City Council Minutes 2006 08 01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes August 1,2006 Page 8 of 12 The Planning Commission supported increasing the height and area of the sign consistent with previous PUD requests and pending modifications of the Louisville sign code. Rex Renfrew, President of the Cherrywood HOA, requested a condition regulating hours when sign illumination would be prohibited. The Commission did not recommend regulating sign illumination, but did condition the request with a recommendation the sign illumination conform to the adopted sign code. The sign code does not set hours where sign illumination is prohibited, but does prohibit sign illumination from casting light on a residential district, public right-of-way, public park or hospital. The Commission recommended certain modifications to the size of the tenant identification panels. This was intended to increase the minimum panel area to facilitate the ability of passing drivers to recognize message content without becoming a safety concern. On July 13, 2006, the Planning Commission passed a motion in support of the PUD amendment with the following conditions: 1. A vision clearance review of sign placement shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Tenant identification panels shall comply with a minimum area the 5 square feet. 3. Character height shall meet the 8-inch minimum for primary text as well as the 3-inch minimum for secondary text. 4. The sign shall comply with illumination standards as adopted in the Louisville Municipal Code. The revised sign elevation does comply with conditions #2 and #3. The applicant proposes the sign be illuminated by a shielded ground-mounted lighting. Based upon the currently adopted sign code there are no restrictions on the hours where a sign may be illuminated. COUNCIL COMMENT Council member Muckle asked City Attorney Light the implications of approving the Centennial Pavilion sign request: prior to the passage of the new sign code. City Attorney Light stated the following: 1) under the current sign code for land development, the applicant has a right to have his application reviewed under the standard that applied when the application was filed, and 2) The matter is considered within the general power of the City, of which the City can consider on a continued basis. Council member Sackett noted previous residential neighborhood complaints about the illumination of a sign at that center. He voiced his concern over different rules for different businesses. Council member Marsella asked if the applicant accepted the two remaining conditions of approval. Mr. Pederson stated he did.