Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 02 12

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 14, 2017 Page 3 of 10 Ritchie replied that the previous grant request of about $13,000 would not be deducted, as the new proposal was for the applicant to start construction of a new sign from scratch. Fahey stated that the $34,133 as a total cost, it was not the amount they would be spending in excess of redoing the existing sign. Chuck Thomas asked if the $2,850 to package and remove the sign was the cost to the City of removing and packaging the sign. Ritchie confirmed that the $2,580 was a package and removal cost from the same contractor who proposed the $34,133 amount. Haley invited the owner to speak. Mark Oberholzer, 224 Hoover Avenue in Louisville offered to answer questions from the Commission. Fahey asked if Oberholzer planned to make a similar sign with the allocation funds. Oberholzer responded that they were planning to use a similar design to what had been presented to the Commission in October. Ritchie added that the PUD amendment heading to Planning Commission proposed to regulate the neon tubing, colors, fonts, and size of the new sign. They were also considering putting a historic plaque near the new sign. They are not regulating the face of the sign to avoid having new owners come to Commission every time they want to change the branding on the sign. Oberholzer stated that he wanted to preserve the history of the sign. He and the other owners wanted the new sign to look like the old one in look and feel. They planned to keep the same colors and the same basic shape while changing the branding to "The Corner," which was the new name of the building. Haley stated that it was in the owners' interest to keep the sign as a semi -replica, as they were applying for a variance to allow the new sign. Haley invited public comments. Joan Riggins, 912 Lincoln Avenue in Louisville, stated that the sign was very special and if they tried to reface it there would be gouges that would effectively change the sign entirely. She requested a new but similar sign from the beginning rather than re -facing the old sign. She preferred to have the old sign at a place where people could come visit it. Haley closed public comment and turned to commission discussion. Chuck Thomas asked if the Commission needed to amend the previous ruling or if it required a new ruling. Ritchie stated that the applicant withdrew the previous application and submitted a new one, so the ruling would need to be new as well. Cyndi Thomas stated that she was in favor of the new course of action and was a better option than redoing the sign. She added that there did not seem to be issues with landmarking a sign that was not attached to a building. She was concerned about the pricing for acquisition.