Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />March 12t", 2020 <br />Page 4 of 8 <br />Rice asked if Mr. Kearney agreed with the illumination as described tonight. <br />Kearney replied that it was and that it was all captured on the PUD. <br />Rice asked for his comments on the two staff conditions. <br />Kearney replied that he approved. <br />Rice asked for public comment. <br />Mark Cathcart, Sweet Clover Lane, stated that he lived within 75 square feet of Speedy <br />Sparkle and was a member of the Louisville Cultural Council and Director of the North <br />End HOA. He requested that the Commission deny the application. He wanted the car <br />wash to succeed, but Speedy Sparkle had a track record of not switching off the menu <br />boards at night. The signature petition in support of their signs includes some 203 <br />signatures, including four North End residents, and at most 60 Louisville residents. At <br />least two-thirds of the people out of town found their way to the car wash without this <br />signage. He surmised that the reason the Hecla sign was never installed was because <br />he thought that the view of the sign would be blocked from the road by a high voltage <br />box and shrubs and trees, so motorists driving on Hecla Way would not see that <br />signage. He did not think that Hecla should become a through -way or short-cut. He was <br />worried about illegal left turns at Blue Star Lane. Since the car wash was pretty visible <br />from Hecla Way, why did they need a sign there? <br />Brian Topping, White Violet Way, approximately 150 feet and a two -minute walk away. <br />He did not receive a notice for this meeting. He was worried that the area would turn <br />into Queens with bright signs. He asked if there were any regulations stopping them <br />from turning it into a flashing sign, using a spotlight, or brightening the lights. He thought <br />the right answer was to not have a sign on Hecla Way at all. He thought the car wash <br />was obvious from Hecla Way. He asked why he could not put a sign on his home for his <br />company, as a way of illustrating that there could not be applications for waiver requests <br />like this. He noted that there were 24-hour car washes nearby and if Speedy Sparkle <br />went that way they could become 24-hour illuminated signs. He did not have a problem <br />with the other signage. He added that the current owner knew what he was getting into <br />with having a car wash in that location, since it was a car wash before, and that the <br />residents shouldn't be punished with more signs. <br />Rice asked for further public comment. Seeing none, he closed the public hearing and <br />asked for additional questions of staff. <br />Howe asked if business hours could be changed or if there should be a limitation on the <br />definition of business hours. <br />Zuccaro replied that the Commission could ask the applicant about their business hours <br />and could provide a cap on the hours they could use. <br />Howe asked what the recourse would be if the signs were illuminated after business <br />hours. <br />