Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Paull Nation, Galloway, Romero & Associates, 5350 DTC Parkway, Englewood, Colorado, <br />80111, apologized for his client' s ovt:~r zealous nature in putting the signs up prior to permit, and <br />then having to take them down. He presented color photos of the proposed signs, taken in <br />daylight and at night. He stated they have agreed to add a note to the PUD that the landscaping <br />will be kept in proper maintenance, in addition to a note which prohibits outdoor displays and <br />sales. The largest issue pertains to the: illumination level underneath the canopy. Some members <br />of the Planning Commission feel that decreasing the amount of light at this sight was <br />inappropriate. Conoco feels that the most important issue to most people is safety and at night, <br />that translates to light. Lowering the ~unount oflight prevents the manager's ability to clearly see <br />activity at the pumps and also makes customers uncomfortable. He stated that they feel the <br />addition of the light band will provide adequate shielding to prevent off-site glare. He was then <br />available to answer any questions. <br /> <br />Davidson asked Nation why the citizens of Louisville should agree to Conoco's request to <br />deviate from the CDDSG. <br /> <br />Nation replied that accent lighting is permitted in the design guidelines; therefore, he does not <br />feel they are in violation of the CDDSG. <br /> <br />Davidson replied that staff feels this is in violation of the CDDSG and again asked why Council <br />should grant an exemption for Conoco when they don't for anyone else. <br /> <br />Sisk stated he would like to see Louisville's station as the first Conoco where this style of pump <br />tqpper is not illuminated. He agreed with Davidson regarding compliance to the CDDSG. He did <br />not agree with, nor would he support, the applicant's statement regarding the light band. Sisk <br />stated that the Council was not asking the applicant for no illumination, but for reduced <br />illumination. <br /> <br />Keany agreed with Davidson and Sisko He stated that the number one complaint about the <br />properties along McCaslin is the amount of light. He did not have any issues with the pump <br />toppers or the light band; however, he did not feel they should be illuminated. He also requested <br />using a lower wattage underneath the canopy. <br /> <br />Mayer commended the Planning Corrunission for their evaluation of the project and voiced <br />support of the approval as proposed by the Planning Commssion. <br /> <br />Davidson agreed with Mayer and suggested that the applicant investigate alternative fixtures for <br />reducing the off-site glare from underneath the canopy. <br /> <br />Nation agreed to investigate alternatives for underneath the canopy. <br /> <br />Wood requested that Council request before and after photometries be included as a method to <br />measure current illumination levels. <br /> <br />12 <br />