Loading...
PC 2004 07 06CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 6, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Dan Keefe, Steve Lillehaug, Rich Slagle, Kurt Papke and Craig Claybaugh MEMBERS ABSENT: Bethany Tjornhom STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer REOUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 13,000 SOUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH REOUESTS FOR PARKING AND SIGN VARIANCES ON 1.9 ACRES ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, BEAR CREEK CAPITAL, LLC, AND CHANHASSEN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, CVS/PHARMACY, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-21. Public Present: Name Address Mark Jaster Bill Tippmann 3052 Rhode Island Avenue, St. Louis Park 9549 Montomary Road, Cincinnati, OH Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from staff. Any questions from staff?. Steve. Lillehaug: Of course I have a few. Sacchet: Turn the mic on. Lillehaug: I have questions with a couple items here. One, landscape entry. Preservation. I looked at the previous schedule and I guess I'm curious why the requirements have changed so much when really the parameters of the lot or building haven't changed significantly. Generous: I discussed that with Jill. I had that same question and she believes what she did is pulled in the table and didn't, thought she changed the numbers and hadn't changed them. Put in the proposed has changed significantly too so. Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 2004 Lillehaug: Okay. And would you please comment on the fact, sometimes more information is worst ! guess because then it gives me more to look at. But on their memo that the developer provided to us. On page 2 of their findings they indicated that the ITE code has an average trip generation to use for design of 8.62 trips per 1,000 square feet. And what they actually found with the Walgreen's stores is about double that. 15.2. A little bit less than double that. So with their trip generation being double, does that mean that they should be providing, would that be a direct correlation of parking? Would that mean that even though they're meeting their requirements of parking, would staff concur that maybe we need to look at parking a little more since their trips are doubling? And their parking was just a little above what we required. Do you have any concerns with that? Generous: I don't. I wonder if that might be a better question for the applicant. We believe that they have sufficient parking for a retail operation. Part of those numbers also includes the drive thru traffic which won't be parking. It will just be driving through the lots. They're comfortable. They're over the minimum that we have. Exceed what our requirements are. Lillehaug: Okay. Page 2 of your report, you indicate quote, moving this access even further, ! should tell you where I'm at here. It's about the fifth paragraph down and it's referring to the northwest driveway onto the site off of the private road. You indicate moving this access even farther to the east could begin to cause conflicts with traffic entering, exiting the existing Kwik Trip site to the north. Do you and does engineering agree with that statement? Saam: Yes. I agree with it. I wrote it so. Lillehaug: Okay. Sacchet: That was easy. Saam: Do you understand what I'm saying there? Getting it closer to that existing Kwik Trip access, you'll have conflicting movements in close proximity to each other. Lillehaug: ! guess ! totally disagree with it. ! know this ain't a question but since we're talking about it, if you're, ! know it's not a road but if your road, you want to line your intersections up. It makes sense so you don't have staggered intersections. It's a lot safer. Likewise in a parking lot, you'd line your drive aisles up. You don't want staggered intersections so ! don't understand the reasoning behind that because my opinion is is that you want to line them driveways up. So ! don't know if you have anything further to add. Saam: Yeah, no ! totally agree with you Commissioner Lillehaug. What ! was getting at is if you couldn't line them up, then to have them in close proximity but have them staggered is worst than getting them separated where motorists can have some time to react to people turning out from another access. That's what ! was trying to get at. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 2004 Sacchet: Makes sense. Lillehaug: One other question then I'm done. The last paragraph on the same page. You indicate that there's better opportunity for more green space on the north side of the building. When ! look at other developments, ! mean Village on the Ponds, and maybe it's not a good comparison but ! guess ! don't see the need to have additional green space on the north compared with more green space on the south. I'd prefer to have the green space on the west and south. Would staff, ! mean obviously you're stating your opinion here but do you still concur with what you're saying there? That we do want to provide more green space on the north of that building? Generous: We like that they're providing more green space in this rather than a drive thru aisle all the way through. If we had our druthers, yes but then your question, back to is there sufficient parking on site and you have to balance all that. Had we, were we able to flip this building and put the entrance to the northwest, we could shift the building over to the east and you know get all that green on the perimeter but then we defeat the city's purpose of trying to bring life out to the public street. Lillehaug: Did you discuss with the developer about getting rid of that drive aisle on the north? Well ! know they did partly but you know making one way traffic through the site so they could shift that building to the north and provide the appropriate parking setbacks which they still need a variance for. ! mean it doesn't look to me like they addressed any of that. ! mean they kind of did. Generous: No they didn't. Except they were going with their function for their operation. They have the entrance and all kitty corner from that is where they have their pharmacy facilities and drive thru. Trying to accommodate that. Lillehaug: Okay. That's it for me. Thanks. Sacchet: No questions Dan? Keefe: ! have one question. It's in regards to traffic exiting the site and then wanting to go down to Highway 5 and going south on Galpin. At least on the signage piece, ! didn't see any signs that should say go east to go up to West 78th and then take a left. Is that something that would be possible to add to the site or? Saam: Yeah, that's our intent is to require, if it's not in here as a condition ! apologize but at the time of building permit to make sure that there's a sign saying Highway 5 this way. Keefe: Go east, okay. Good. That's it. Sacchet: Okay. Craig, you have any questions? Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 2004 Claybaugh: Yes. Let's see here. Hopefully it hasn't been covered. Was there any data available for the average service time. ! know that they identified they had 3 cues in conjunction with the drive thru service. Is there any data available for the average service time? Generous: I didn't request any of that. The applicant may have. Claybaugh: I'll reserve that question for the applicant. Sacchet: Okay. ! don't have too much more questions. You know on the bottom of page 2 you're saying the only potential conflict point between the new drive thru location is when traffic on the south parking lot is trying to go out and people coming in from the north into this, okay. And so at this point the maximum stacking is 3 cars, right? Once it's. Generous: Without going into the driveway. Sacchet: Without getting into the drive aisle. Okay. And based on the study that there is never more than 3, they're accommodating what we need, right? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Okay, that's all my questions. That's it for questions. Alright, with that I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward. If you have anything to add in terms of where we were last time. Where we are now. State your name and address for the record please. Bill Tippmann: Good evening again. My name is Bill Tippmann. I'm Vice President of Bear Creek Capital from Cincinnati, Ohio and would like to address any questions you may have. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Questions from the applicant. Craig, you had one. Claybaugh: ... question I asked previously of staff. The average service time of the drive thru. You indicate 3 cues. They identified that there typically isn't more than 3 customers being serviced at the drive thru at any one time. They feel that's sufficient. ! was just curious what the average service time was. Bill Tippmann: I'll have to apologize. I'm a bit rusty on that study. It's been several months since I've read it. Claybaugh: I'll accept the best you can do. Bill Tippmann: But ! believe the logic was that they physically observed several CVS stores in Chicago, if I'm not mistaken, as well as some Walgreen's here in Minneapolis, or the Twin Cities area. And they observed, there were there to observe the length of 4 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 2004 cars, how many cars were sitting at the stacking at any point in time. The most they ever observed was 3. ! don't believe they got into how long it takes to serve... Claybaugh: Okay, so that was the extent of the methodology they used. Bill Tippmann: Yes. Sacchet: Wasn't it last time ! recall you point out that one of the outer drive thru is just to drop off prescriptions so there is, it's almost like a mailbox. People don't really linger. Bill Tippmann: Yes. Right. That's the way it functions. You drop off your prescription in the tube and then you come back to the other window. Sacchet: Would you drop it off and talk to the person? Bill Tippmann: ! guess you would have if you had any questions certainly. ! think there's a substantial number of people who use that window who have called in previously, or the doctor has. Sacchet: Specifically drop off at that point. Bill Tippmann: Yes. Sacchet: And then the pick-up, ! guess what would help give a little framework. Claybaugh: ! was just trying to follow the methodology they used, if there was any difference in services at this location over the study locations. Parallel to what Commissioner Sacchet had just identified. Just wanted to understand the complete methodology. Bill Tippmann: The way that window functions, the only thing you can purchase there is pharmaceuticals. You can't buy over the counter medication. You can't buy milk. Sacchet: So you basically pick up what... Bill Tippmann: Exactly, you pick up prescriptions. Sacchet: Does that answer your question? Claybaugh: Yes, that answers my question. Thanks. Sacchet: Other questions from the applicant. Any other questions? Steve, go ahead. Lillehaug: ! assume you heard my question ! asked staff before regarding parking. Trip generation doubles. Are you okay with your parking on that site? Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 2004 Bill Tippmann: We, as I believe I stated the last time we were here, we are a developer, select developer for CVS. We do stores here in Minneapolis and in the Cincinnati/Dayton area in Ohio. One, they are more restrictive. They want slightly more parking typically than code will provide, and their number is in the 65 to 70 range. Well we have 70 provided on this, so we're comfortable and CVS is comfortable. Lillehaug: Okay. How about berming? ! see the revised plans have taken into consideration the revised contours out there, and grading. ! guess my opinion is, is we don't have much berming out there. The parking isn't totally screened from berming and trees out there. ! mean there's probably only a 1 to 2 foot berm inbetween the parking lot and Trunk Highway 5. Is there, are you open to possibly providing more berming? Bill Tippmann: Certainly. To the extent that it doesn't screen the building. The way I've always heard this. Lillehaug: The parking is ! guess is what I'm. Bill Tippmann: The way I've always heard, and ! don't know whether there's any truth in it or not but the methodology that most designers will use is to screen the fronts of cars. The bumpers, the headlights, those kind of things. To the extent that the berms are, or with shrubs on top are high enough to achieve that, that usually satisfies the design intent. That's the way I've always heard it, and yes we are receptive to doing that. Lillehaug: And could ! guess you comment on the general revisions you made to the overall circulation and why you didn't look at, trying to shift the building back to the north and providing the adequate parking setback on the south. Bill Tippmann: We actually produced plans that had the drive thru on the east side of the building, and when we looked at it in it's totality with the conflicts that it then generated between the stacking for the pick-up window and the service area in the rear, we thought this was a better balance. We thought this still achieved what the Planning Commission was asking for last time and that is to provide a method for the people at the drive thru window to exit the site without having to load the intersection any more at Galpin then it needed to be. And in balance ! think we just felt this was a better blend. Lillehaug: ! think that is all ! have for now, thanks. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Bill Tippmann: Thank you. Sacchet: Now this is not a public hearing. We took comments for that last time but ! do want to ask is anybody here to address this item? No, it doesn't look like it. So we'll have it for discussion and comments. Commissioners. Any opinions? Things to add. Over what we discussed last time. Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 2004 Claybaugh: Nothing new to add. Sacchet: Nothing new to add? Okay. Want to add something Steve? Lillehaug: Comments I guess is I would still like to see more berming on the south. I don't think we're quite high enough. I'm looking at the grades and I think we can do better than what we're showing. There's plenty of footage inbetween the parking lot and trunk highway 5 and I think we can get a berm a little bit higher than that wouldn't screen the building but it would better screen the parking lot. And also on the Galpin side, I guess I'm, the screening on that site is pretty inadequate. I mean we're, I know we talked about it before but pretty much absent of the berm at all on that site and there is space inbetween the parking lot on the west and the trail on the west that I think they could provide somewhat of a berm anyways, as well as like staff has indicated at least providing a minimum amount of canopy on the trees. And so I definitely concur with staff on providing more canopy trees on that side. I guess looking at the site plan revisions, they didn't push the building back to the north but I guess it's a better balance than what we saw before in my opinion. I really don't like encroaching on the parking setback on the south side. I think it's pretty important not to encroach in that setback. But am I going to let that hold this up in my mind, I mean I think I'll let it go. As far as support wise goes, since they do have a few extra parking stalls in there, somehow maybe they could get rid of a couple parking stalls in the very southeast corner of the parking lot so it provides less of an encroachment area. And I don't see that as a major factor in my support on this but it's just an idea. Other than that, I'm in support of the application. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Any other comments? Keefe: I think we definitely want to add, make sure the signage piece is in there in terms of making sure the exit for getting onto 5 and going south on Galpin is added as a condition. Sacchet: I missed the last part. Keefe: To make sure that we have signs in there to make sure that, exiting to south Galpin and Highway 5 are added to the site so that people going to the east. Sacchet: Yep. Kurt, you have a comment? Papke: I think it's kind of just getting to the berming issue. It looks like about a 3 foot berm from what I, you know from reading the plan. Plus there's the crab apple trees and there's a fair number of trees out in the front there. ! suspect the applicant wants some visibility. He said, you know of the building they want to screen the cars. It looks like they're achieving that so ! guess ! don't share your concern with the size of the berm. It looks like a pretty good balance between the row of shrubs, right along the edge of the parking lot, the crab apple trees. Nice trees. 3 to 4 foot berm. Doesn't look all that bad to me. Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 2004 Sacchet: Alright, ! don't have really much to add. Lillehaug: Can ! have my, maybe rebuttal comments. Sacchet: Sure, rebuttal. Lillehaug: When ! look at my point of elevations ! look on the southwest corner. It's about 866, and then ! look at the parking lot in that same area. It's about 865. And the berm isn't much higher. It's all relative to where you're looking at so to me it's not much of a berm and could ! ask your comment on berming on the Galpin side. Does anybody have any comments on that? ! mean there's only 20-30 feet inbetween the sidewalk and the parking lot. There's not much room to put a berm in there but at least some. ! guess overall ! just see developments out there that yeah, they come in with a berm plan and then when it actually gets built, there's no berm out there. So ! would rather have more shown in these plans so we at least get some berm out there. And that's all ! have, thanks. Sacchet: Go ahead. Slagle: Commissioner Lillehaug, I'm trying to think on Kwik Trip, are there berms? Lillehaug: ! think there's a slight berm inbetween Galpin. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Does staff have an opinion on that? Generous: ! like berms. Sacchet: You like berms? Aanenson: Yeah, I think that's one of the goals that was mentioned by the applicant. Certainly our goal to screen the parking lots and that's why we have done, we did the Highway 5 corridor study. Depending on when you certainly have the width on the front, just as Highway 5 and Galpin, that's something, I think that's where Jill was coming back to say it's important that we add some additional canopy to get those different heights and different types of trees. But certainly we'll take a look at that. At that narrow, you'd have to certainly the irrigation and all, how we, or drip lines, that's all important to make sure it lives and we get the right species in there. But it's to screen the lights when people park their cars and the noise and some of that sort of thing too. Sacchet: Maybe the balance is that we would have something that the applicant work with staff. I don't think it's big enough of a deal to make a condition, and it's not like if it would be a neighborhood next door, there'd be a real issue in berming and buffering and all that but next to a major road, I don't think it's that crucial. Maybe that would be the balance point. With that one. I don't really have much comments except I do want to Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 2004 acknowledge my appreciation that ! think the applicant really did do due diligence in taking our comments from last time we looked at this into consideration and ! think it's a significantly improved proposal in terms of the concerns we voiced last time so ! want to thank you for that. With that I'm willing to take a motion. Claybaugh: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends site plan approval of Planning Case # 04-21, plans prepared by Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC, dated May 5, 2004, revised 5-13-04, 5-20-04 and 6-24-04, with a 38-foot variance from the parking setback requirement and a variance to permit two rows of parking between the building and the road based on the attached findings and recommendation and subject to the following conditions 1 through 26 and ! guess I'd like to come back with respect to the commissioners comments on directional signage out to Galpin and Highway 5. You indicated you thought that was in there. ! didn't see it. Saam: No, ! apologize. It's not. Claybaugh: So would add condition number 27 to address the directional signage. Slagle: With no U turn. Claybaugh: Directional signage and any appropriate restrictions. Keefe: The U turn would be out on Galpin, right? Slagle: The U turn is going away. Saam: Well that's a county issue. We have talked with the county and they really don't see a need for that right now so that's something we're going to have to, if we want to push that continued to work with them on it so, ! guess if we could not condition the U turn one and just the directional at this point. Claybaugh: Okay, with respect to with what was handed out just before the meeting here, would that become an additional condition? Aanenson: Yes. Claybaugh: So that would be condition number 28. Do ! need to read that through Kate? Regarding condition for drive aisles as submitted by city staff dated July the 6th. DO I need to read that in entirety or not? Aanenson: I just think for the record, just that the driveway access. Sacchet: Yeah, just read it. Short. Claybaugh: The minimum width per city code, this to address condition number 28. Drive aisles. The minimum width per city code for one way traffic drive aisles within Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 2004 business districts is 20 feet. As such the plans for CVS Pharmacy must be revised to comply with the ordinance and increase the drive aisle width for the drive thru exit from 16 to 20 feet. Sufficient? So that would be conditions 1 through 26. 27 addressed directional signage. 28 addressed drive aisle widths. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Keefe: Second. Sacchet: We have a motion, we have a second. Are there any friendly amendments? Lillehaug: Point of clarification. Maybe I'm not paying attention here but previous one we had to have a sign variance. Sacchet: That's B. Letter B. After the conditions on page 6. We're going to need a second motion for that. Lillehaug: Okay. Sacchet: And the proposal says we deny the sign variance which nobody seemed to think we wanted the sign except, we had discussion about that one a little bit. Let's finish this one. Any friendly amendments? Do we want to say we want to do something there? Lillehaug: ! would like to say work with staff on berming on the south and west side. Claybaugh: That's acceptable. Sacchet: Acceptable? Alright. Claybaugh moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan approval of Planning Case # 04-21, plans prepared by Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC, dated May 5, 2004, revised 5-13-04, 5-20- 04 and 6-24-04, with a 38-foot variance from the parking setback requirement and a variance to permit two rows of parking between the building and the road based on the attached findings and recommendation and subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. The developer shall provide a bike rack. Additionally, the developer shall install benches on both the Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard sides of the building. 3. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 4. All sidewalks shall be provided with accessible ramps. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 2004 The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be reviewed when complete plans are submitted. Utility plans: Cleanouts are required in the sanitary sewer system in accordance with the Minnesota Plumbing Code. Applicant shall plant 8 deciduous trees along Galpin Boulevard in order to meet minimum requirements. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 10. The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding the maximum allowable size of domestic water on a combination water/sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention division Policy #36-1991. 11 The builder must comply with water service installation policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. 12. The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. 13 The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #4-1991. Copy enclosed. 14. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs and yellow-painted curbing will be required. Please contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact sign locations and for exact curbing to be painted yellow. 15 The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. Storm water calculations shall be submitted to verify that the existing storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. 16. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: 11 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 2004 Type of Slope Time Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 17. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 18. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Carver County, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. 19. Show the location of the accessible ramps on the plans. 20. All final plans must be signed by a registered civil engineer. 21. Add all applicable 2004 City of Chanhassen detail plates to the plans. 22. On the Grading Plan: a. Show all existing and proposed easements. b. Show the location of the existing silt fence. c. Show the existing topography of the site. 23. The retaining wall must be designed by a registered structural engineer and a permit from the Building Department must be obtained for its construction. 24. The City's type II silt fence must be used adjacent to the wetland on the east side of the site. In addition, a 75-foot minimum rock construction entrance must be included at the main access drive to the site. 25. The remaining assessment due payable to the City at the time of building permit application is $10,479. In addition, sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges along with the Met Council's SAC fee will be due at the time of building permit issuance. The 2004 trunk utility hook-up charge is $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for water. The 2004 SAC fee is $1,425 per unit. The hook-up charges and SAC fee are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 2004 26. Storm sewer sizing calculations will need to be submitted for review prior to building permit approval. 27. Directional signage showing access to TH 5 and south Galpin Boulevard shall be installed. 28. Revise the drive aisle width of the drive-thru exit from 16 to 20 feet. 29. Work with staff to increase the berming adjacent to TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Sacchet: Now we need a second motion. Is there any discussion about that first? Which is the issue about the sign variance for the pylon sign. Right? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Pylon sign. Is there any discussion? Any comments about it? Somebody want to make a motion? Claybaugh: Follow up with a motion. Planning Commission recommends denial of the sign variance based on the attached findings of fact and recommendation. Sacchet: Second please. Lillehaug: Second. Claybaugh moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the sign variance based on the attached findings of fact and recommendation. All voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Sacchet: This will go to council on the 12th. That's going to be real soon. In summary for City Council, we found the applicant was very responsive to the concerns we voiced when this came in front of us first time. In terms of revising the design or fine tuning the design ! should say of the drive thru portion and the traffic situation. Adding some more green space. And we were struggling a little bit, some of us at least with encroachment with the parking into the easement. But under the circumstances overall we think it's a good proposal. We'd like, at least some of us like to have some additional consideration that looks at berming and the buffer planting to see whether that could possibly be improved a little bit, and other than that ! think this is a pretty clear, straight forward thing. Anything you'd like to add? Claybaugh: Chairman, could Commissioner Slagle comment on his dissenting vote? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 2004 Slagle: No comment on that. But ! would say, if ! can ask that the city work with the county. Sacchet: On the U turn? Okay. Slagle: ! think that's going to be an issue. Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, and we do want to point out that we had one commissioner not in favor of denying the extra pylon sign. But the opinion generally is that there is an existing pylon sign that was originally intended to serve both properties and that we would like to stick with that agreement. Alright, that's this item. Good luck with it. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Slagle noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 15, 2004 as presented. Sacchet: And so we'll adjourn to have discussion. No? Slagle: ! don't know if there's anybody that wants to have any comments. Sacchet: To? Slagle: ! see Mr. Anderson here. Aanenson: ! think he' s probably here for the next item. Sacchet: ! think they're here for discussion so meeting's adjourned. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:30 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 14