Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 11 14

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10t", 2019 Page 6 of 15 Williams asked if the property owner knew of the two signs, the joint sign and the one approved in 2000, when he was buying the property. Kearney replied that he did not know of them when he bought the property. The original PUD is recorded and shows up in the chain of title. Nowhere there was the joint monument sign. He did not look at the PUD in detail until after he bought it, especially as it related to the signage, and at that time he saw that the only PUD recorded on the property showed his property having half of the joint sign. He later discovered that the King Soopers PUD from 2010 was not recorded in the chain of title. He did not think that King Soopers would agree that he should get half the sign at this point. Weincek continued that Speedy Sparkle had inherited the PUD conflict with King Soopers. He showed the areas of the property that had a drainage ditch, explaining that there could be no signs there. They also wanted to avoid putting signage in front of the King Soopers sign. He stated that they did not care what happened with the spot on the joint monument sign and would do what the City, Jiffy Lube, or King Soopers wanted to do. Weincek shared his interpretation of the CDDSG and City Code 17.24.110. He explained that the sign design reinforced the project architecture with the Steel I -Beams and the concreate bases. He showed the changes they made to the Hecla sign based on commissioner feedback from July. He requested input from the City on what was transparent versus opaque. He and the applicant were proposing that the green background of the sign would be transparent, as would the bubbles and the lettering on the other panels. Weincek also showed picture of sign clutter and empty sign panels around Louisville. He did not think that multi -tenant signs applied to this situation, since those usually have one landlord. In this case, individual building monument signs with single owners were more relevant. He presented other examples of individual monument signs and stated that the proposed signs for Speedy Sparkle were reasonably sized. He added that he thought LED was the future of signage even though they had taken off the LED portion from their application after the July review. He also showed pictures of city signs that he did not feel were compliant signs and he showed examples of menu boards around Louisville. Weincek asked the Commission to: 1. Approve sign sizes as proposed. 2. Accept applicant's application and PUD conflict resolution. 3. Accept easement. 4. Clarify the meaning of translucent and opaque signage. 5. Provide applicant with the acceptable requirements for the proposed blank sign panel on the joint monument sign. Moline asked why the applicant did not think the sign code covered the menu signs, since it stated that all signs had to get a permit except for a few exceptions. Weincek explained that he knew, as an architect, that you had to get a permit, but the business owner had not known that. 8