Planning Commission Minutes 2017 03 09

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 9, 2017 Page 6of7 property owner regarding maintenance of their sign, or discussion to remove the Centennial Valley letters? If the City will spend money to install signage, is there a possibility to reach out to the property owner to also do some signage? Trice says I don't know of any discussion to the point. Sheets says regarding maintenance, what is their durability and who is paying for the long term O&M. Trice says we have discussed materials and durability. We have not had discussions about who will be responsible for long term maintenance, and where the funding will come from. We anticipate talking with the Parks department about doing some landscaping around them. Pritchard says these are City signs, so ultimately, the City will have to maintain them. Before it goes to City Council, it would be good to have a maintenance schedule. The materials are wood, concrete, and some metal. I think CC will ask about this. Brauneis says I think it is a wood composite, a simulated wood grain on metal. Moline says regarding district signs, where and how will those emblems appear? Trice says they will be a part of H or J signs. There has been discussion about their necessity. Zuccaro asks the PC for their opinion of the lighting. Some signs have chimney elements that could be lit, which would be decorative. There is the option to light the sign with an LED under the cap that will downlight the sign for nighttime visibility. Pritchard says regarding the chimney, what is the height? It looks about 5'. If the topography slopes down, will the light be at the elevation of a driver? Zuccaro says it would be a low glow. Rice says I think the signage should be lit. Otherwise, at nighttime, it loses its value as an identity marker. Hsu says regarding locations, as a resident of the Monarch district, there are a lot of signs. Why was there a decision to do something different than what was found in the location study? Trice says a lot of it has to do with budget allocation. We focused on Downtown and McCaslin. The rest were gateway signs. Hsu says we lose a gateway at 961" and the tollway. It does not show up in either Phase 1 or Phase 2. Trice says the location is not in the City of Louisville. We pulled it into a point where you are actually entering into Louisville on both sides. Brauneis says the J signs in McCaslin. What do they point to? Trice says the McCaslin and Cherry signs would point to Downtown. Additional strips can be added for "golf course" or "Rec Center" underneath. Sheets says all the J signs are set up to say Downtown unless something is added. Trice says there has been feedback about South Boulder Road and Via Appia in removing those as being Downtown directional signs. Hsu says unlike page 3 where there is a picture of each sign, on another page there are at least 10-12 items in the legend and you need to flip through pages to figure what is sign type L, for example. This page is difficult to read with Phase 1 and Phase 2. Trice says the Phase 1 signs have a number with them. As we move forward, there has been discussion about directional signs versus entry signs. Is there a general preference from PC? We have a set amount in the budget that could potentially be rolled over. We want to use it in the best way possible. Hsu says I like the idea of City entry signs. I am skeptical about what the J signs do. For budgetary reasons, I think you should prioritize business areas. I like pedestrian signs which are different from a GPS or Smart phone. Moline says I think the pedestrian level signs add an identity and understanding of the community. Brauneis says I lean more towards entry signs in Phase 1. Sheets agrees. Rice agrees. Pritchard asks when does this goes to City Council. Trice says April 18, which is before the budget rollover decision is made.