Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />October 10', 2019 <br />Page 7 of 15 <br />Moline summarized Mr. Weincek's response, saying that it sounded like the signs <br />should have permitted but were not. He then asked if the existing monument sign was <br />on the Speedy Sparkle property. <br />Weincek replied that it was on the property line between Jiffy Lube and Speedy Sparkle. <br />Hoefner asked for Mr. Weincek's opinion on the 2x10 panel on the existing monument <br />sign, an alternative proposed by staff, which would provide a slightly larger square <br />footage than what the property would have had under the 50-50 split from the previous <br />PUD amendment. <br />Weincek replied that there was an original approval that split the signage 50-50 that had <br />been changed with the King Soopers PUD. <br />Hoefner clarified that he meant that the area of half of the amended sign at that time <br />was about 4x9 feet and when you split that in half you get a very similar square footage <br />to what staff was proposing with the higher joint sign. <br />Weincek replied that he wanted to know how King Soopers had gotten 69 square feet <br />out of that. <br />Hoefner stated that he was asking about the stated desire to have the 50% of the sign <br />from the previous amendment. <br />Weincek replied that the 50/50 split was never allocated. <br />Hoefner asked for a yes or no response on if Mr. Weincek wanted more than the square <br />footage the property would have had if the sign had been split as amended. <br />Weincek replied that the sign had never been built and therefore did not apply to today. <br />Hoefner responded that his understanding of Mr. Weincek's presentation was that the <br />2005 amendment was the relevant signage. He and Mr. Weincek continued to discuss <br />the relevancy of the different historical amendments, King Soopers's PUD, and staff's <br />alternative proposals. <br />Brauneis observed that the proposed sign and its illumination did not meet city <br />requirements. <br />Kearney replied that the logo would be translucent. The $4 bubble and the free <br />vacuums signage were not part of the logo, so only the lettering would be translucent. <br />He was not aware that there were not any light limitations other than translucent and <br />opaque. <br />Weincek added that the applicant would like the Commission to narrow the scope of <br />conversations with staff if staff and the applicant had to work together again. <br />Brauneis asked for questions of staff. <br />E <br />