My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2017 11 06
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2017 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2017 11 06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2022 3:14:00 PM
Creation date
12/4/2017 11:58:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Original Hardcopy Storage
9C1
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2017 11 06
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />November 6, 2017 <br />Page 10 of 17 <br />Councilmember Keany stated there is nostalgia with the Blue Parrot sign and he was <br />disappointed to see it change but recognizes the new owners and new use of the <br />building He noted the Empire sign retained its style and shape. He supports the <br />recommendation of the HPC but prefers a more stylized historic looking sign than what <br />is presented He wondered if the face is replaced, could it be donated to the museum. <br />Councilmember Loo asked if the owners want to preserve the sign. Mr. Oberholzer <br />stated as new owners of the building, they don't have the rights to the name, so they <br />can't continue to use the sign. He noted if they can save the face, they would be happy <br />to donate it. <br />Councilmember Stolzmann stated if what is wanted is to have a neon sign at that <br />corner, then it needs to be designated historic to save the shape, size and neon. There <br />is value to designating it as historic if we want to keep it. <br />Councilmember Leh felt this was a hard decision. He reviewed the architectural and <br />social significance criteria as presented in the packet. Council is bound by those criteria <br />so we need to review carefully. He deeply appreciates the effort to maintain some of the <br />look and feel of the sign at that corner and its significance to the city He found it difficult <br />to see how it met either the architectural or social cntena. Reluctantly he will vote no. <br />Mike Deborski, 601 Pine Street, said he struggles with funding the stripping away of the <br />heritage of Louisville and felt maintaining the core of the sign is not enough He had <br />offered to buy the sign and store it and felt the City shouldn't subsidize the stripping of <br />our heritage. He thought the proposal was taking away the essence of what the sign is <br />and the heritage it represents. <br />Greg Manng noted many have offered to buy this sign. He realizes they are limited to <br />having to save the shape, size, and color If they as owners could put in a new sign with <br />the same character they are happy to have that conversation. <br />Councilmember Keany asked if there was a way to allow a new sign that mimics the old <br />sign Director Zuccaro said there are two options in the code; landmarking and iconic <br />signs Current regulations contemplate reuse of existing signs He said a possible <br />option would be to apply for a vanance which has not been evaluated. <br />Councilmember Keany asked the applicants if it would be possible to continue the item <br />to allow time to find alternatives <br />Councilmember Stolzmann stated Councilmember Leh convinced her it doesn't meet <br />the criteria of an histonc sign. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.