Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />October 10', 2019 <br />Page 4 of 15 <br />Zuccaro replied that from a city standpoint they were looking at the design of the sign <br />and that discussion would have to be worked out among the property owners. Staff <br />could not approve a change like that without going through a review process, since it <br />would still require a waiver. He did not think there was a big difference from staff's <br />analysis whether one business was on top versus another. He noted that staff does not <br />usually propose alternatives, but with the history of the joint sign staff thought it was <br />important to provide alternatives using the existing sign. <br />Rice asked if the menu signs had been included in a sign permit or a PUD. <br />Zuccaro replied that they had not. <br />Rice asked if the proposed South Boulder Road sign met the sign requirements without <br />a waiver. <br />Zuccaro replied that it did. <br />Moline asked for clarification on the monument signs. <br />Zuccaro showed the two existing monument signs across the properties and noted that <br />the CCDSG allowed one monument sign per building. Usually that applied if each lot <br />was getting their signs independently, but once you have a joint sign for multiple <br />properties you typically do not get an additional monument sign for each property. <br />Howe asked if staff had tried to contact the entity that controls the sign. <br />Zuccaro replied that there were three property owners that used the sign and that it was <br />located on two properties. The applicant did provide authorization letters from the other <br />owners in the beginning, but with the new design staff was still waiting for updated <br />authorization letters. Staff has not reached out to them directly. <br />Williams asked if the South Boulder Road sign could be moved to the eastern edge. <br />Zuccaro replied that Commissioner Williams could ask the applicant if they were <br />interested in that option. There was a retaining wall in that location and a sign there <br />could be possible. <br />Howe asked for clarification on the easement around the property. <br />Zuccaro replied that the applicant was proposed a 10-foot easement for the sign. To <br />staff's knowledge there is no easement to that effect currently. <br />Brauneis asked for the applicant presentation. <br />Robert Kearney, owner of the Speedy Sparkle Car Wash, stated that the car wash PUD <br />originally allowed for one half of the original joint sign. The other half of the joint sign <br />was meant to be for the other property. King Soopers subsequently did a PUD for their <br />property that changed the shared sign. That sign was not recorded on the car wash <br />PUD and the former owner had not signed off on it. In that process, the car wash went <br />L <br />