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