Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-07-12 Hearings Board MINASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD JULY 12, 1994 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis. Other Commissioners present were Armitage and Powell. Staff present were Molnar, Madding and Yates. MINUTES AND FINDINGS Powell moved to approve the Minutes and Findings of the June 14, 1994 meeting. Jarvis seconded the motion and the Minutes and Findings were approved. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 94-104 REQUEST FOR A SIGN PLACEMENT VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A SIGN TO BE MAINTAINED ON AN AWNING NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE CITY SIGN CODE. APPLICANT: GRADY & SUSAN GOLDEN Site Visit and Ex Parte Contact Armitage and Jarvis had site visits. Powell is familiar with the site. STAFF REPORT Molnar stated that the Criteria for a Sign Variance are in the packet and were mailed with the notice. The sign was installed without a permit in the latter half of 1993. Two or three letters from the City were sent to the business owner trying to correct the problem. Those letters are in the packet. The sign ordinance is considered restrictive in the attempt to create an equal playing field for all businesses and cut down on sign clutter. This application involves a request to place a sign on the awning not considered the business frontage. The sign ordinance does not allow for any variance to the area of a sign. A variance can only be allowed for 20-30 square feet and much of the existing sign would have to be removed. The applicants have submitted information explaining their constraints. Historically, sign variances have been hard to come by because it is difficult to show unique or unusual circumstances. Staff cannot support the approval of a Variance for a sign permit. The Historic Commission recommended denial of the variance and the minutes are included in the packet. PUBLIC HEARING SUSAN AND GRADY GOLDEN, applicants, have been trying to work with the City to clarify the sign requirements and have applied for a variance because of their hardship with the way the building faces. The Goldens showed slides of their property from all angles. It is difficult to see their business; it does not face Water Street but the address is Water Street but there is no access from Water Street. They thought the sign contractor was going to obtain all the permits they needed. It is important for the Goldens to stay in business-it is hard enough even with the sign. MIKE of Business Tech Signs, believes the Goldens should be allowed the variance. After measuring the square footage of the sign, he came up with a different figure than the City. He thinks the sign is attractive. GRADY GOLDEN is willing to work with the City for removal of that portion of the sign that is out of compliance in order that the sign be brought into compliance. He needs it for the survival of his business. Armitage wondered if the applicant considered putting a sign on the building. Golden responded that the last business owner had a sign on the building and no one could see it and that is what prompted them to have an awning made. Golden added that according to Mike's (Business Tech Signs) measurements, the logo, business name, and Hair, Skin and Nails are within the allowable measurements for the sign to be legal. NANCY ADRIAN, employee at French Quarter said the customers of the salon like the improvement the sign and the awning have made to the community. She would like to see the variance granted. BARBARA, employee at French Quarter, said when the business was Lisa's Main Attraction, she could not find it the first time she tried. She remembers two occasions before the awning and sign were installed that two clients could not find the business and did not come back. TERRY SKIBBY, Historic Commission Liaison, brought to the Commission's attention the minutes of their meeting. They voted to remove the sign because it is too large and out of scale. There are other similar situations in town and he sees a negative impact with the sign. He feels the hardship is because the sign is on the awning. The awning could remain with the sign on the building. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JULY 12, 1994 Staff Response Staff has had no contact with anyone about a conflicting sign measurement. The method the City uses to measure is to frame the whole sign and then measure. Jarvis said that in looking at the sign ordinance and variances, it would seem there could be no variances (18.96.060). Powell did not believe the sign code was intended to make it impossible for people to do business. GRADY GOLDEN, in rebuttal, said they have a hardship because of their location. They are willing to work on the square footage but they do need the sign facing East Main Street. He mentioned that 50 percent of their clients live in town and 50 percent are from out-of-town. Jarvis commented to Golden that to her it seemed inappropriate to approve a variance for a business when that business decided to locate in a certain location, especially when the business before them went out of business. The applicant is asking the Commission to do something unusual because the applicant made the decision to locate their business in a hard-to-see location. She added that even with the awning in place, it is still a problem finding their business. She would have a difficult time approving a variance that would open up the opportunity for everyone else to do similar things with their signs. SUSAN GOLDEN said the reason they applied for the variance is because the awning and the lettering have helped. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Powell read the Historic Commission discussion about other non-conforming signs. Also, if a variance is allowed, it would open it up for others to ask for the same allowances. Armitage said the applicant is willing to make the sign legal. The awning is legal so it will not have to be removed. It is difficult for the applicant because the frontage faces Water Street, has a Water Street address, but no access from Water Street. Jarvis said that people choose where they decide to open a business. The Ashland Wine Cellar, for example, is in the same position as French Quarter. This is not an unusual circumstance. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JULY 12, 1994 3 Powell moved to approve PA94-104 and that the sign will be allowed but will have to be brought into compliance (24 to 30 sq. ft.) as Staff allows. This is a unique or unusual circumstance because the business fronts Water Street with a Water Street address with no Water Street access. Armitage seconded the motion, noting the applicant's slides show this is a peculiar situation. The motion carried with Jarvis voting "no". TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 94-097 REQUEST FOR DISSOLUTION OF THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AREA FOR THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPLEWOOD SUBDIVISION. APPLICANT: APPLEWOOD HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 94-099 REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR 4-UNITS (PHASE II) OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 81-UNIT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS LOCATED ON CLAY STREET, NORTH AND ADJACENT TO THE WINGSPREAD MOBILE HOME PARK. APPLICANT: HANK ALBERTSON The applicant needs to be reminded that the Commission with allow only a limited number of extensions. This action was approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JULY 12, 1994 4