Planning Commission Minutes 2014 08 14

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 14, 2014 Page 3 of 13 Council can check interpretations. Regarding square footage, Staff interprets only the letters since they are cut-outs with no background allowed. Letters are directly placed on the building. Rice asks about the purpose of these signs, are they to identify business for location. Russ defers to applicant. Rice asks if there have been questions from adjoining property owners. Russ answers no. They have been solicited for comment. Tengler asks about 35 SF in size, is Staff measuring the actual size of the letters and logo for overall amount. Russ answers yes. Staff will measure the square and will not allow the background. Lack of the background makes the 35 SF less. Moline asks about interpretation in the condition and how the SF will be calculated, could this become the standard regarding other signs. Russ says Staff has liberty in IDDSG and Commercial Standards to interpret an area. It does not give methodology. There is administrative power but a precedent would need to be set up, set up memorandum to inform the community, and move forward. This is not the intent at this time. This is a specific PUD with the condition. Applicant Presentation: JM Associates (Jerry Moore), 5589 Arapahoe, Boulder, CO. Applicant has no additional materials to present. Applicant states Staff has correctly interpreted the intent of the signs. There are two types of signs identified in the proposal. The first type is referred to as "tenant branding signs" which are the larger signs. Most tenants have their name wrapped in a graphic. The IDDSG only allows lettering18 inches high. Generally a graphic does not fit into that size. The proposal does not ask for more area but more latitude in how the area is used. The other type of sign is tenant ID signs with no request for more variance in size or letter size. Regarding Lot 5, it is a single story, multi -tenant building, so the applicant is asking for a sign for each tenant. In addition, the applicant asks for tenant branding signs on the prominent upper level corners of the building for better visibility. The number is being driven by tenant requests, which can be a "make or break" negotiating point on whether a tenant will lease. The applicant is requesting a PUD for both buildings. Commission Questions of Applicant: No questions for applicant. Public Comment: None. Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: Staff recommends approval with condition. Applicant accepts the condition as proposed. Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: Moline is in support and agrees with Staff. Recommends that Planning Commission review the sign code and submit to City Council at the joint meeting. Tengler is in support and agrees with Moline on both points. Rice is in support and agrees with Moline on both points. Pritchard is in support with condition. Pritchard will meet with Russ regarding changes made to the sign code.