Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2021 08 12

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 8, 2021 Page 2 of 7 All public notice requirements were met. Bauer stated that there was an existing, non -conforming sign that had been installed without a permit. It exceeded sign size restrictions and couldn't be considered a mural, which were not allowed for commercial purposes. The proposal was to remove the commercial language on the existing sign to meet mural requirements. Alongside this change, there would be a request for an additional, commercial -specific sign on the property. Bauer described the criteria relevant to the mural, which staff found the mural met. Hoefner asked if staff had considered a waiver to allow the sign as -is. He stated that practically speaking it did not seem like a terribly different result and it was easier to grant a waiver for what was there now. Ritchie stated that the size of the non -conforming sign so greatly exceeded the allowed size for signs that staff did not think it would meet the waiver criteria. The applicant had agreed to modify the existing signage to go under mural criteria. Howe asked about the setback for the signage and noted that it was hard to see what the sign said from the road. He asked if the building was setback at a normal distance and if a larger sign would be appropriate if it were setback further. Ritchie replied that the IDDSG setback standards had a 30-foot minimum. She summarized Commissioner Howe's question as asking would a deep setback justify an increase in size, which she thought sometimes it could, but the size of this sign was still excessive. Howe noted that the building was setback 170 feet from the road, far more than the minimum. Diehl asked if this would set a precedent for commercial -use murals without commercial language that would effectively be commercial signage. Bauer replied that staff found that it did meet the definition of mural and that staff had not been concerned that it would set a precedent for that reason, and because the sign was in a unique location and zone. Zuccaro described the definition of mural and stated that it was to some extent up to the Commission as there was some interpretation. He gave the example of someone advertising a specific product versus displaying general activities that related to a business as a potential distinction. Paul Dreyer, 1501 Empire Road, stated that their previous contractor said that they did not need a permit for their sign and he apologized for that misunderstanding. He described how have a mural related to the mission of the company, which was to empower kids to choose healthy and active lifestyles. He hoped that the mural would provide inspiration when people drive or ride by to be active and healthy in the outdoors. n