Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 08 08

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2019 Page 7 of 10 Zuccaro replied that the original proposal had a sign area of 120 square feet. Staff told the applicant that something over 60 square feet might work, but 120 square feet was too much. Kearney stated that he appreciated staff's time and that the King Soopers PUD was not recorded on the car wash's property. He described the main issue as a fundamental matter of equity and following the code. King Soopers had many large signs, which the car wash did not want for themselves. They wanted to have decent signage exposure. He appreciated any direction from the Commission to work with staff to get decent signage for his one -acre property. Having increased signage would make a big difference for the business. Rice asked for commissioner comments. Howe appreciated Speedy Sparkle's requests and agreed with the right to have decent signage exposure. He saw the three different signs as three different matters. He thought that they were entitled to have a sign on South Boulder Road based on Section 7.2B. However, the sign that was proposed — though they were entitled to it — did not meet the guidelines as proposed due to its size and lighting. As for the menu signs, he thought that there was no issue with them since they were not referenced. As for the Hecla Way sign, Howe quoted Section 7.5, again finding that the applicant was entitled to a sign there but it had to be responsive to the "family of signs" as described in 7.5. Hoefner stated that he was sympathetic to the fact that the existing sign was very small. He thought that the Commission needed to find a way to approve something bigger on South Boulder Road, but he did not think that the proposed sign was it. He did not think the Commission would approve an EMC and did not support it himself. He also thought the proposed sign on Hecla was too big given the residential context. He did not see any issues with the menu boards. As for the proposed materials for South Boulder, he thought that the I -beams blended in with the building. He did not think that the PUD issue was in the Commission's wheelhouse and the applicant needed to resolve that with King Soopers. Moline stated that he wanted Speedy Sparkle to succeed and he hoped that they could find a way to make it work. He thought that staff and the Commission had spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the new sign code and had heard a lot of feedback from the community, and the proposal was in a space where the Commission was being influenced by community desires and the code that was being developed. He thought it was helpful to look toward the future code in the case of a PUD amendment. Rice stated that in his view it was not the Commission's role to micromanage signs and some of the criticisms of this proposal were micromanaging. He saw that the applicant needed adequate signage. However, given the grouping of the signs, he thought they should be treated together and he was concerned that the signs were being treated piecemeal instead of with all the property owners. He thought it was doable to work with all the property owners at once. He believed that Louisville should be a business - friendly community with adequate signage. He stated that he thought that if there were going to be menu signs, they should be approved by the City and so they should be 9