My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 05 09
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2019 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 05 09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:12 AM
Creation date
5/16/2019 2:01:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2019 05 19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April 11, 2019 <br />Page 2 of 10 <br />PUD Process <br />Brauneis asked about the difference between "consistency" and "compatibility" in the <br />language and for an explanation on color differentiation requirements. <br />Ritchie replied that the language matched other waiver criteria meant to ensure that the <br />design was appropriate for the site. <br />Brauneis observed that "appropriate" was a better word than "compatible" to that end. <br />Rice suggested getting rid of the "consistent" and just leave "compatible" since <br />"consistent" could be read as "the same" or "nearly the same," which did not seem to be <br />the intent. <br />Howe asked if the size of the allowable sign would be based on the size of the lot. <br />Ritchie and Zuccaro responded that the language was meant to help the signs scale up <br />with the size of the building and the size of the lot. <br />Howe asked if the language on scale would relate to downtown. <br />Ritchie agreed that the scale of a downtown project would be different than projects <br />elsewhere in the city, so the "scale" would be different. <br />Brauneis suggested that "appropriate" would be better than "consistent" for this point, as <br />well. <br />Rice stated that he liked the first criterion, which demanded "excellence" as a <br />benchmark for obtaining a waiver. <br />Hoefner suggested looking into the overlap among the four criteria with an eye toward <br />condensing them into fewer points since often the Commission reviewed the list of <br />criteria but then decided on a single point so maybe fewer points would be responsive <br />to that. <br />Minor Modifications and Master Sign Program <br />Moline wondered if the incentive for an increase of up to 10% sign area through the <br />Master Sign Program was sufficient. <br />Brauneis asked for the criteria for someone to be considered part of the Master Sign <br />Program. <br />Ritchie replied that the Master Sign Program was an option for places with unique <br />signage needs in specific uses and the bonus was meant to encourage excellence in <br />design. <br />Rice agreed with Commissioner Moline's point that the incentive should be greater, but <br />asked for the thinking behind the 10% number. <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.