2007-07-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

9 APPEAL : DENIAL BY BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF AMENDED COMPREHENSIVE SIGNAGE PLAN FOR 501 E. WATER STREET Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Planner in Neighborhood Development Services, said that the Melting Pot Restaurant has appealed denial by the Board of Architectural Review of an amended Comprehensive Signage Plan for 501 E. Water Street. She said that the Melting Pot has a lighted halo sign that was previously approved and multiple window signs that do not require a permit. She said that awnings with signage were put up by both the Melting Pot and Salad Creations without approval and said they are prohibited. She said that Council can either support the BAR decision, which was unanimous, in which case an alternate plan could be submitted to the BAR, or Council can approve the Plan as appealed. Mr. Norris asked if the applicant was aware of the regulations, and Ms. Scala said she thinks they were aware as there was a lot of discussion previously. Mr. Allen Twedt, Holiday Signs, said he did not understand the awning part of it. He acknowledge that they did put up the awnings without a permit. He noted that the work was subcontracted. He said he would like to try to come up with some agreement so it does not cost the Melting Pot a lot of money. He said he would argue that the ordinance does not say anything about the angle of the letters on the face of the awning. He said the lettering was put on the side of the awning, which is clearly not allowed, rather than putting up projecting signs. He asked Council to allow the hanging signs to be taken down and the other left up in lieu of doing projecting signs. Mr. Chad Hornig, owner of Melting Pot Restaurant, said signage is needed to capture an audience. He admitted putting up the awning was a mistake. He said the developer of the building liked the idea when he presented it to him. He said he is trying to do what is best for his business and downtown. He said he would like the awning up so people can go outside and smoke as the Melting Pot is a smoke free restaurant, and also to protect the interior of the building. Mr. Fred Wolf, Chair of the BAR, said he thinks the BAR could find a way to support the awnings. He said he thinks the owners should have understood the review and signage regulations. He said the BAR wants to control visual noise. He said to say that they should be allowed to keep it because it is already done because they did not know the regulations when they had already gone through the process is hard to believe. He said to approve the appeal on that basis would set a bad precedent. Responding to a question from Mr. Norris, Mr. Wolf said that there is a desire to have consistency among awnings on the same building, and the Salad Creations awning is different in both color and installation. Ms. Scala noted that the appeal is for the Melting Pot only. Dr. Brown said there are two issues: doing something not on the comprehensive signage plan and not allowed by ordinance. He said he thinks it is pretty simple. He said we have a review process and the ordinance is there for a purpose. He said his inclination is to deny the appeal. Mr. Norris agreed. He said the question is about the next step. Mr. Wolf said that the BAR discussed the matter at its last meeting. He said the shape, slope and color of the awning is okay, and he thinks there are alternate ways to eliminate the text on the side and the sloping front. He said the comprehensive sign plan could be amended. He said the BAR was told that modifications could not happen. He said he does not think the decision should be based on the cost. Mr. Lynch said he would support upholding the BAR’s decision, and asking the applicant to work it out with the BAR.