HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 01-06-2010Approved Minutes
City of Plymouth
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair James Davis, Commissioners Dick Kobussen, Terry Jaffoni,
Gordon Petrash, Scott Nelson, Erik Aamoth and Marc Anderson
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barbara Senness, Senior Planner Marie Darling and
Office Support Specialist Laurie Lokken
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. PUBLIC FORUM
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Petrash, to approve the
January 6, 2010 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
A. APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 2, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
MOTION by Commissioner Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Kobussen, to approve the
December 2, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. OLD BUSINESS
A. STONE SOURCE (2009058)
Chair Davis introduced the request by Stone Source for variances to allow two freestanding signs
and additional wall signage for property located at 15831 State Highway 55.
Senior Planner Darling gave an overview of the staff report. She added that this request has been
continued from the November 4, November 18 and December 2, 2009 Planning Commission
meetings.
Commissioner Petrash said that the staff report was well done and very clear.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
January 6, 2010
Page 2
Commissioner Jaffoni asked if there were any close-up views available of the windows for the
proposed wall signage along Highway 55. The applicant provided a larger picture that appeared
similar to the pictures that were provided by the applicant in the staff report.
Commissioner Petrash asked for clarification that if the requested variance were to be approved,
the variance would in fact stay with the building for the next tenant, too. Senior Planner Darling
said that an approved variance would stay with the property. She confirmed for Commissioner
Petrash that even if a new building were to be built on this property, the variance would still be
in effect.
Commissioner Anderson asked what the percentage of signage would be on the window example
without graphics that was just provided by the applicant. Senior Planner Darling confirmed with
the applicant that the larger window example provided was the same 10 percent signage example
that was included in the staff report.
Commissioner Kobussen asked for clarification that the limit of 10 percent wall signage is for
each wall and that additional signage could be put on the other walls if elected. Senior Planner
Darling said that the building has frontage on three streets (Highway 55, Vicksburg Lane North
and 32nd Avenue North); therefore, they would qualify for 10 percent wall signage on three sides
of the building.
Chair Davis introduced Cort Naab, a representative for Stone Source. Mr. Naab said that he
would like the record to show that the existing freestanding sign on 32nd Avenue had been
located on the property both times that permit applications for freestanding signs along Highway
55 had been submitted and approved. He said that the argument had been made in the past that
they had created the hardship but that the city had the opportunity twice to state this and that they
had not.
Mr. Naab said that the next business property located along 32nd Avenue has a larger
freestanding sign for only one company and one address. He said that they would have multiple
companies on one sign. He said that after the last Planning Commission meeting, they spoke
with the owner of the building. He said that they were told by the owner that another tenant,
Minnesota Glass, had a short-term lease and that there was another vacant space in the building.
He said that the owner wants additional space on the freestanding sign for the possibility of two
new tenants.
Mr. Naab said that it had been stated in the staff report that new tenants could state that they are
located in the Stone Source building. He said that would be bad business and that it would be
very unprofessional to tell a client that you were located in someone else's building and that it
doesn't sound permanent. He said that the sign design submitted for 32nd
Avenue was what they
felt would be best. He said that city staff had included a design in the staff report for how they
thought would be best. He said that they had been told that it wasn't the city's job to design the
sign. He said that even if they took the new tenants off the sign, they would still be over 21
square feet with 6 inch lettering, but that they could make it work.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
January 6, 2010
Page 3
Mr. Naab said that they went back and looked over the wall signage along Highway 55. He said
that they want a plan that works for both the city and for them. He said that they came up with
13.5 percent wall signage by putting a one -foot band around the windows and by taking 150
square feet of signage off the building. He said that part of the ordinance states that any signage
on windows needs to be counted and he feels that the city's interpretation of that is wrong. He
said that they were told that they could black out the window and that wouldn't count as signage
but that when lettering is put on, then the entire window counts.
Mr. Naab said that they want to be part of the city's plan for the downtown and want to make
this industrial building look like downtown Plymouth. He said that the other three corners look
wonderful and that this building could easily be one of those wonderful looking buildings. He
said that the other alternative would be to tear down the building and that is that what the city
would like to see. He said that they have a long term lease in what would be a vacant space.
Commissioner Nelson asked for additional clarification given in response to Commissioner
Petrash that if a variance would be approved for 13.5 percent wall signage on the north side of
the building, that variance would carry over into the future for any new tenants or any new
building. Senior Planner Darling said that approved variances stay with the land so if a variance
was approved for 13.5 percent on that one wall, then 13.5 percent could be on that one wall in
perpetuity.
Mr. Naab said that they would change the size of the windows if they could but that would
clearly not happen. He said that he doesn't feel that the border should be counted in the
calculation. He said that they had taken an entire bay of windows off of the proposed plan to get
the square footage down and that they don't want to take any more off.
Commissioner Anderson asked if there are other businesses in the city that have window
graphics that are similar to this proposal. Senior Planner Darling said that Boger Dental does
have window wrappings similar to what the applicant is proposing but that there are no full-sized
pictures. She said that Palm Beach Tan had similar window graphics with several of the
windows colored to block the sunlight going into the building.
Commissioner Jaffoni asked if the 10 percent requirement was met. Senior Planner Darling said
that Boger Dental does meet the 10 percent requirement and that Palm Beach Tan is located in a
PUD. She said that Palm Beach Tan appears to meet the 25 percent requirement that is allowed
in that PUD.
Mr. Naab said that they get complaints on a regular basis from customers on the difficulty of
finding and getting to their business. He said that they would still want to keep something on the
front of the building that directs people to the 32nd Avenue entrance. He said that they would be
fighting that issue as long as they are located in this building.
Commissioner Jaffoni asked that if the wall signage along Highway 55 would state that the
entrance is on 32nd Avenue, why would another freestanding sign along 32nd Avenue be needed
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
January 6, 2010
Page 4
or why would a four -foot by four -foot sign with the business names not be adequate. Mr. Naab
said that the mayor had told them that the only reason she came into their business was because
there was a sign in the window that said they were open to the public. He said that they would
like to state that they are open to the public and that the sign is on 32nd Avenue because finding
the driveway is very difficult.
Commissioner Jaffoni asked if a four -foot by four -foot sign would accomplish that. Mr. Naab
said that it would not if two more tenants move in. He said that the next company down on 32nd
Avenue has a 27 square foot sign and he feels that is reasonable as they are talking about putting
five companies on one sign and they would like to match.
Commissioner Jaffoni asked how much it would cost to relocate the 100 square foot sign from
Highway 55. Mr. Naab said that they guess it to be about $20,000 and on top of that, they feel
that a larger sign on 32nd Avenue would be an eyesore.
Commissioner Jaffoni asked why they are opting for graphics as opposed to putting in curtains to
block the view of the racks. Mr. Naab said that would be less expensive but that it would
perpetuate the whole industrial look. He said that windows were put in at great expense to
increase the property value. He said that they rented there based on those windows being there.
He said that when they moved in, windows could have signage. He said that money could have
been saved and windows not have been put in if it had been known that the ordinance would
change and the windows would now have to be blackened out. He said that they would need
13.5 percent minimum in order to do graphics in the windows that would look much better than
having black windows.
Chair Davis introduced Reena Maheshwan, representing Stone Source. Ms. Maheshwan said
that she did not have anything further to add.
Chair Davis asked why there is a dispute between 13.5 and 16.5 percent. Senior Planner Darling
said that when staff calculated the size of signage submitted, the percentage increased up to 16.5
percent because they calculated it including the black border around the graphics. She said that
staff based their calculations on the definition of surface area in the zoning ordinance. She said
that staff believes that the black area around the entire graphic falls into that definition.
Commissioner Nelson asked if they blacked out the windows and only used words, would it have
to count as a whole graphic using that definition. Senior Planner Darling said the area would be
calculated by enclosing the word in the smallest regular geometric figure.
Mr. Naab said that was exactly what he had referred to and that would solve the problem.
Senior Planner Darling confirmed for Commissioner Anderson that the zoning district that this
building is in allows 10 percent of the wall area to be used as wall signage and whether the
request is for 13.5 or 16.5 percent, it would still require a variance.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
January 6, 2010
Page 5
Commissioner Petrash said that the proposed window signage looks nice and would be better
than what is there now but that the biggest concern is that it would be there forevermore.
Chair Davis asked that if this building were torn down and a larger building was built with more
stories, then as the building grows so does the variance. Senior Planner Darling said yes.
Commissioner Jaffoni asked if there was any way to get around this. Senior Planner Darling said
that staff did talk with the City Attorney extensively and there is no where that you can tie the
approval of the variance to this tenant, for a specified time or to this building.
Commissioner Anderson asked if a conditional use permit would be possible so that it could be
assigned to a particular use. Senior Planner Darling said that a CUP is not allowed by the sign
regulations. She said that a CUP allowing retail sales at a specific square footage of the building
was approved a few months ago and that does go with the building. She said that if another
showroom moved in, they would also be able to have that retail square footage.
Commissioner Nelson said that he agrees with the applicant that it is an important corner and that
he wants it to look good. He said that he sees the need for the signage based on the location. He
said that he understands it is an industrial building in an industrial area and that he is inclined to
want to approve this request just because it makes sense. He said that he understands that we
would be betting on the future and who knows what the future brings. He said that he feels that
this is not an unreasonable request and that he would vote in favor of the request.
Commissioner Anderson said that he could see the need for a sign variance on 32nd Avenue
because of the topography. He said that he could go so far as to say that it is a hardship. He said
that he does have a problem with increasing the signage percentage on Highway 55. He said that
he thinks that would set precedence and that all the ramifications of that aren't known. He said
that he does like stating that the entrance is on 32nd Avenue and directing people around. He said
that one idea thrown out would still be a possibility and that would be to change the property
address to 32nd Avenue. He said that he would support the request for additional freestanding
sign but would not support the request for wall signage.
Commissioner Kobussen asked if there were no lettering and just a picture, would it be
considered a sign. Senior Planner Darling said that the definition of a sign is any graphic or
work that represents the business, so in this case it would be signage. Commissioner Kobussen
asked if the graphics had to have something to do with the business. Senior Planner Darling and
Planning Manager Senness both said that if the graphic were directly related or associated with
the business, it would also count.
Commissioner Aamoth asked if it was correct that approving this variance would set precedence.
Planning Manager Senness said that typically, a variance does not set a precedent because the
facts are specific to the site and hard to duplicate in another setting.
Commissioner Anderson said that he would support the request for a 30 square foot sign on 32nd
Avenue. He said that listing additional tenants is important and that he would support that.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
January 6, 2010
Page 6
Commissioner Petrash said that he doesn't know that they have exhausted the other opportunities
to design this differently. He said that there are separate elements. He said that if they want to
show pictures, they could still do that but would have to do a checkerboard approach. He said
that he is very concerned about future use and feels that we should adhere to the ordinance. He
said that a four -foot by four -foot sign on 32nd Avenue is adequate and that it should be a
directional sign and not an advertisement as originally presented. Planning Manager Senness
said that staff did take a look at that. She said that if six to seven inch lettering was used and the
other tenants added, it could still be done within 20 square feet versus 30 square feet.
Commissioner Jaffoni said that she agreed with Commissioner Petrash that it seems like there are
other ways to slice this pie. She said that there are the other two walls and that there are just
other ways to put this together that could meet the concerns and interests of everyone. She said
that she does understand there is a hardship on 32nd Avenue to see the building and that
directional signage would be adequate. She said that she does like having additional space on
the sign for future tenants and would compromise with 20 square feet to get five tenants and the
address on it. She said that she would agree to that variance.
Commissioner Jaffoni said that her quandary is that she likes the appearance of the front of the
building and does think that it is quite a dramatic effect. She said that she is struggling with
wanting that to happen and with the problem down the road in the future. She said that she
would like to see a way to get the graphics, get the lettering smaller for the entrance and to use
the west wall.
Commissioner Petrash said that they could make this look good in other ways and that the
hardship is self-imposed.
Ms. Reena Maheshwan deferred to Mr. Naab. Mr. Naab said that they could move the entrance
at 32nd Avenue language to the west wall but that they would still need a variance to put graphics
in the windows. He said that they would still be at 13.5 percent and he asked if staff could put a
cap on the variance. Senior Planner Darling said that a cap up to a maximum of their request
could be added.
Commissioner Petrash asked if Mr. Naab's proposal was conditioned upon the city accepting
13.5 percent. Senior Planner Darling said the resolution reflects 16.5 percent.
Commissioner Jaffoni asked that if the interpretation wasn't followed and the black borders were
allowed at 13.5 percent, would it be reduced to 10 percent. She said that she then sees the logic
in what Mr. Naab said. She said that she feels that the black border looks nice and adds to the
appearance of the windows. She said that it is unfortunate that there isn't some way to
accommodate that. Planning Manager Senness said that with the changes Mr. Naab proposed,
the amount of signage would still exceed 10 percent.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
January 6, 2010
Page 7
Mr. Naab said that the numbers given include the four windows. He said that removing them
from the calculation should put it down and not including the black border would make it very
close to 10 percent. He said that if the border isn't included, they could make it to 10 percent.
Commissioner Anderson said that he likes the black border but that the ordinance is the
ordinance and that it's fixed. He said that the staff's interpretation of the ordinance is one that
has been looked at and researched. He said that they are trying to get around that and that is not
the direction we want to go.
Commissioner Petrash said that he concurs and that he thinks work should be done on how it
should be done and not on how to get around it.
Chair Davis said that he agrees that there is a 10 percent limit and that's 509 square feet. He said
that they should work within that requirement by maybe having smaller or less graphics on
windows. He said that he would not support this request.
Commissioner Aamoth said that he was concerned about the long term consequences. He said
that if the main issue is about how much of the windows are being covered, a cap might be a
solution if staff would agree.
Chair Davis said that he would not want to change the cap.
Commissioner Petrash said that the solution is very elegant and that the same creativeness could
go into doing that within the limits.
Commissioner Aamoth said that he agreed with Commission Anderson that there is a hardship.
He said that he is not sold on how important this ordinance is. He said that the business needs
customers to come there and find it, so he would be in favor of supporting both of the variance
requests.
Commissioner Kobussen said that he thinks that there is definitely a hardship getting to the
address on 32nd Avenue and that there is a need for a sign to point out which of the three
driveways is their driveway. He said that he does not see a hardship for the 10 percent limit for
wall signage on Highway 55 or see why to change the limit. He said that he feels that there are
other ways to remain elegant and stay within the limit.
MOTION by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Kobussen, to approve the
request by Stone Source for a variance for a 30 square foot freestanding sign along 32nd Avenue
North for property located at 15831 State Highway 55.
MOTION for a friendly amendment by Commissioner Jaffoni, seconded by Commissioner
Petrash, to limit the freestanding sign to 20 square feet.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes
January 6, 2010
Page 8
Commissioner Nelson declined the friendly amendment. Vote. 5 Ayes (Commissioners Jaffoni
and Petrash opposed). MOTION approved.
MOTION by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Kobussen, to deny the
request by Stone Source for additional wall signage at the proposed 16.5 percent for property
located at 15831 State Highway 55. Vote. 5 Ayes (Commissioners Nelson and Aamoth
opposed). MOTION approved.
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. CANCEL THE JANUARY 20, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MOTION by Chair Davis to cancel the January 20, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting. Vote.
7 Ayes. MOTION approved.
Chair Davis thanked Commissioner Jaffoni for her service to the city. He said that her key point
was in keeping the Planning Commission honest on environmental issues. Commissioner Jaffoni
thanked Chair Davis and said that she encourages all citizens to get involved. She said that
serving on the Planning Commission had been a great experience and that it shows what
volunteers can do. Planning Manager Senness added that staff had enjoyed working with
Commissioner Jaffoni as well.
9. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Chair Davis, without objection, to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m.