Laserfiche WebLink
APPROVED – FEBRUARY 10, 2005 <br />Staff recommends a level of conformance which would not require the immediate sign removal. <br />Following is the detail of that conformance: <br /> <br />1.The overall reflectivity of the sign shall be reduced by painting over the gold aluminum <br />back plate. The color of paint shall match the masonry color of the building face. <br /> <br />2.Paint the gold trim cap around each letter as well as the letter return to a dark bronze <br />color. <br /> <br />3.The level of illumination shall be reduced by replacing the transparent, cobalt blue letter <br />faces with dark blue translucent letter faces. <br /> <br />4.The clear poly carbonate assembly at the rear of each character letter provides a reverse, <br />backlit illumination for each letter. The clear poly carbonate assembly shall be painted <br />dark bronze to match the color of the letter return. <br /> <br />5.Hours of sign illumination shall be limited to the retail hours posted for the store, and <br />may extend to no later than 10 PM. <br /> <br />6.The sign shall be removed when the ownership of the property changes on which the sign <br />is located, or whenever there is a change in the business or use to which the sign pertains, <br />or if the sign is destroyed by any means to an extent of more than 50 percent of its <br />appraised value for tax purposes at the time of the destruction. New signage shall <br />conform to the Centennial Pavilion Final PUD and the CDDSG. <br /> <br />Staff requests approval of Resolution No. 2, Series 2005. <br /> <br />Commission Questions: <br />Loo requested clarification of Conditions 1 – 4 wanting to know if these elements have been <br />done other signs and if so with what kind of success. <br />Wood explained that a sign contractor was contacted and the suggested modifications are <br />possible. <br /> <br />Lipton asked what the cost of the original sign was. <br />Wood stated that the permit was issued with a valuation of $9,000. <br /> <br />Lipton asked if the City knew what a new sign would cost, as well as the removal cost for the <br />existing sign. <br />Wood replied that the City did not have those costs. <br /> <br />Deborski asked if the mistake was the applicant or the City. <br />Wood replied that the City made the mistake. <br /> <br />Applicant Presentation: Scott Pedersen, Pedersen Development, 281 Rockview Dr., Superior, <br />CO introduced the owners of Lamar’s Donut, Matt and Tamela Cox. <br /> <br />Pedersen provided the following information: <br />The sign is one of the most visible along McCaslin. <br /> <br /> <br />The recommended sign modifications would require repainting the sign on a yearly <br /> <br /> <br />basis. <br />Reviewed the sign design elements. <br /> <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br /> <br />