Planning Commission Minutes 2019 07 11

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2019 Page 2 of 10 Moline moved and Howe seconded to continue the item to the August meeting. Speedy Sparkle PUD Amendment: A request for approval of a Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow changes to the signage at 1414 Hecla Way. (Resolution 14, Series 2019) • Applicant: Speedy Sparkle Car Wash — Louisville, LLC • Case Manager: Felicity Selvoski, Planner/Historic Preservation Rice asked for conflicts of interest. Hoefner stated that he was a customer at the Speedy Sparkle but did not think that disqualified him. All notices met as required. Selvoski presented the request to amend the sign code for three properties at Speedy Sparkle. The original PUD was approved in 2000 as the Black Diamond Car Wash with two monument signs. In 2010, the King Soopers Fueling Center PUD included a shared monument sign, as well. The PUD amendment included requests to modify and install a monument sign along Hecla Way, bring the installed menu signs into compliance, and build their own monument sign. This application did not include confirmation from the other two properties that they are okay with these changes. The sign architecture is proposed for steel I -beams, a metal base cabinet, and an LED panel. The Hecla Way sign included the same steel I-beam architectural border. Staff used the CCDSG to evaluate the proposed signs. The materials are supposed to be compatible with the associated structure in terms of materials, color, and design, and staff does not feel that the signs meet this criteria. The Speedy Sparkle building does include steel I -beams, but staff did not find this to be a strong enough connection. This application would also result in three monument signs on the Speedy Sparkle property. Currently, the sign code allows for one and the original PUD allowed for two. The monument signs along South Boulder Road greatly exceed the 60 square feet. The proposed LED panel was not something permitted under the sign code. Finally, the proposed sign designs did not provide information to determine which sides were translucent and which were opaque and current sign code only allows the letters to be translucent; the sign background coloration did not match coloration elsewhere on the site; and the signs were not uniform in color, all of which is both are required in the current sign code. Staff also addressed the draft sign code, though they did not use it to judge the application. One of the goals of the draft was to reduce sign clutter, which this application did not achieve. Electronic message centers are allowed in the draft code if there are exceptional circumstance and if they elevate the design. Staff did not feel they had enough information to determine this. This application also has signs taller than the maximum freestanding 5 feet height maximum on the existing PUD. Staff recommends approval of the resolution, which would deny this application. The proposed PUD amendment did not meet the intent and requirements of our current design guidelines and any changes would need to be approved by the adjacent property owners that would be affected. 4