This transcript is from the Lakeville Planning Commission meeting on January 23, 2025. Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the transcript, I have identified the speakers, including city staff, commission members, and applicants. **Note:** While the prompt provided City Council names, this is a Planning Commission meeting. I have identified the Planning Commission members (Chair, Commissioners Swinson, Zimmer, Zuzek, etc.) and staff members (Tina Goodroad, Heather Boton, and Matthew Oki) from the dialogue. *** [0:03] [Music] [0:20] [Music] [0:54] **Chair:** I call to order the January 23rd 2025 Planning Commission meeting please join me in the flag pledge. [1:20] **Chair:** Miss Goodroad will you please do a roll call of members? **Tina Goodroad:** Zuzek? (Aye) Tinsley? (I) Kza? (Aye) Morovich? (Here) Zimmer? (Here) Swinson? (Here). **Chair:** Agenda item number three approval of minutes January 9th 2025 Planning Commission minutes any [Music] changes? All right and those will be approved. Agenda item number four Miss Boton, any announcements? [2:05] **Heather Boton:** Yes thank you. I do not have any handouts for this evening. As for announcements, just wanted to let you know that the Parks Recreation and Natural Resources committee did not have a quorum last night so they did not have their meeting and were not able to review and provide you a vote on the Antler Ridge second edition preliminary plat. But just as for information, because it's a revised preliminary plat they did see the initial review of that on July 5th of 2023 so it was not a new project for them. And then if these items aren't tabled, they will move forward to the February 2nd city council meeting. [2:50] **Chair:** All right thank you. All right and all three next agenda items are public hearings so anyone wishing to speak on any one of the agenda items please make sure you print your name and address on the appropriate agenda item in the back of the room. Item number five, Antlers Ridge Second Edition. This is a public hearing to consider the application of Tamarack Land Lake Marion Commons LLC for the preliminary plat for 26 twin home lots to be known as Antlers Ridge Second Edition and a conditional use permit for a Shoreland impact plan within the Shoreland overlay district of Lake Marion located east of Kendrick Avenue and west of Kenfield Trail. And we have—so sorry—Mr. Herman to give a brief overview of the project here. [3:37] **Nate Herman:** Members of the commission, thank you very much for your time not only in review of the application but also in your time tonight and the consideration of our application. My name is Nate Herman, I am the civil engineer for the project. I'm also the developer's representative here tonight so I can certainly stand by to answer any questions. I know we were here, I don't know it was maybe not quite a year ago or maybe it was about a year ago, that we were here for the first round and we did go through with phase one. So phase one is constructed and, you know, building permits are able to be pulled. Lennar Home Building is the builder for the development. [4:22] **Nate Herman:** And we do have a slight change that we're coming back through the public hearing process with our second addition. In summary, the developer was able to have conversations with the neighbor at the towing company and there was some interest that potentially they could find a new parcel and we could add this to the development. They weren't able to find anything at the time but we wanted to look at not only our own plat but what would happen with that. So we really wanted to bring the best practice, our best use, for both parcels and just to give one contiguous development that would work well together. That's what we did and that's why our application is open today. I’m happy to answer any questions or let you begin your public hearing process. **Chair:** Thank you. Yeah, questions at the moment? We'll have staff present and then— **Nate Herman:** Okay, perfect. [5:39] **Heather Boton:** Good evening Chair, commission members. I'm Heather Boton, the Senior Planner with the City of Lakeville. The request in front of you tonight is for property that is located north of Kenfield Trail and east of Kenrick Avenue. The property to the south is Terra Garden Center and to the north you're going to see the lot that was dedicated to the city for a wetland with the first phase of Antlers Ridge and then north of that is Ideal Rental. To the east of the site is Antlers Ridge First Edition. The property is zoned RST-2 which is the single and two-family residential district and it is guided medium and high-density residential. [6:25] **Heather Boton:** The preliminary plat tonight is for 26 twin home lots. There's two common lots and two outlots. Then there's also the conditional use permit for the Shoreland impact plan. You may have noticed some information in your packet that talked about a drainage and utility easement vacation. I want to just make sure that you're aware that that's going to be happening, but the public hearing for that vacation is actually going to happen at the city council meeting on February 3rd, so you do not have to take formal action on that tonight. The plat of Antlers Ridge Second though does have all the required perimeter easement that's required by the city so we're just kind of vacating what was approved with the first edition and rededicating on the plat for the second edition. [7:10] **Heather Boton:** So what you see in front of you here is the grading plan and landscaping plan. The site was mass graded with the preliminary plat approval of the first edition. Access to the property right now will be from 203rd Street and Kenfield Trail. In the future once the Merrick Towing property is ready to sell and subdivide, you can see in the upper left-hand corner that there is a ghost plat there so the 23rd Street would continue over to Kenrick Avenue. Landscaping is a continuation of what was approved with the first edition. Any landscaping that is installed off-site will require written permission from the property owners to install any kind of landscaping that's off this property. [7:56] **Heather Boton:** The conditional use permit is for the Shoreland impact plan. What is proposed is consistent with the goals and policies of the city's comprehensive plan and it conforms with all of our performance standards of the city code. The way that boundary is defined is you can kind of see in the circle area here that this blue outline is a buffer from 1,000 feet of the ordinary high watermark from Lake Marion. So anything within that area—you can see the subject property is outlined in yellow here—is within that Shoreland overlay district which then triggers the need for the Shoreland impact plan. Any areas within the Shoreland overlay are required to have a maximum 25% impervious surface for the development. The proposal is at like a little over 23% for the entire site so they are in compliance with that requirement. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat and conditional use permit that is in front of you with the nine conditions that's listed in the staff report and the findings of fact that's listed in your packet. **Chair:** So any questions for staff? We'll open the public hearing. All right thank you. Anyone wishing to speak on this agenda item can please come forward. [9:18] **Commissioner Swinson:** Madam Chair? Yes, seeing no one come forward, I move to close the public hearing. **Commissioner Zimmer:** Second. **Chair:** A motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor please signify by saying aye. **Commissioners:** Aye. **Chair:** All opposed? All right the public hearing is now closed. Fellow Commissioners, any questions? [10:03] **Commissioner Swinson:** Question Madam Chair. I did just have one question as I'm looking at this, recognizing there's been discussion with the neighbor about future potential to redevelop this. In the way this is all laying out, as I was looking at the setup with the proposed townhome units and the landscaping kind of in between, what exists today? Is there any firm understanding where Merrick is at and potentially relocating timing, anything like that? Just kind of thinking through if there should be any potential screening kind of between the business and these townhouses in the interim. [10:49] **Nate Herman:** Yeah, personally I haven't had any conversations with Merrick. Dale Willenbring, representing or owner of Tamarack, he's had the conversations. I can't speak exactly for the conversations he had recently but last I heard, they were interested, but I don't know to be completely honest. **Commissioner Swinson:** That's fair. I'm not in a spot where I feel like I want the Planning Commission to have to require a change here with the screening, but I just ask to potentially consider it and work with staff on potentially maybe thinking about whether some screening is appropriate in that location as we move forward. **Nate Herman:** Sure. **Commissioner Swinson:** I will state otherwise I like the replat of this. It kind of gets rid of that road connection to Kenrick that was kind of a cause of some consternation once when this originally came through with all the driveways and the road and everything all being in a pretty tight fit there. I think this is an appropriate solution for the future, and this development has multiple access points to get in and out of it regardless of whether that connection is there. Those all seem appropriate but again I just kind of ask maybe some consideration be given to some screening between those townhome units on that lot A, lot B location as this moves forward. **Nate Herman:** Very good, thank you. **Chair:** Yeah, any other comments or questions? **Commissioner:** Madam Chair, yes I would be supportive of that too. I, like Commissioner Swenson, wouldn't want to impose this as an additional condition but would like to see that and hope that you work with City staff going forward. **Nate Herman:** Okay. [12:20] **Chair:** All right if there's no other comments looks like we might be ready. **Commissioner Zimmer:** I have one other question. Could somebody comment on whether it be the engineer or staff on the water drainage where it goes? It's kind of all downhill toward Marion. Touch base on that. **Nate Herman:** So basically we've got water runoff coming from the south properties down Stone Brook and there's a city pond that outlets through the property. The way the site's been designed and graded, we primarily focused in one large pond and everything on our site except for a couple backyards routes through that pond. We mimic existing conditions and certainly pass and meet all the stormwater requirements for quality, volume or abstraction, and rate control. **Commissioner Zimmer:** Okay thank you. [13:18] **Commissioner Swinson:** Are we ready for a motion? Madam Chair I'd make a motion to recommend approval of Antlers Ridge Second Edition preliminary plat and conditional use permit subject to the nine stipulations listed in the January 16 2025 planning report and adoption of the findings of fact. **Commissioner Zimmer:** Second. **Chair:** All right I have a motion and a second. Will you please take a roll call vote? **Tina Goodroad:** Zuzek? (Aye) Tinsley? (Aye) Kza? (Aye) Morovich? (Aye) Zimmer? (Aye) Swinson? (Aye). [14:05] **Chair:** All right and Miss Boton, when will this go in front of City Council? **Heather Boton:** February 3rd. **Chair:** All right well thank you Mr. Herman and best luck on the second edition of your project. Agenda item number six, this is Air Lake DEA. This is a public hearing to consider the application of Hatrick Investments LLC and Dakota Electric Association for a preliminary and final plat for a two outlot subdivision to be known as Air Lake DEA located east of Cedar Avenue and north of 222nd Street. And here to give an overview of the project is Brian Waldman. [14:43] **Brian Waldman:** Good evening Chair, members of the commission. My name is Brian Waldman. I'm with Kimley-Horn. I'm the engineer representing both the seller or the developer in the area, current owner Hatrick Investments, as well as Dakota Electric who's the future buyer of one of the outlots that's platted as part of this project. So this plat is a continued development or expansion of what would be the Air Lake Industrial area Launch Park which is immediately west. As part of this plat we'd be extending 222nd Street to land which was, I believe, annexed into the city about two years ago and we went through an EA process with Hatrick Investments at that time. So this plat, 222nd Street would be extended creating two outlots, Outlot A on the north and then Outlot B on the south, which Dakota Electric would be a future developer and buyer. [15:31] **Jeff Shener:** Good evening Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Jeff Shener and I'm representing Dakota Electric Association. Our intentions are to develop the lot on the south, Outlot B. We're very excited about that possibility. We've been in our current site for almost 50 years, we've outgrown it, and we're excited about building a new headquarters. So our intention is to fully develop this site and build a new headquarters upon our board's approval. Thank you. [16:15] **Heather Boton:** Thank you. All right so as I mentioned, this property is located north of 225th Street which is a gravel road that is served and maintained by Eureka Township. It's located east of Cedar and then Farmington is to the north of the site and then Township property to the east as well. This property was annexed into the city in 2021. So, the property at that time then was zoned to I-2 which is our general industrial district and it is guided Industrial in our comprehensive plan. Tonight what's in front of you is kind of step one of this process so it's just a preliminary plat for two outlots for the subdivision to be known as Air Lake DEA. [17:01] **Heather Boton:** The total site is about 115 acres. Outlot A on the north side is about 31.39 acres and Outlot B on the south side is about 83.56 acres. They do meet any kind of lot size and width requirements for an industrial development. Sewer and water utilities are available to the site from the west, but development of the outlot would require platting into an actual lot and block. That process does trigger the public process again. So at that time is when we would be actually looking at site development and site improvements for the southern parcel for Outlot B. Tonight we're just creating the parcels and kind of step one of this. Staff believes that the proposed plat meets the goals and policies of the zoning code and the city's comprehensive plan and we are recommending approval of the plat with the three conditions listed in the staff report. [18:15] **Chair:** Thank you. And this is a public hearing so anyone wishing to speak on this agenda item can please come forward. [18:24] **Sean Regan:** Madam Chair, commission members, staff, thank you. Sean Regan representing Hatrick Investments. I think 30 years ago or so is the first time I came up here. We're—I too want to just tell you how excited we are as owners and operators of this industrial park that has been in development going back to Jack Matowski and then his predecessors 70 some years. Dakota Electric here, Jeff and his associates including the CEO Ryan Henches, we're really complimentary. We want to be complimentary to both them and Brian and their team and the staff team for their efforts to shepherd this forward. I think it goes without saying they’re a consequential representative in this whole County area and we're excited to be here and thank you for your continuing efforts to keep it moving. Thank you. [19:35] **Chair:** Anyone else wishing to speak on this agenda item? **Commissioner:** Madam Chair, seeing no one else come forward, I would move to close the public hearing. **Commissioner:** Second. **Chair:** Motion and a second. All those in favor of closing the public hearing please signify by saying aye. **Commissioners:** Aye. **Chair:** All opposed? All right the public hearing is now closed. Fellow Commissioners, any comments on this one? Seems pretty straightforward. Are you ready for a motion? [20:22] **Commissioner Swinson:** Madam Chair, yes. Motion to recommend approval of the Air Lake DEA preliminary plat subject to the three stipulations listed in the January 16 2025 planning report. **Commissioner Zimmer:** Second. **Chair:** Miss Goodroad would you please take a roll call of members? **Tina Goodroad:** Tinsley? (Aye) Zuzek? (Aye) Kza? (Aye) Zimmer? (Aye) Morovich? (Aye) Swinson? (Aye). **Chair:** Miss Boton, when will this one go in front of city council? **Heather Boton:** February 3rd. **Chair:** Right, well thank you so much and best of luck on your project. Agenda item number seven, this is Midwest ENT. A public hearing to consider a variance to exceed the number of wall signs permitted on one elevation in the freeway Corridor District and here to give a brief overview is Tony Benusa. [21:11] **Tony Benusa:** Hi there, Madam Chair, Commission, City Staff. My name is Tony Benusa, I'm the CEO for Midwest ENT Specialists and I wanted to thank you for your time and consideration tonight of our variance request. First of all, we're very excited to be building a clinic to serve the Lakeville Community. So excited in fact that we've made an initial 15-year commitment to this property which is why it's so important for us to ensure that the facility is going to meet our needs from the beginning, and that is the reason for our signage variance request. [21:59] **Tony Benusa:** I've tried to be respectful of your time and summarizing our position and our stated objectives in a letter to you all, but in summary I think the fact of our business is that we have many different business units and business divisions that are not intuitive to our consumers. As such, it's important for people to ensure that they know that they are in the right location and at the right building. While a monument sign helps when you're driving around a development, it is not necessarily readily apparent that that is the right location. It also helps people to understand exactly where they should be entering, parking, so on and so forth. I think this is not unlike other retail-based businesses that might have service line signage indicating some of the services they offer. As I drive by the Lakeville Walmart I see that they have an additional grocery sign or pharmacy sign to indicate to their consumers these are services that they offer that may not exist at every single Walmart. So with that, that's the basis for our variance and I appreciate your time and consideration. I'd be happy to answer any follow-up questions that you have. Thank you. [23:09] **Matthew Oki:** Good evening Commissioners. This is a sign variance request. Just a recap on the location: the Midwest ENT building is currently under construction. They are in the Sundance Lakeville plat and their particular lot is located north of 162nd Street and west of Buck Hill Road. They are zoned C3 Commercial. Due to the site's proximity to I-35 they are within the freeway Corridor District which is an overlay District that is within our sign ordinance only. On this map it's illustrated by this black and white dashed line and the properties that are within that District have additional sign allowances. [23:55] **Matthew Oki:** For example the Midwest ENT site is within that District; they have larger wall sign and monument sign allowances. And then the line—if I can get my mouse to work here—does cross 46 and then follow Kenrick Avenue south. For instance the Moments Memory Care facility which is at this corner would be within the freeway Corridor district and have that additional signage allowance, but Bolero, McDonald's, and the office building that are just to the west of Kenrick are not within that freeway Corridor District. So they would fall under just the standard signs allowances for the C3 District. [24:44] **Matthew Oki:** These are elevation plans, I'll get a little bit more close-up on the next one. The signs are proposed for the west elevation—that is the elevation we are discussing at this point. They also have a sign on the east elevation. They are allowed a sign on two elevations because they are a corner property. So the sign that is on the east elevation as well as the monument sign are both in compliance with our sign ordinance. There's a little bit of an enlargement of that west elevation. They are proposing their primary sign here which is the Midwest ENT and then they have four other smaller signs that are listed down here for their different services or activities that are included within their site. They are also showing some vinyl entrance signs above the entrance. [25:32] **Matthew Oki:** Staff has typically allowed those in other similar circumstances and unfortunately the best comparisons I can come up with are more automobile related—but for instance at a car wash there's enter and exit above certain doors or at an auto repair place one may have a "service" and another one's got one lane strictly for "oil change." So those kinds of things that are non-commercial, more directional in nature, we have typically allowed just to help folks make sure they get in the right spot. So the signs that I have listed here do not include those entrance signs. It also does not include the address sign or the address number here; we don't consider that a sign. We don't count it against the total as it is required to be on the building and there are certain size requirements for fire code and things like that. So the building address would be allowed regardless of the outcome of the variance. [26:18] **Matthew Oki:** And then just a close-up of that east elevation with the wall sign: 104 square feet; their freestanding sign here: 140 square feet. As I said earlier, both of them are in compliance with our ordinance. This is the west elevation that they exhibit that they provided for us and then the east side with the wall sign and the monument sign in the distance. And then the site plan just as a refresher: this is the building's location, we've got Buck Hill Road and County Road 46. So again it's a corner property; it does allow those signs on two sides. [27:07] **Matthew Oki:** And then the one thing I just wanted to quickly go through, I have my information here. We did prepare findings of fact and variances. As you're probably aware, we don't bring a lot of those forward. The ordinance does require that in order for staff and the council to support a variance, the request needs to meet the threshold of a practical difficulty. So the review criteria that are listed within the ordinance are within that findings of fact and I just wanted to go over those quickly. [27:53] **Matthew Oki:** The first is that the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan; that one's not applicable—the comprehensive plan doesn't address signs. The second is that the variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the title. Our finding is that the applicant is requesting five wall signs for one elevation of a single tenant building, which is not consistent with the surrounding commercial uses and other single tenant commercial buildings of a similar size in Lakeville and therefore it's not in harmony. Mr. Benusa mentioned the Walmart further south on I-35 that does have additional signage. It is also within the freeway Corridor District. The additional signs are granted because of the size of the building. There is a threshold I believe of 45,000 square feet and above that the buildings are allowed additional signage. This building is about 14,000 square feet so it isn't close to that threshold that would allow some additional signs. [29:26] **Matthew Oki:** The next criteria is that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. Staff does not find that there's any unique circumstances to the parcel or practical difficulties that would warrant a variance to permit additional signs. That the purpose of the variance is not exclusively economic considerations—don't feel that one's applicable here. That the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located—other commercial uses in the vicinity of the site have the same or smaller sign standards and all have complied with the zoning ordinance. Finally, that the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. Staff finds that there's no practical difficulty for signs on this new construction building. While the total area of the proposed signs does not exceed the size allowances of the freeway Corridor District, the applicant's proposal for five signs is well beyond the one wall sign permitted in that District. [30:11] **Matthew Oki:** And then I guess there is one more: variances may not be approved for any use not allowed under that title for that zone—again that one's not applicable as signs are a permitted use, permitted accessories excuse me, in that C3 District. So staff does recommend denial of this variance and then approval of the findings of fact. This is a public hearing and I'll stand for any questions you may have. **Chair:** Anyone wishing to speak on this agenda item can please come forward. [31:01] **Commissioner Swinson:** Madam Chair? **Chair:** Yes? **Commissioner Swinson:** Make you wait a little bit. Motion to close the public hearing. **Commissioner Zimmer:** Second. **Chair:** Second to close the public hearing. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. **Commissioners:** Aye. **Chair:** All opposed? All right the public hearing is now closed. Fellow Commissioners? **Commissioner:** Yes Madam Chair, can I just get some clarification? So this is one business with other businesses under it? [31:51] **Tony Benusa:** Yeah, technically we are a single tenant under the lease. We have full tax IDs for the businesses that will be operating within this building. We have some of the brands and the "doing business as" names that are registered with the state of Minnesota that fall under one tax ID, and one of the doing business as names falls under a separate tax ID internally. As an organization we do cost allocations and keep separate accounting to ensure that the separate business units are financially viable independently. I think that's what I was trying to allude to when I made the comment that retail space—we operate like a multi-tenant organization in a single building. In a retail space that would be multi-tenant of the same size, it would have much more signage allowed than we are afforded. And so I apologize for not being clear—I saw that in staff's report and I appreciated that distinction. We use multiple entrances and even within those entrances we have a separate vestibule that will then have directional signage to point people towards the right service line that they will be seeking from our organization. I hope that answers your question. **Commissioner:** It does. And then just a clarification: the monument sign that will have all the other entities on the monument sign? [33:25] **Tony Benusa:** There are the service lines that we have. So I would tell you that our monument sign is not our desired path forward but knowing that the city has a specific set of requirements, we have taken the opportunity to utilize the monument sign to advertise our service lines or our brands in an attempt to try to make it as clear as possible. Had we not already built the monument sign I would gladly forego that for an approval of our signage on our building. But I think what we've tried to submit, incoming under in the total allowed square footage, is a reasonable compromise to achieve our goals but still try to comply with the aesthetic feel that the city of Lakeville is trying to achieve. I think it's still very tasteful but will allow people to understand our building and this is very consistent with what we have in other municipalities. **Commissioner:** So the entrances that are separate, do they have different Suite numbers or it's still single use? **Tony Benusa:** Single tenant, correct. **Commissioner:** Separate lobbies? **Tony Benusa:** Correct. **Commissioner:** Same thing. Thank you. [34:58] **Commissioner Zimmer:** Yes, Mr. Benusa, the five signs that you're looking for, are they in contrast? Are they all similar? What's your schematic for it? Will any of them be lighted or have any "dancing milk cartons"? I just had to get that line in. And then if you are coming for a particular service and you go to the wrong one, how do you get from the wrong one to the next one that you need to be at? [35:46] **Tony Benusa:** Yeah, that's a great question. I know that there's a rendering that's submitted. Actually as we do business, we have five different business entities that we do business as and we've tried to create distinct brands as we've brought on different service lines. So we actually have Midwest Facial Plastics, Midwest ENT, Midwest Allergy and Asthma, Midwest Hearing, and Midwest Face and Cosmetic Skincare. We have tried to consolidate this down so that we don't have "Midwest" and we're not using branded logos everywhere. We just want people to understand that associated with the Midwest core brand, they are in the right place when they're coming for their Allergy and Asthma care. So to indicate those service lines we have used the same sign type face and size and color for all of the service lines except for the Face Cosmetic Skincare, which is its own separate brand. They are back lit—I believe face lit? No dancing... [37:16] **Tim Keefe:** Tim Keefe, Architect, Synergy Architecture Studio, and represented for Davis, the developer and owner of the construction. What we've designed is with the letters, in the daytime it looks like a solid face or metal letter, but everyone is kind of the "new thing" so at night the faces of them will light up but during the day they're kind of a solid color that aesthetically is connected to the other finishes and materials of the building. But there are no dancing signs, there's no movement signs. I mean we laugh but a lot of healthcare wants "15 minutes waiting" or something display signage that tricks every—you know... **Commissioner Zimmer:** Well, and I'm for a follow-up, I'm thinking of the Viking stadium and the Twin City Orthopedics sign that everyone complained about because it was so overly lit. So I mean they deserve a medal for getting that signage on that possess, but with this one we as we've done in other municipalities is we understand we're not really overpowering the structure. Thank you. [38:29] **Chair:** Kind of what Commissioner Zimmer was referring to with the "dancing milk jugs" is we every year go through an ordinance update process. In the 10 years I have been on this Planning Commission, there hasn't been a single one of those that doesn't have an update to the sign ordinance. And so we continually hear from businesses and from the public on ways that we can update that. The "dancing milk jugs" come from those electronic display signs which we used to prohibit; now we allow them. We used to have very strict regulations on how quickly they can change; that has evolved. When we hear from businesses on areas where we might need a change, our city staff does a really great job of kind of taking that, considering if there are going to be other businesses where this situation might arise. [40:00] **Chair:** I am supportive of what the staff wrote in the planning report. With variances, our hands are really tied. They are in state law that every one of the criteria have to be met. I agree with City staff in my looking at it, my reading of it, that all of those criteria are [not] met so I don't feel like we have any other option but to deny the variance. But since we do this ordinance process every year, you know, I would encourage you to keep dialoguing with City staff. If they believe that we could come up with a solution that can find its way in a future ordinance update, you know, they will bring it before us and we'll have another public hearing. We've had many people come before us with requests that unfortunately it's a "no" for now. But because it's really important that our ordinance is for all of our businesses, everyone feels that they get the same opportunity and they're treated fairly. So if changes need to be made, that opportunity should be open to everyone else. That's another reason why I don't usually like variances—because we're just addressing a problem for one individual. So I am not supportive of the variance and plan to vote no, but I really do appreciate all the work you've done on this building. Really excited to have you be here in Lakeville. All of the services that you guys provide are things our community definitely needs and wants. So really happy to have you here and just keep dialoguing with City staff. [42:16] **Tony Benusa:** It might not surprise you but in three of the other communities that we have built in, we have requested sign variances. In two of them, all of our buildings look like this at this point. I completely understand the structure and the process and the reason behind it, but much like you like to provide a consistent experience for your constituents, we like to provide a very consistent experience for our patients and the members of your community who, as we do the zip code analysis, are coming to see us in Woodbury, in Vadnais Heights even, and in Eagan right now because we're not here. We just want to make sure that they have the same experience when they see us in their own community as they do when they come to see us elsewhere. [43:20] **Commissioner Swinson:** Question for planning staff, just kind of considering everything that's been said and discussed here. So we're in this "box" because it's a single tenant in the building, correct? **Matthew Oki:** Correct. **Commissioner Swinson:** So if this were a multi-tenant building, would they be allowed to do something similar to this? **Matthew Oki:** The ordinance does address multiple occupancy commercial buildings, but it does require tenants to have an exclusive entrance—in other words each business has their own space and those businesses then get their sign. The Allina medical office that was mentioned off of 185th, that's the large three-four story building, it does have signs for several of the tenants in there. We do also have a provision that—and it was kind of geared more towards office buildings or situations like that where there is one single entrance rather than each tenant having their own. When those tenants have more than—they don't have an exclusive exterior entrance—but they have more than 20% of the net leasable area of the building, then our ordinance does allow that business to have a sign on the exterior. But again those were separate different clinics from how it was explained to me. We did look at the floor plans and do those measurements and they were separate spaces within that building and so the signs were issued, they did meet our ordinance requirements. [45:37] **Commissioner:** I have a question with that. You said if they have 20% of the lease space, the net leasable area of the building. It looks like on here there's a separate entrance for the spa and a separate entrance for the main entrance? **Matthew Oki:** Yeah, that's how they have their setup. I don't know if there's connection once you get inside. If the spa area is a completely separate [space] and once you get inside you [cannot] move through the whole building, then perhaps we can consider that that may meet the requirements for a separate sign. But if it's simply two separate entrances but once you're in the building it's one large space, in my opinion that does not meet our definition or our intent of separate commercial spaces. [46:22] **Tim Keefe:** Ideally on this facade we could put a 10-foot tall by 15-foot sign box with all those names in one sign box and that would meet code? **Commissioner:** Question Madam Chair. That was exactly the question I was just going to ask staff was—I'm hearing the numbers are below the 150 feet that we allow in total. Basically for all these proposed signs, if they're rearranged in some way shape or fashion? **Matthew Oki:** I mentioned that option within the staff report—that if they put the signs in a different arrangement and we can put one box around there and that box is 150 square feet, that is how we have traditionally, and I've been working on signs for almost 20 years in Lakeville, we've been pretty consistent over that time. [47:56] **Commissioner:** In light of what staff had said, can we ask the applicant? Is it separate entrances or once you walk in are you able to just walk... like is it an inside mall? **Tony Benusa:** It's a good question. If you are a patient or a client consumer walking into the spa entrance, it is going to be a wholly separate experience that's partitioned off with a fixed wall. It's not until you get to the very back of the building where our clinic staff are going to be moving through that you would have the inability to see a connection between the two businesses. But it is actually designed to be a separate fit and feel so that the patient or client in that case is going to have a wholly separate experience from the time they enter to the time that they then leave. They will not see a connection between the organizations. The main entry for is a vestibule that splits in two directions and the same is essentially true of the two different directions. You have a more medically-based side that is our hearing side, our ENT side, and our Asthma and Allergy side and within that they get separated out but they are still part of a larger common area. The facial plastics medical side—we see a lot of Mohs patients, Mohs reconstruction—and medically-based facial plastics reconstruction is a separate and distinct area within from that other medical side as well. There is connection in the building but we've tried to keep that mostly for staff between three distinct segments. [50:14] **Chair:** Yeah I'll add on that a little bit. My son is a patient at Midwest ENT in Eagan, and going in, the vestibules are split so you can either go this way to go to one side or you go this way to the ENT. And like he mentioned, I've never even seen like the spa stuff. And then when you get called back there's like a line of rooms, right? And so you're going into a room and that's where you could walk through but as a patient you really wouldn't go to like the other end and you're being escorted by staff. So they'll call you back and then they bring you to the room and you're in the room and when you leave you leave. I will say I found the signage helpful when I went because the one in Eagan is behind Chick-fil-A and it's kind of hard to find. And if you could please get Dr. Zachary to come out of retirement I would appreciate it. **Tony Benusa:** Oh so do I, so much! [50:59] **Commissioner:** Okay yes, I just have a quick question for staff. Is there a way, since we've now learned that the spa is actually a separate entrance separate to clients, customers, patients whatever you call them, is there a way to have signage on at least that portion? **Matthew Oki:** I think it would need to be completely separate. It sounds like from the patient/customer side it's separated but for the employees it's still shared space. **Commissioner:** Not a door for employees to separate them away from the other practices? [51:28] **Tim Keefe:** As a design process there are definitely separate waiting rooms; there's actually five as you go across for all the different sectors. They're kind of sectioned out but once you get back there, the staff members handle multiple departments on a daily basis with different patients and there's also some—you know, one patient for ENT might need to get to the hearing side. So there are definitely connections just like in an Allina clinic or a Fairview clinic and stuff like that. But it is separated for patient experience with some of the lobbies and that is again kind of the front entrance of why we have two different entry doors and stuff like that. **Commissioner:** Okay, thank you. **Tim Keefe:** It's intentionally designed but I will say flat out like they are connected, right? Like as an architect or even as an exiting purpose plan, the whole clinic acts as one when you're talking about an occupancy point of view. [52:59] **Commissioner:** Okay thank you. Yeah, I just think from my standpoint just this is a statement of position: I'm sympathetic to your issue and find the aesthetics of your building would work well with the signage you show here. I think we need to be careful from our standpoint that once we grant a variance for something like this, if we have somebody else come along that wants to do the same thing but is a little bit more loud, I think we need to have a little bit more thought than to grant a variance today. And I think as the other Commissioner had indicated, let's think about this for a little bit and see if we can improve it, make adjustments as opposed to doing something tonight that we may not necessarily find appealing at another time. [53:45] **Chair:** Yeah and thank you, and yeah just to build on that I, you know, our hands are also somewhat tied with the variance process because what we have to consider is the variance that's in front of us and it's a very specific process that's laid out in statute and there's an application for it and everything. So there's not really an opportunity to kind of work on this on the fly where there are some other projects when someone's coming in for a preliminary plat where we can make amendments and add conditions. We're kind of limited to addressing the issue that's in front of us and there's not a lot of latitude that we can do to make changes on that. So once again I just say like, you know, I really do appreciate you coming in and I I understand what you're trying to get at but a variance isn't the appropriate vehicle to try to do it. [54:35] **Commissioner Swinson:** I took the time today and drove past your Vadnais Heights facility, having to work up in that part of the metro, and take a look at that and also went past the Eagan facility and just got a feel for how this looks. All in all I appreciate the thought that's put into the branding and the way it looks and I'm sympathetic to what you're trying to do with this and it's all very tasteful and it looks very, very nice. But also I'm looking at our variance criteria and understanding what the requirements are there, and this commission has taken that very seriously in the past in terms of what we do with variances. I appreciate you mentioning that variances may have been part of the process on some of these other buildings as well. With all that being said, positionally I'm in a spot where I feel like I can't support the variance here in front of us tonight. That being said, if we had other conversation—I know timing is of the essence in all of this and thinking about that—but I would be open to conversation as a commission and as a body with city staff talking about how can we maybe do this. Also just again going to point out that hey there is an opportunity here maybe to rearrange the signage a little bit and meet that box of what we currently require. So that's where I come out on this and with that I'm not going to be voting in support of the variance request. [56:12] **Commissioner Swinson:** Madam Chair, are you ready for a motion? **Chair:** I think so. **Commissioner Swinson:** Madam Chair I motion to recommend denial of the Midwest ENT sign variance to exceed one wall sign on a single elevation in the freeway Corridor district and adopt the findings of fact. **Commissioner:** Second. **Chair:** I have a motion on a second. Can we please have a roll call vote? **Tina Goodroad:** Zuzek? (Aye) Kza? (Aye) Morovich? (Aye) Zimmer? (Aye) Swinson? (Aye) Tinsley? (Aye). [56:58] **Chair:** All right. We really appreciate you coming to Lakeville. I'm sorry that it didn't work out in your favor right now, but like the other Commissioners have said, please continue to work with City staff and hopefully we can find something that works for both. Thank you. And with that, the meeting is adjourned.