My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2006 03 16
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2006 Planning Commission Agendas and Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2006 03 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:16 AM
Creation date
10/19/2006 3:23:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2006 03 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />MARCH 16,2006 <br />Page 6 of 9 <br /> <br />Wood stated that it would be measured very similar to how a height of a building is calculated: <br />the average at finished grade. <br /> <br />Commission used power point slide #8, Freestanding - Monument Signs, to guide the following <br />discussion: (The slide had 9 pictures and they numbered the signs in columns: left column had <br />pictures 1, 2 and 3; center column had pictures 4, 5 and 6; and the right column had pictures 7, 8 <br />and 9.) <br /># 1) Looks like a pole-sign - not good architecture <br />#2) has architectural interest - contains logos - some logos would not fit into a horizontal <br />sIgn. <br />#7) Good identification of major tenants - good framing. <br /> <br />Other general discussion included the following points: <br />. Wall signs vs. Monument Signs. <br />. Visibility of shopping center tenant signs from roadways. <br />. Size of sign vs. architecture of sign. <br /> <br />Lipton stated that the Commission had had a good discussion but needed to give staff direction. <br /> <br />Members of the Public: <br />John Dobie, Broomfield Sign Company, thanked the Commission for reviewing the sign code <br />and for being willing to include input from various sign companies. He provided the following <br />information for consideration: <br />. as the sign moves away from the roadway the height can be increased <br />. encourage flexibility in height <br />. styles have changed over the years and the developers are beginning to request in <br />incorporation of architectural features into a sign <br />. the base should not be calculated into the total square footage <br />. 32 SF might be too small, especially when located 10' from the roadway <br />. 50 SF would be a better size and would allow for some negotiations with regard to the <br />number of tenant identification signs and their respect size. <br />Commission Questions of Public: <br />Loo asked Dobie if he could recommend other communities for the Commission to review their <br />sign code. <br /> <br />Dobie recommended Ft. Collins and Loveland. Other effective signs are the example of the <br />Broomfield location of King Soopers / Petco / Home Depot. <br /> <br />Sheets questioned if the Safeway sign on Dillon / 144th caused any traffic problems. <br /> <br />Dobie replied that the area has enough openness to accommodate the additional SF of the <br />monument base and to set it back from the road. <br /> <br />Deborski inquired about a minimum letter height. <br /> <br />Dobie stated that 8" is a good height. <br /> <br />Dalton thanked Dobie for coming. <br /> <br />Deborski discussed the possibility of considering a ratio (proportion) of 1 to 1 (signage to <br />architecture feature). <br /> <br />Dalton stated that a ratio is not necessary. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.