Planning Commission Minutes 2006 03 09

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes MARCH 9, 2006 Page 10 of 16 b. Maximum wall sign height shall be 25 feet above grade; c. 2nd level wall signs shall only be available for tenants occupying space on the second and 3rd floors of the building; and d. All other existing requirements from the PUD shall apply. 5. Prior to City Council hearing on this application, the applicant shall provide written evidence that the owner of the property where the SH 42 monument sign is proposed consents to the proposed design and location 6. If the application is approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, the applicant shall provide standard 24-inch by 36-inch PUD plans for recordation with the Boulder County Clerk, subject to staff review and approval prior to recordation. Commission Questions of Staff: Dalton asked if the application generally meets the criteria that the Commission has been discussing for the proposed Sign Code Amendment. Johnstone confirmed that it did. Lipton and Johnstone discussed the letter size chart and how it can be applied during the review of this application. Lipton, Johnstone and Wood entered into a discussion of the following: . Letter height difference for primary and secondary tenants and how the applicant has addressed it. . Use of logos on monument signs Applicant Presentation:. John Huff, RMD Signs representing the owner and tenants of Christopher Plaza. The sign is still in the conceptual form. The goal is to establish a large size and design so the tenants and owner can move forward with a new signage program for the site. Commission Questions of Applicant: Deborski asked if the architectural design is pleasing to the site. Huff stated that it is based on the architecture of the design and the panel design that would be ultimately selected. Members of the Public: None Commission Questions of Staff and Applicant: No additional questions. Public Hearing Closed / Commission Comments: Sheets supports the request without the use of the tenant telephone numbers. Deborski stated that it is hard to visualize the panels and would like to see a better example of what the sign would look like. He continued that the architecture of the sign is appealing. Pritchard stated that new monument signs are needed and he supports the request. Lipton stated that he disagreed. He felt that the applicant has good intentions but he needs better illustrations and not just good intentions. Loo stated that she agrees with Lipton for the following reasons: . Sign is too large. There should be a limit to the height and SF.