Planning Commission Minutes 2015 10 08

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 8, 2015 Page 2 of 23 Posted in City Hall, Public Library, Recreation Center, Courts and Police Building, and on the property and mailed to surrounding property owners on September 18, 2015. Published in the Boulder Daily Camera on September 20, 2015. Staff Report of Facts and Issues: Sean McCartney, Principal Planner, presented from Power Point: • Proposed sign location is on the south side of the building in Colony Square. McCaslin Blvd is east of the location and US 36 is south. Home Depot is west of the building. • The existing sign is 2' tall and 26 SF. The original sign conforms to the CDDSG which requires 24" maximum. The 26 SF is probably specific to the original PUD. The Code reads on a secondary wall, 1 SF for every 1 linear foot of building frontage is allowed. It cannot be any taller than 24". • Proposed sign will be 159 SF and 6''/4" tall and it will face US 36. • In the discussion of the Staff report, Staff's justification for this sign location and recommendation for the waiver is because of its proximity and that it will face US 36. In the plan set in the packet, the applicant shows a night view of what the sign will look like. • In the CDDSG, a lighted box sign is not allowed, only illuminated individual letters. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends Planning Commission move to approve Resolution No. 29, Series 2015, a resolution recommending approval of an amendment to a planned unit development (PUD) to allow a 160 SF, 6.25' tall sign at Lot 5, Colony Square. Commission Questions of Staff.- Moline asks what was the justification or rationale for limiting the letter size in the past? McCartney says typically when there are signs measuring 24" in height, the buildings are closer to the street and a larger sign is not needed. I do not know the rationale behind it. In Downtown, we have relaxed it so there is no limit on character sizes. It is based on the overall area and is not only for letters but trademarks and logos. In the early 2000s, the Home Depot PUD allowed a 5' tall by 58' long (290 SF) sign. Buildings in this area have requested and received it due to the depth and the location of the building, and proximity to US 36. Rice says the way the CDDSG is written, 24" is the maximum for any sign, regardless of the size of the building. Is this something we should be looking at and perhaps amending, or should we do it on an ad hoc basis much in the same manner we are talking about tonight? Home Depot did it in their PUD? McCartney says a maximum of 200 SF is what any one sign can be. We don't want to give anyone an unfair advantage so if they have a huge building, they get a huge sign. There are many different ways of modifying the sign code. It needs to be discussed in the IDDSG as well because Staff gets questions frequently. Russ says when the Code was adopted, there was a strong preference of the community to have an esthetic improvement to the corridor and not be overburdened with signs and lights. The CDDSG reflected a 1990 City ethic towards signage. We are approaching this issue through the Small Area Plan process and it is being discussed and evaluated. The intent of the Small Area Plan is to look not only at the zoning in the area, but also the design guidelines. This would be one of the things that we can overhaul. The process is included in the McCaslin Small Area Plan. Rice says my thought is that these things be considered and then look at it in a holistic approach in terms of trying to figure out what makes sense in terms of signs, industrial, commercial, and Small Area Plan. We need to come up with some good thoughts about signs. Applicant Presentation: