Planning commission reviews ExpressWash signage plan; many proposed signs require further review or variances

Representatives for Clean Express Auto Wash (ExpressWash Concepts) presented a proposed signage package that planning staff said included about 13 additional signs of varying sizes and functions. Planning staff flagged multiple elements as noncompliant with the city’s sign code and said many of the proposed wall signs would require variances or resubmission as window or instructional signs.

Joe Bertucci, identified in the record as vice president of development for ExpressWash Concepts, said an installed kiosk that had been intended as a replacement was removed after staff noted permitting issues. Bertucci told the commission the kiosk “is not there now” and that the company removed a previously installed sign element while they work through the application process. He also explained the applicant’s intent to use interchangeable sign faces on what the applicant called the “Wingmaster” frames to highlight sponsors and nonprofit partners.

Planning staff reviewed the application and itemized the proposed signs. Staff said four “number 1” signs are 28-by-44 inches each and that multiple elevations show additional wall signage; staff noted the code generally limits one wall sign per eligible building elevation. “So that, obviously, you recognize will require a variance from the board of zoning appeals,” Frantz, planning staff, said, explaining that the number of wall signs proposed on individual elevations exceeds the code limit. Staff also pointed to window-signage rules and instructed the applicant that some elements could be repositioned as window signage if they met the window-percentage rules in Section 11-79-03.

Staff and commissioners discussed which signs qualify as instructional signage (parking directions, “do not enter,” operations instructions) versus identification or advertising (logos and brand names). Staff said instructional signs are approvable by the planning commission if they do not contain logos or corporate identification and if they meet area limits; signs with logos or corporate identification are treated as wall/identification signs and are subject to limits and review. Staff told the applicant that the planning commission “generally can’t approve a lot of this tonight” because the submission includes too many wall signs on each elevation and several items that appear to contain corporate identification.

The applicant was directed to resubmit a revised sign package showing: which signs will be instructional (no logos), which will be window signage (with window-area calculations), and which elevations will have the single wall sign permitted without a variance. The commission did not grant approvals for the full package at the meeting; next steps include a resubmission with clearer designations and, where necessary, a variance application to the Board of Zoning Appeals for additional wall signs.