Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the U Haul Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission delays U‑Haul signage decision after divided testimony
Summary
Commissioners debated a conditional use permit modification that would allow large new signs on two U‑Haul buildings in the Mill Creek Marketplace; staff recommended approval based on the original master sign plan, speakers were split over visual impacts, and the commission continued the item to Oct. 2 to allow full participation and further discussion.
The Humboldt County Planning Commission continued consideration of a proposed modification to a conditional use permit for new signage at two U‑Haul buildings in the Mill Creek Marketplace in McKinleyville after divided commissioner views and public input.
Planner Alice Vasterling told the commission the properties—former Kmart (U‑Haul South) and former Ray’s Market (U‑Haul North)—are large: the South building sits on a 7.72‑acre parcel and the North building on a 5.32‑acre parcel. Staff outlined the proposed signage by facade: the U‑Haul South east facade shows 2,366 square feet of infrastructure identified as signs after applicant revisions; the U‑Haul North east facade was listed at 425 square feet and the north facade about 501 square feet. In total, staff said, the revised proposal included 22 new signs across the two buildings; vegetation removal was not proposed.
Vasterling said staff recommended approval because the project conforms with the shopping center’s existing master sign plan and meets findings under the Humboldt County sign ordinance. She noted the ordinance requires discretionary review for wall signs over 100 square feet per facade.
The applicant’s general manager, Dale Huber, told commissioners the signage is necessary to direct customers to the correct building and to reduce confusion for local and visiting customers. “All we’re asking is to have the ability to provide our customers with the easiest way to understand and the most seamless customer experience,” he said.
Several commissioners expressed concern that the proposed large, illustrative panels (for example, large representations of roll‑up doors) are excessive for facades visible from public rights of way. Others said the applicant is following the master sign plan and that local economic investment should be weighed. Commissioner Curiazzi proposed a middle ground—limiting the south facade to roughly 16% of the facade area (about 1,500 square feet) and capping the north public‑facing facade at 100 square feet; other commissioners opposed locking in a percentage standard without further review.
With an even number of commissioners present and clear disagreement about an appropriate limit, the commission accepted staff’s recommendation to continue the item to the Oct. 2 meeting so the full commission can participate. The chair and staff asked the applicant to consider alternatives and said public comment will remain open until the continued hearing.
