City Council Minutes 2005 02 01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting February 1, 2005 Page 4 of 10 Development Plan to authorize an existing non-conforming sign for Unit E, LaMar's Donuts, located at 133 McCaslin Boulevard. The approved PUD included a maximum of two signs per tenant, designated eligible sign placement and requirement that no individual sign may exceed 25 SF. A Certificate of Occupancy was issued for Unit Eon January 22, 2004. A separate permit application was submitted in December of 2003 for the installation of a sign. The Planning Division reviewed the application for signage in December and issued a letter requesting modifications to the sign package, which would reduce the sign area as well as modify the design ofthe sign. In early January of2004, the Planning Division signed off in error on the building permit causing the permit to be issued to Rocky Mountain Signs. The PUD development plan establishes a 25 SF sign envelope for all east elevations of the retail building at Centennial Pavilion. The constructed sign is approximately 42 square feet and therefore violates the PUD requirement. The development plan further states that all wall signs are to be individually mounted "pan" style channel letter with no raceway. The LaMar's Donuts sign includes a gold aluminum back plate between the letters and building, which serves as a raceway and is in violation. In April of2004 the City received a letter from Cherrywood II Board of Directors voicing the homeowners concern with the LaMar's Donuts sign. The City sent notice of noncompliance to the business owners and requested the nonconforming sign be removed, or as an alternative an application for a PUD amendment to request authorization of the sign be filed. Said application was filed in November 2004, with the stated position to retain the existing sign based upon the economic burden to the business. Staff recommendation to Planning Commission was modification to the existing sign, which was intended to reduce the reflectivity and light intensity of the sign. The Planning Commission forwards a recommendation that the sign be removed and replaced with a conforming sign. City Attorney Light reviewed the options available to the City Council: Approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request to amend the PUD. Alternatively, Council may continue the hearing and direct Staff to work with the applicant on new specifications for the new sign, with final Council action on the agreement and final PUD amendment at a later date. Mayor Sisk opened the public hearing, and stated if the City erred in approving the sign application, it is the City's responsibility to make amends. Council members Van Pelt, Levihn, Marsella and Clabots concurred. Mayor Sisk suggested this is an opportunity to review the sign in a collaborative effort between the owners, the Cherrywood Home Owners Association and the City Staff resolve the issue. There was Council consensus. MOTION: Mayor Sisk moved that the public hearing be continued to February 15, 2005, seconded by Council member Van Pelt. The Applicants, Mr. And Mrs. Cox agreed to continue the public hearing. 4