MOTION: Melander moved, seconded by Burke, to approve the agenda. The motion carried 6-0.

MOTION: Burke moved, seconded by Hadley, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 4-0 (2 abstentions-Churchill, Blundetto).

Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer introduced the item.

Edgeton asked if there was a color rendering of the Kwik Trip available.

Blundetto asked what the standard percentage of landscaping is. Bodmer replied that the normal is 2 ½%; however, this Planned Development required 5%. She also noted the petitioner has agreed to the sidewalk link on the south property line.

In relation to signage, Blundetto asked if the petitioner has requested at the maximum allowed. Bodmer stated that they have.

MOTION: Burke moved, seconded by Hadley, to recommend approval of the site plan and give building permit authorization for construction of a 3100 s.f. bank with drive-thru bank tellers in accordance with the site plan dated June 14, 2000 and the elevation plan dated July 28, 2000, with the following conditions: (a) submission of a nursery bid list that confirms the value of the landscape plantings meet or exceed 5% of the value of the construction of the building based on Means Construction Data; (b) no tree removal or land disturbing activity may begin until a Natural Resources Management Permit has been obtained from the City Engineer; (c) a sidewalk link shall be provided along the south property line as shown on the site plan. Motion carried 6-0.

MOTION: Burke moved, seconded by Hadley, to recommend approval of a variance for two directional signs identifying the entrances to the bank site, but not including any advertising. Motion carried 6-0.

Bodmer introduced the project, noting the changes made to the proposal since the Planning Commission last looked at it. She clarified that the truck parking would be striped and hashed only, but does not include curbing.

Blundetto asked about circulation of cars parking in the rear (south side).

Victor Sacco with Holiday Stationstores asserted their agreement to doing the striping for truck parking. He explained that they are requesting a car wash at this time because they get a lot of requests from customers, and that the time is right now because of the growth and competitive forces in the area.

Edgeton and Blundetto both expressed concern about the traffic circulation.

John Beragi, also representing Holiday, stated there is a 24-foot drive aisle between the car wash exit curb and the semi-truck pump island.

The Planning Commission requested that the city's traffic consultant review the directional signage proposal.

Burke commented that he had never seen seven trucks on the site at one time (as is shown in the site plan drawing), so he wasn't sure there would be a traffic problem.

MOTION: Melander moved, seconded by Burke, to recommend approval of a conditional use permit to construct a car wash on the Holiday Truck Express site in conjunction with the operation of a motor fuel station. Motion carried 6-0.

MOTION: Melander moved, seconded by Burke, to recommend approval of the building permit authorization to construct a 1250 s.f. car wash with the following conditions: (a) the final site plan shall incorporate all of the changes recommended by the City's traffic consultant, and an additional review prior to the City Council meeting; (b) two additional trees shall be planted in the landscape area adjacent to County Road 42 in accordance with the recommendation of the Natural Resources Coordinator. Motion carried 6-0.

Assistant Planner Margaret Milton introduced the item. She showed a chart of heights of area buildings on Pennock Avenue. It was noted that the ground elevation at Rascal's is about five feet higher than the proposed site. Milton reviewed the public hearing comments.

Edgeton asked why the driveway wasn't aligned with that of the animal clinic. Community Development Director Rick Kelley stated that because of the much-used alleyway next to Rascals, it is desirable to keep the drive as far away as possible.

Melander expressed lingering concern in regard to the appearance of the west elevation of the building.

The petitioner Dr. Mike Bakken enumerated the changes made from the initial plans, including the change from siding to stucco, adding the same soffit as the front, and adding quoin details.

There was some discussion about the roof height and its seemingly large expanse in the rear elevation. The petitioner introduced the possibility of reducing the pitch from a 6:12 to a 5:12, which would be about four feet shorter. Tom Ryan with R. J. Ryan Construction, stated that the size and scale of the roof is proportionate to the mechanical and the high ceilings and other features of the interior.

Melander expressed some concern with the red splendor crabs included in the landscape plan as they seem to be susceptible to disease.

Hadley asked if dormers had been added to the side elevation. Bakken apologized for dormers appearing on the drawing. This was reflective of some of the experimenting the architect did in trying to incorporate more dormers and should have been removed from the side elevation drawing. Bakken said they did not feel the experimental renderings improved the appearance of the building.

There was additional discussion about whether to add dormers to the rear roofline and how they might look. Edgeton said she didn't have a problem with the height of the building, but that she thought the rear could be dressed up additionally.

MOTION: Hadley moved, seconded by Melander, to recommend approval of the minor subdivision, creating one buildable lot and one outlot, provided an easement for the sidewalks along Pennock Avenue and 147^th Street is filed with the final plat. Motion carried 6-0.

MOTION: Hadley moved, seconded by Melander, to recommend approval of the site plan/building permit authorization to allow for the construction of a 10,750 s.f. single story office building on Lot 1, Block 1 Bakken First Addition. Motion carried 6-0.

MOTION: Hadley moved, seconded by Melander, to recommend approval of a variance increasing the height of the building from the required 20 feet to 29 feet. Although a strict interpretation of the zoning code finds that a sufficient hardship does not exist, approval of a building height variance will not have a significant impact on adjacent properties, and the granting of the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance. Motion carried 6-0.

A. Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Amendments - Set Hearing to Establish Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Land Use Designations on Recently Annexed Property by City of Apple Valley

Kelley introduced the item, explaining that annexed property has no zoning or comprehensive plan designation until the acquiring City establishes one, thus the need to do so.

MOTION: Burke moved, seconded by Hadley, to adopt the draft resolution to set a public hearing regarding the above for September 20, 2000. Motion carried 6-0.

Melander moved, seconded by Churchill, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.