Laserfiche WebLink
135 <br /> <br />the signs were inappropriate. The Downtown Board of <br />Architectural Review reviewed the signs and found them to <br />be inappropriate. Sovran Bank was now appealing the <br />decision of the DBAR to Council. Mr. Huja stated that <br />this was the first time that such a situation had <br />occurred. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roger Wiley, City Attorney, stated that the signs <br />had been put up before the appeal was made and that <br />normally when a permit is issued then the owner has a <br />vested right to proceed. Mr. Wiley stated that there is <br />presently no requirement that adjacent property owners be <br />notified concerning signs. Mr. Wiley questioned whether <br />the DBAR has adopted written criteria for sign approval. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lloyd Smith, a member of the DBAR, stated that no <br />written criteria for sign approval exists and he did not <br />think appropriate language could be drafted. <br /> <br /> Mr. Barnes questioned whether Mr. Huja had taken into <br />consideration the harmony of the signs with the building. <br /> <br /> Mr. Huja stated that he had considered the harmony of <br />the signs with the building, but noted that the color was <br />allowed because it was Sovran's state logo. <br /> <br /> Mr. Robert Partridge, one of the property owners who <br />appealed the sign approval to the DBAR, stated that he had <br />previously applied to have a 30" x 30" sign and had been <br />told that his sign must match the Yarn Shop sign, and <br />therefore he did not feel the Sovran sign should have been <br />approved given its size, location and color. <br /> <br /> Mr. Smith noted that the issue of whether the appeal <br />to the DBAR was appropriate should be considered as a <br />separate issue by Council. <br /> <br /> Mr. Huja questioned whether Sovran Bank was willing <br />to remove one of the signs. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bain, representing Sovran Bank, stated that <br />removing one sign was suggested. Mr. Bain stated that <br />Sovran Bank has a vested right to maintain the signs as <br />proper procedure was followed, notification of adjacent <br />property owners was not required, the appeal procedure was <br />not clear, and the criteria used by the DBAR for sign <br />approval was vague. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that he would recommended that the <br />City Attorney's office brief the matter for Council. <br /> <br /> Mr. Barnes stated that he felt Council should apply a <br />prohibitively strict interpretation of the ordinance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Wiley stated that he felt Council needed to make <br />a decision concerning whether the DBAR properly exercised <br />its jurisdiction on the matter, and if it did, then the <br />matter of the standard of review would need to be decided <br />by Council. <br /> <br /> Dr. Hall stated that he was in favor of receiving <br />more information before making a decision. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck requested that the City Attorney's office <br />review the legal issues and make recommendations regarding <br />what the Council is obligated to do and what the Council <br />should do regarding the existing ordinance and review <br />processes. <br /> <br /> Mr, Smith stated that he would submit a letter <br />concerning the standards of review to Council. <br /> <br />The matter was carried over. <br /> <br /> <br />