Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Roll Call Vote: <br /> Bill McDermott, Yes; Tom McAvinew, Yes; Chris Pritchard, No; Jeffery Lipton, Yes. <br />(Debra Kalish, Patricia Thompson and Christopher Leh absent) Motion to continue passed 3:1. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Resolution No. 31, Series 2001, <br />Amended final PUD development plan for an entry <br />monument sign, Century Retail (AKA McCaslin Plaza), 321, 339, and 375 McCaslin <br />Blvd., Lots 1 & 2, Century Retail Center. Case #01-022-FP. <br /> <br /> <br />Applicant: O’Connor Development <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Owner: McCaslin Plaza, LLC <br /> <br />Public Notice Verification: Ken Johnstone, Principal Planner, reported that public notice was properly <br />served having been published in the Daily Camera, posted in City Hall and mailed to the surrounding <br />property owners. <br /> <br />Staff Report of Facts and Issues: Johnstone reported that the applicant is requesting to amend the final <br />PUD development for Century Retail, aka McCaslin Plaza for a new monument sign located at 321, <br />339, 375 McCaslin Blvd., Lot 1, Century Retail. The requested PUD amendment pertains solely to a <br />monument sign proposed to the south of the main drive entry and to be used for identification for <br />tenants in the three retail buildings. No monument sign was specifically approved for Lot 1, though <br />one had been proposed during the previous PUD review process. The final PUD plans included the <br />following note: “Monument sign at the entrance drive shall be similar to the office building sign and <br />subject to review by the Commission and City Council.” The proposal is for a single sign to be located <br />to the south of the drive entry off McCaslin. The sign is set back 10 feet from the McCaslin right-of- <br />way and the applicant has indicated it will be set back a minimum of 2 feet from the main sidewalk <br />leading into the development. The proposed sign is similar in design and materials to that in place for <br />the office building. The sign could provide identification for up to four tenants on each side, with the <br />possibility that some tenants would have identification on both sides. <br /> <br />Johnstone reported that the request has been initiated for a monument sign on the basis that several of <br />the retail tenant spaces are difficult to identify for motorists along McCaslin Boulevard. Staff is <br />recommending a condition that tenant signs shall only be authorized on the monument to the extent <br />that one could not see both the monument sign text and a wall sign for the same business from <br />McCaslin Blvd. In order to eliminate the potential that one tenant would use an entire sign panel, <br />becoming effectively an individual tenant monument sign, Staff is recommending the following <br />additional criteria: 1) maximum 12-inch letter height, 2) maximum one sign per tenant per face, and 3) <br />maximum one line of text per tenant per face. Staff is recommending approval with 4 conditions. <br /> <br />Commission Questions: <br /> <br />Lipton asked if the sign could be built horizontally instead of vertically. <br /> <br />Johnstone replied that is it might be possible for a horizontal sign. <br /> <br />McDermott expressed concerns about the angle and height of the proposed sign. <br /> <br />Applicant Presentation: Frank Marceau, representing O’Connor Development, 6685 Gun Park Dr., <br />Boulder, CO 80301. Marceau reported that the application is for an amendment to the final PUD <br />development plan and to address the condition, “Monument sign at the entrance shall be similar to <br />office building sign and subject to later review by the commission”. Much care and consideration has <br />9 <br /> <br /> <br />