. You had a discussion but you now have a motion action, you need to state the reasons for the denial. [34:01] Chair: Thank you. Do we have to do so expressly or can we refer to the draft findings in the staff report or read it just so it's on the record? [34:11] City Attorney: Yeah, okay, thank you. If the member that made the motion, she could certainly—or no Mr. Schindler did. Um, he could state it and as a each person can concur. [34:25] Chair: Okay, thank you. [34:32] Commissioner Schindler: All right, uh the findings. Um, uh the requirements that must be met: A, special conditions exist which are particular to the land, structure, building involved and which are not applicable to other land, structures, and buildings of the same district. Um, it does not meet that in my opinion. All right, there are no special conditions which have a nexus to the sign height or size. The proposed alteration of 147th Street West by the city provide for better site visibility due to the removal of the berm, improve site access and sign visibility. 147th Street West will remain a 30 mph roadway and driver's ability to view the sign may be diminished by the increased height rather than improved. B, the special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. There are no special provisions that have a nexus to sign height or size. C, a literal interpretation of the provisions of these regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district and the terms of these signing regulations. There are no signs of this size or height within the PD 290 Zone 3 area. This area is intended for professional offices and underlying zoning and limited business which allows for monument style signs at the maximum height of 8 feet tall and 60 square feet. All other signs within this subdistrict appear to meet those requirements. And D, the granting the grant the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege for the use not common to other land, structures, or buildings in the same district, and the granting of this variance would confer an advantage to the applicant over all other properties in the PD 290 subzone 3 area. The intent of the underlying limited business sign ordinance is to allow smaller monument signs due to the high visibility of the multi-story office buildings. Allowing additional sign fine height and area would also convey advantage over neighboring properties and other subzones as the LB Zone allows for larger wall signage than other zones and is typically more visible from a greater distance due to the height of the buildings. And E, the proposed use of the property shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent properties and there will be no deterrent to development of vacant land. Um, the proposed sign could be interpreted as an advantage to the applicant which would have an adverse effect upon adjacent properties. The improvement from the existing sign to a new or more modern design may be seen as beneficial. The additional size and height could also be interpreted as a negative effect due to it being out of character with the surrounding district. [37:51] Chair: Thank you Commissioner Schindler. Uh, Commissioner um Sandell, your comments? [37:54] Commissioner Sandell: I concur. [37:56] Chair: Concur. Commissioner Mold? [38:00] Commissioner Mold: I concur, with just one comment with respect to uh the subparagraph D. Um, you know it's it is one of those things where there is the larger signage kind of on the on the top level, but that doesn't really help at street level kind of given the the size of of the buildings and the size of the campus. I'm not sure that that—so I just I concur overall but that's just one comment with respect to subparagraph D. [38:20] Chair: Okay. Commissioner um Perwood? [38:23] Commissioner Perwood: Yeah, I concur uh with the reasons for denial of the request stated. [38:39] Chair: Okay, thank you each of the Commissioners. And um I would echo that again in in the fact that um I concur with um what the findings were. So thank you. We will move on to item 5B, that is sign ordinance amendment, and that is also Alex Sharp. [39:20] Alex Sharp: Sorry, so it's going to be a sign evening this evening. So this evening we are bringing forward uh as I was—I don't want to say corrected, but I was told this is not necessarily a correction of errors, but there are some pieces where we can make code perhaps a little bit better in the sign ordinance, uh similar to some of the recommendations the Planning Commission just provided as well. Uh, so sign ordinance is not actually required to go before Planning Commission, however uh staff has always brought sign ordinance amendments when they were substantive before the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. There are three different issues uh that we were trying to identify as part of the sign ordinance amendment. I'm going to go through the issues first, uh identify the existing code, and then uh state basically an intent while the actual draft language is drafted by the City Attorney and we go back and forth on where things need to be at so we can land on what the ordinance that we're seeking is. What we're sharing and seeking the recommendation from the Planning Commission on this evening is the intent of where we're trying to get. The first is on multi-story buildings, uh and that applies to buildings like Wings where in all zoning districts, no signs attached to the building—temporary, permanent—shall be permitted above the first floor except for the following, and it's on the buildings of four stories or more. Where this comes into to being problematic is that there are a number of buildings within the city of Apple Valley that are two and three stories, and at this time there is no way for staff to approve a sign on a third story. It must be on the first floor. Uh, you'll see examples of this, they do happen, they were from times past, but this is uh where staff has identified this issue and wants to bring forward a code amendment to make this so that we don't have to make interpretations. The intent of the proposed ordinance will be on multi-story buildings to allow signage should be on the uppermost story of the building and then prohibit signage from being placed on say floors two and three or three and four. Even if you were a tenant on floor three, we would seek for a common sign band on that top floor, uppermost story of the building. Secondarily to that, uh finding a way to allow some pedestrian level signage for particularly buildings with multiple entrances so that, you know, I'm supposed to enter this side of the building or this side of the building for this multi-tenant type building, because oftentimes there are more than one entrance or you wish to be able to direct a primary entrance for a specific user. The second piece kind of relates to that and it gets into directional signage and our number and maximum of it. However, there is also the concern that has been expressed. So first let's go over the text and right now our current code allows you to have directional signage at a maximum of two square feet and a maximum number of four per site. Then additionally um—not on this section though, I apologies got ahead of myself—uh the directional sign, what we're seeking to do or what we've heard from our recent uh developments is that this can be very very difficult for our larger industrial users in particular, uh but even users such as Menards where they're seeking to direct customers. These signs are not intended to be seen off the site. They are um in an area that they can't be seen from offsite and they're trying to direct truck traffic deliveries or people to the correct locations. And particularly in the larger truck traffic sites, when they're in these larger trucks they cannot see a sign at 2 square feet—it's too small for them is what they has been reported. So the intent from the change would be to go from 2 to 6 square feet. I did survey a number of different cities—somewhere between two and 10 square feet with us being the smallest at two. Um, that feedback coming back was that from multiple sign contractors as well that I s—what if you were writing code, what would you want? And they're always going to go bigger is better. Many of them said the minimum size would be eight, several said 10. I think because we are making a change from 2 to 8, let's see what this looks like if this starts working for our applicants then we've got something that works, um and we didn't exceed by huge amount. So it's attempting to work with our businesses and move uh things forward without going to the maximum size that I saw which was 12. There's also a provision that we are looking to add that for those signs that are not at all visible from offsite or so far distant that they're not intended to be visible from an offsite, we need to work on some of that language and see if there's a way that we can not limit that total number of signs. When you're at four and you have a large acre parcel, 20 acres, 15 acres parcel, and you're trying to navigate for trucks, you're going to have a lot of those interior signs. Uh, the example right now being Freeway that has most recently come forward with that, their entire interior lot is screened, you cannot see into it, and they have sought to place a large number of signs to direct their drivers. Most of the signs cannot even be seen from offsite. There's no way physically possible; some you can start seeing at different angles as you're approaching from higher vantage points and that is where we're trying to get at that intended. Uh, the actual language needs to be crafted very carefully so we do know that that is—is it going to be a challenging part of this—but we are going to move in that correct direction of trying to make it where we aren't limiting signs that are not intended for the advertising purposes of the business and more for the safety of their drivers and users. And then the final piece where I didn't actually fully get ahead of myself is that our directional signage right now has a uh provision in it that requires uh the sign to bear not advertising, and unfortunately that is not meeting the content neutrality findings that fell down from a Supreme Court case from a number of years ago. So while we're in making changes to this, we should make changes that bring us in alignment with a Supreme Court case. The final one, I was wondering if any of you were ever going to catch me on in the last two variances as we brought forward, I copied directly from code and unfortunately it states that you must meet provisions either A or B and then immediately goes into one and two. So staff uh is proposing and at the City Attorney's behest that we switch that to a one and two rather than an A and B. With that, I'd open it up for any questions. We are more than willing to take any suggestions or other recommendations, but this was kind of seen as a—we can bring this forward, show uh we've got multiple applicants including our HealthPartners new HealthPartners facility at that multistory, and that kicked off a couple of other changes. [46:16] Chair: Looks like Alex that the timing of this is very pertinent and um I just drove by the Freeway um site today and um coming in the backside there that um um there's there's a lot of trucks going to be moving around in on that site and um where they would meet that extra and like you said it's the way it's screened, it's very little of the the internal part of the site where the truck traffic is is visible by the public. So and um I think the area that we're looking at starting with is appropriate, you're talking 8 feet 8 square feet for directional signage? [47:01] Alex Sharp: Directional signage uh and that pedestrian level signage that I don't know that we have a direct term for yet for that first floor of the building that's meant to direct the people and once they're on the site to visit that multistory building so that they know which entrance to use. That's where we're kind of starting with is at 8 foot. That seems to be a good middle ground based upon the six seven codes I took a look at. [47:28] Chair: Yeah yeah. Commissioner Schindler? [47:50] Commissioner Schindler: I'm I'm comfortable with everything in here. So I think it gives a—a some of it's good because it actually makes sense now and then otherwise I I think two feet is probably pretty small. [47:59] Chair: Anybody else have comments for Alex? Looks like you're going in the right direction, Alex. [48:07] Alex Sharp: Excellent, yep, thank you. [48:09] Chair: Do you have—do we want a recommended action? I would assume, yep. [48:12] Commissioner Schindler: Excuse me Mr. Chair, I move we recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the sign ordinance subject to preparation of the draft ordinance amended by the City Attorney. [48:26] Commissioner Sandell: Second. [48:28] Chair: Um, that was brought forward by um Commissioner Schindler and seconded by Commissioner Sandell. All in favor um vote by saying I. [Commissioners: I, I, I, I]. Uh, n—that passes, moves forward. The next item is item uh 6A, other business, um where we have two items: review of the upcoming schedule and then looking at our new schedule for 2024. [48:59] Planning Manager: Thank you, Mr. Chair, uh members of the commission. Uh, before you tonight uh there's a memo on your packet that that indicates the next upcoming meeting for December 6th, same time. We also have that meeting of Wednesday, December 20th. I know that's getting into the latter part of December, the holiday season. My experience is uh along in the tooth planner uh we typically get some commission members uh that would like to take off early or are traveling. So if if we decide we're going to either hold or not hold that meeting, we'll we'll notify you as soon as possible, give you enough time to be flexible with your own uh personal schedules. But if if you're not able to attend that meeting, please by all means let Brianna or myself know or any of our staff members know. And we just want to make sure if we do host a meeting that that week of the 20th that we at least have a quorum. Our Council meetings are again notified or noticed as just November 21st and followed by December 14th. Okay and um then the next item is item 6B. Thank you. So if you look on your memo packet number 3A, uh about middle page, we have two meetings in June at June 5th of 2024 and one for June 19th, 2024. You may have been notified that that June 19th is actually Juneteenth national holiday, which we also recognize as a city day off holiday as well. So we would prefer uh we we'd like to keep those two meetings in that June because those do get a little busy around the summer months. So we would offer, would you prefer a Tuesday June 18th or a Thursday June 20th? [50:46] Commissioners: Um personally I'm flexible. Either direction. But no no preference. No preference. No preference. No preference. [50:52] Chair: I think you have a very flexible commission. [50:56] Planning Manager: Staff would prefer the 18th because then we can get you guys out of the way we can and we can get out and party afterwards and not worry about work the next day. How about that? [51:11] Chair: Very well, all right. 18th, so we're going to do Tuesday 6/18. If that's okay? Sure, you don't want the day to recover? No, we always need—thank you. And that's it for staff. [51:24] Chair: All right, thank you. [51:25] Commissioner Schindler: Move we adjourn. [51:28] Commissioner Sandell: Second. [51:29] Chair: Brought forward by Commissioner Schindler and seconded by Commissioner Sandell. All in favor of closing the meeting, vote by saying I. [Commissioners: I, I, I, I]. So moved.