Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />October 10', 2019 <br />Page 3 of 15 <br />be among the largest multi -panel signs in the city and would improve their signage <br />space significantly, while controlling sign clutter. <br />Zuccaro reminded the Commission that if the application met code, they would not need <br />a hearing for a waiver approval. The applicant was requesting waivers for the following: <br />• Number of signs allowed <br />• Sign illumination <br />• Sign cabinet <br />• Sign material <br />Menu board signs <br />Zuccaro also presented the waiver criteria in Section 17.28.110 of the Code. <br />1. Sign clutter — not effective in wayfinding, distracting and unsafe, detracts from <br />community character. <br />2. Proportionality of sign area to development and frontage — two signs on single <br />frontage with no access drives was excessive. <br />3. Quality of sign material and design should exceed minimum standards for a <br />waiver — should match building material, provide multiple materials and texture. <br />Zuccaro noted that the non -conforming illumination did not meet best standards <br />here. <br />4. Visibility and legibility — South Boulder Road was on the slower end of the city's <br />commercial roadways and staff believes that staff's alternatives would still allow <br />for visibility based on visibility studies that match size to visibility at different <br />distances. <br />For the spirit and intent waiver criteria, Zuccaro noted that the most relevant criteria <br />addressed the context of the area. To keep that "appropriate relationship to the existing <br />area" stated in the Code, staff recommended improving the existing joint monument <br />sign. <br />Staff finds the proposal does not meet the PUD waiver criteria in LMC Sec. 17.28.110 <br />and recommends adoption of Resolution 14, Series 2019 recommending denial of the <br />proposal to City Council. <br />Williams asked to see the location of the never -built sign. <br />Zuccaro replied that it was on Hecla Way and generally close to the proposed location <br />for the sign on Hecla. <br />Williams asked if the applicant could build that sign today. <br />Zuccaro replied that the Code did not void the previous PUD, so they could still request <br />an extension, but they could not build it today without going through that process since <br />the PUD had expired. <br />Williams asked if it was possible for the two smaller signs to be on top of the King <br />Soopers sign, or if KS had right of refusal. <br />5 <br />