CCMIN071988 - Laserfiche WebLink

The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: OourK~ilmembers Butler, Mohr, Wilson, and Mayor Mercer AP-88-13, Appeal by Clyde Vauqhn of a decision of the Board of Adjustment denying Case V-88-12, application for a variance frc~ the Municipal Code to allow for the installation of wall-mounted siqns on the second floor of an existinq office/c~:uLercial buildinq where such siqnaqe is not permitted to be located at 400 Main Street. Zoninq for the property is ~JD (Planned Unit Development) -C~u~ercial District ( Contd. Open f~-~ 7-5-88 ) Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 88:317) dated July 5, 1988, regarding this matter. ' Mayor Mercer declared the continued public hearing open on the item. Mr. Robert Buckher, major tenant of the upstairs at 400 Main Street, stated the signs are needed so that tenants can find this location. He stated that bu{]ding has four stairwells, two in back and two in front. It is difficult to determine the location of his business without directiota1 signs. He stated that up~taiI~ businesses at 209, 239, and 818 Main Street have outside signs, as well as buildings on First Street, so he would not be setting a precedent. He stated the ord/nance regulating downtown signs was not signed when he leased the building. He askS_ Council to find unique circumstanoes to allow his requested signage so that clients could find his business. He also suggested the ordinance be evaluated to see if it is effective and fair. Mayor Mercer asked Mr. Buckner if he would be satisfied with a smaller sign. Mr. Bucknet stated he would be satisfied with any sign that could be seen fk-~ the downstairs. Mr. Don Kavanaugh, partner, stated the sign could not be much smaller because of the length of name of the business. He stated there may be other requests for this type of variance, such as the Chamber of Cc~m,e who ba-~ just moved to the upstairs at 450 Main Street. No one in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal. There being no further testimony, Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing closed on this item. Cotulcil discussion ensued regarding whether or not the downtown revitalization guidelines are appropriate. It was moved by Councilmember Brandes, and seconded by CounciLmember Butler, that Resolution No. 88-351, denying AP-88-13, appeal by Clude Vaughn of a decision of the Board of ~ajustment denying Case V-88-12, application for a variance frcm the Municipal Code to allow for the installation of wall- mounted signs on the second floor of an existing office/oa:.:ercial building where such signage is not permitted to be located at 400 Main Street, be adopted. - 12 - 7-19-88