2006-06-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

12 Mr. Schilling asked if the trademark agreement for the signs has to do with the scale between the logo and the words, and Mr. Twedt said yes. Mr. Lynch asked if the fondue pot has to be red, and Mr. Twedt said maybe it could be brushed stainless steel. Mr. Schilling made a motion to approve the sign as submitted with the fondue pot being stainless steel. Dr. Brown said the motion was not in order as the BAR representative has not yet spoken. Responding to a question from Mr. Caravati, Ms. Amy Gardner, BAR member, said that five of the seven BAR members are small business owners, and the decision to deny the sign was unanimous. Ms. Gardner said it is important to remember why the BAR was created. She said they are to act on the community’s behalf to protect historic districts. She said the sign was rejected on the basis of the design guidelines and the zoning ordinance. She said she does not think it enhances the attractiveness of the building or the area. She noted that the fondue pot, as proposed, would be six square feet and would be lit and would be overwhelming and imbalanced. She said the logo could be used on the projecting sign and the sign on the door. She provided examples of signs for the Melting Pot Restaurants located in Arlington, Virginia and Charlotte, North Carolina that do not contain logos. Responding to a question from Mr. Caravati, Ms. Gardner said that one square foot for each linear foot is what is allowed for signs for single tenant buildings. She said the 25 feet, which is allowed in the building’s comprehensive sign plan, is consistent with other downtown signs. Mr. Lynch said he finds the color drawings helpful. He said he thinks the BAR is correct that there is too much emphasis on the logo. He said he is inclined to support Mr. Schilling’s motion that the fondue pot be brushed aluminum. He said he also understands that there is a compelling argument for no logo. He said he thinks the sign should be 25 square feet especially since that is what the building owner asked for. Mr. Lynch made a motion to approve a 25 square feet sign with everything being brushed aluminum. Mr. Caravati seconded the motion. Mr. Twedt said it gets back to if this has really been looked at carefully. He said if other businesses in this building have the same size signs they will be massive when compared to the size of their business frontage. He said he thinks the BAR decision was done hastily. Ms. Gardner noted that the applicant was at the meeting when the comprehensive sign plan was approved for the building. Ms. Gardner said that if Council approves the sign with the logo, it will be setting a precedent for lit logos as this would be the first one that would have been approved. Dr. Brown asked if Council can put new conditions on the sign. Mr. Brown said yes, but he noted there is already a plan for the size of the signs. He said Council can find that a different finish would be more compatible. Dr. Brown said he will vote against the motion. He said he feels the logo is too large and does not think it will be improved by it not being in color. He said he thinks approval would set a bad precedent. Mr. Caravati said the sign would be scale down to 25 square feet. He said he thinks Mr. Brown’s memo is to point and he thinks we are treading on thin ice not to approve what already exists on the mall. He said every building creates a precedent and he would discount those arguments. He said he thinks this would be fair and while it does set a precedent, he does not think it is bad. He said he will support the motion.