My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 08 08
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 08 08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:12 AM
Creation date
8/23/2019 2:56:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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 />July 11, 2019 <br />Page 5 of 10 <br />of that cooperation, King Soopers wanted to have the LED signs included in the <br />amendment. <br />Hoefner asked how many monument signs they thought they were entitled to. <br />Chip replied that they thought they should be allowed one each for Speedy Sparkle, <br />Jiffy Lube, and King Soopers. He added that they should also be allowed signs for each <br />entry. <br />Hoefner asked if electronic message centers (EMCs) were allowed under the code. <br />Weincek replied that he understood that they were not allowed. He stated that the City <br />needed to update its code on LED signs, because these were the future of commercial <br />signs. <br />Hoefner asked what would happen if the Planning Commission granted the <br />continuance, would the applicants be able to come to an agreement with smaller signs <br />and no EMCs. <br />Weincek replied that he wanted to hear what the Commission had to say about the <br />larger signs and the EMCs. <br />Kearney added that the original proposal tried to meet Director Zuccaro's goal of having <br />fewer signs, but the signage was greater than 60 square feet. The applicants were <br />happy with that at the time, but later they found out that the application was no longer <br />acceptable. He believed that there was more than one way to make signage visibility <br />happen. <br />Rice asked if the 2011 PUD amendment predated the applicants' ownership of the <br />property. <br />Kearney stated that he had not been the owner at the time and that he could not speak <br />to the original agreement among the property owners. <br />Zuccaro added that the boundary of the original PUD included all three of the properties <br />and appeared to be validly approved by the City and recorded. <br />Rice replied that he wanted to make sure it was understood that there was still one PUD <br />over the three properties. <br />Zuccaro replied that, as far as signage was concerned, yes. <br />Weincek stated that there was nothing about ownership of the current monument sign. <br />Rice replied that he did not think the Planning Commission could speak to property <br />disputes. He invited members of the public to speak. <br />Laura Chenerock 1459 Hecla Way in Louisville, stated that she lived in the townhouse <br />adjacent to the car wash and was a customer there. She stated that she represented <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.