City Council Minutes 2002 09 03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting September 3, 2002 Page 6 Mayer shared Council member Sisk's concern and stated that this is the third sign variance requested, and the second for Atlanta Bread. He noted that the neighboring residential areas are impacted by the signage along McCaslin Blvd. Van Pelt concurred with Council members Sisk and Mayer, however, voiced her belief that the sign would not be a distraction. She stressed that signage is important for businesses. Levihn agreed with Council member Van Pelt and voiced his preference for a wire mesh black bordered sign. He stated that it is important for customers to be able to find the Louisville retail merchants and the signage is important for those businesses. Davidson asked for the dimensions of the sign. Johnstone stated that the sign is 2 feet height by 13 feet long, or 26 square feet in size, an increase of 45 SF in signage. Davidson asked what the City's position would be if neighboring merchants requests additional signs. Johnstone stated that the retail buildings are on the same lot, however, Atlanta Bread does not have frontage on McCaslin. Davidson stated he did not object to the additional Atlanta Bread sign, however, voiced his concern that precedence may be set. He suggested that the sign variance be granted to the owner of the building, rather than to Atlanta Bread. Keany stated that Atlanta Bread had previously requested an additional sign, but withdrew the request when the landlord presented the monument sign proposal. He noted that the landlord then charged the participating tenants $2,000 for their share of the sign. He voiced his support of the Atlanta Bread sign request. Brown agreed that the signage should be granted to the owner of the building, who could then allot the spaces to his tenants. He stated that precedence would not be set. Mayer stated that the property across the street is in a residential area and the commercial signage should be minimal. Sisk asked Mr. Vessel if he was assessed a charge for the monument sign. Mr. Vessels reported he received a letter establishing a pro-rated amount for the monument sign; however, his lease stated that he is entitled to space on the monument sign; therefore he has not paid the bill. He voiced his understanding that only tenants that did not have McCaslin frontage, or a sign on McCaslin could have placement on the monument sign. It was his understanding that if the new sign were approved, the Atlanta Bread sign would be removed from the monument. There was considerable discussion relative to merchants, whose businesses do not front McCaslin Blvd, requesting additional signs. 6