2003-11-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7 Mr. Schilling complimented Ms. Ruseau on her remarkable job in presenting her case. He said he feels the v ision of the American dream by the many immigrant merchants in the building deserves to be supported. He said retail is not an easy business and does not need additional road blocks. He said he is convinced the merchants saw a bump in their traffic when the projecting signs were up. He noted that the signs would have been approved administratively. He said when there is discretion about sending something to the BAR it should be dealt with administratively as he understands that the BAR is over worked. Referring to Ms. Fenton's comment that some BAR members found the colors on the signs shocking, he noted the modern designs approved by the BAR in the historic district. He said that this architectural micro - management by the BAR is the likely reason why they are overworked. He said he ultimately favors the projecting signs conditional upon a railing or other object being placed under them. He said that if Council needs to change the ordinance, he is happy to do so. Mr. Cox said that he has seen both t he flat and projecting signs on the building, and saw them much more clearly when they were projecting. He said he accepts that the merchants saw a spike in their sales. He said there is a strong case that everything conceivable should be done to help th ese businesses succeed. He said we are heading to administrative approval of signs. He said the proliferation of perpendicular signs on the mall is much more intrusive than on businesses. He said he does not think we should have a rule for one case, but should look at other similar businesses. Mr. Cox said he thinks the original brackets were very attractive. He said he favors having the signs perpendicular to the building, with some ADA compliant barrier under them. He said this argument falls apart for side street businesses. Ms. Richards made a motion to grant the appeal and to approve the original sign application, with projecting signs, original scroll work and railing below the signs. Mr. Caravati seconded the motion, but asked that the mot ion be amended to allow the building official to deal with the appropriate barrier under the signs for ADA compliance. Ms. Richards amended her motion to include review by the building official for ADA requirements, and Mr. Caravati seconded her motion. Mr. Lynch asked if it would be possible to raise the signs so the bottom sign is visible, and Mr. Tolbert said that is up to the owner of the building. The appeal of the BAR decision about signs at York Place , and approval of the original sign applica tion, with review of the barrier to be done by the building official, was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Caravati, Mr. Cox, Mr. Lynch, Ms. Richards, Mr. Schilling. Noes: None. Mr. Caravati made a motion to ask the BAR to take a comprehensi ve look at the sign ordinance, especially protruding signs. Mr. Tolbert said a contract has just been entered into with a consultant for a review of signs. Mr. Caravati withdrew his motion. REPORT : COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES Ms. Linda Peac ock, Assistant City Manager, said that the Commission on Children and Families is in its fifth year, and has good sound data to help make decisions. Ms. Saphira Baker, Director of the Commission on Children and Families, said that there are three major goals of the Commission: 1) to understand children's and families' needs and resources; 2) to advise on programs and practices to improve conditions; and 3) to improve accountability, coordination and effectiveness of local programs. Ms. Baker reviewed t he Commission's vision, how it functions, and recommendations.