Loading...
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.