Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2021 08 12

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 8, 2021 Page 3 of 7 Moline asked if Mr. Dreyer had considered putting a sign closer to the road. Dreyer replied that he would consider a monument sign. Howe asked if the current sign was workable. Dreyer replied that he did not want to ask for special treatment and he loved the current design of the sign and wanted to work with the City. Moline was in support of the proposal. Howe agreed and thought the company was valuable in the community. He wanted to see what they could do with the existing sign and he did think that the 3-foot sign was small for the 170'-foot setback. He did not think the existing sign was out of the ordinary and he thought it was in scale with the setback. Diehl was in support. Hoefner stated that he had a hard time seeing a difference between what was proposed and what was there now. He was inclined to grant the necessary waivers to keep the existing sign, but stated that the proposal was acceptable as well. Brauneis stated that he appreciated that the applicant had worked with staff and he would be concerned with precedent for other large-scale signs that others may request elsewhere. Moline stated that he worried about precedent if they were to allow the commercialization of this sign, making him more inclined to go with the current proposal. Diehl was in support of moving it forward even given the considerations that the commission had expressed. Moline moved to approve Resolution 8, Series 2021. Hoefner seconded. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. St Louis Parish and Bolder Innovation Campus Filing 2 PUD and plat: A request for approval of a PUD to allow a 100,000 sf industrial building and a replat of a portion of Parcel 1, St Louis Parish and Bolder Innovation Campus Filing 1 to create 4 lots (Resolution No. 9, Series 2021). CONTINUED FROM JUNE 24, 2021. • Applicant: United Properties • Case Planner: Lisa Ritchie, Principal Planner Hoefner recused himself. All public notice requirements were met. Ritchie presented the history of the item and described the access plan for the development and the industrial building on Lot 1. She stated that the applicant was carrying forth the same architectural scheme on Lot 1 as previously approved, and k"