Tuesday, May 9, 2017

ARB and the New Holiday Inn Sign

The ARB is out of control.  They deny things that are allowed for Special Snowflakes and refuse to approve the most reasonable requests.

The new Holiday Inn Express applied to the ARB for 3 signs.  Two are "blade signs" that are attached to the sides of the building on Main and Jefferson Street.  The other is a turn in sign.  I have attached a link to the signs and the building.


The ARB is objecting to lighted signs as well as the turn in sign, like they objected to the YMCA signs.

As one ARB member was quoted at the meeting "I just don't like it".

Funny what the ARB likes and doesn't like.

Illuminated L E V I N P A P A N T O N I O.....Love it!
Illuminated LP logo....Love it!
Illuminated Coastal Bank....Love It!

YMCA....Hate it!

Vinyl Neon Sign....Love it!
Al Fresco Sign....Love it!

Holiday Inn sign...Hate it!



CJ Lewis said...

You would think that the role of the ARB is narrowly limited to its mandate as described in the City Code to include verifying for the City Council that a project complies with the requirements of the City Code. Chapter 12-13 in the City Code deals with four specific boards and boards in general. The City Council habitually ignores Section 12-13-6 Minority Representation on Boards, Authorities And Commissions as I predicted it would when the section was adopted in 2012. Councilwoman Pratt said the same but voted YES saying aloud, "In my heart, it doesn't work." She added, "This is an impossible thing to vote against." She mentioned "motherhood" and "apple pie" too before voting YES. It is difficult to see why all four boards described in Chapter 12-13 are needed. It may be a good idea to merge the functions of three into the Planning Board with some changes. As example, each City Council member could make one direct appointment of a person who lives in their district to the Planning Board. The Council President could select the Chair of the Planning Board. Lastly, the Council Staff could be expanded to provide professional staff to assist the Planning Board. This last step eliminated a long-standing conflict of interest, and now a separation of powers issue, by removing the city's Planning Staff from a role directing/influencing/advising the Planning Board. Most importantly, the Planning Board could be given a broad mandate to continuously review the city's Land Development Code to proposed changes for approval by the City Council. Too often, city boards composed of presumably well-intentioned people try and often succeed in pressuring property owners to accept the subjective whims of the board. In this case, the City Council could have amended the Land Development Code in the past but did not. It seems unfair to come in after the fact and try to force a property owner to comply with new rules, regulations, policies and/or laws that did not exist when they bought the property.

Anonymous said...

"subjective whims"? The ordinance says "no internally lit signage". It has been that way for decades. This isn't new information. YMCA and others bought the wrong signage (on purpose) and pleaded a hardship so they could 'turn the lights on'. Now others like the Holiday Inn want the same deal. The ARB is one of our city's best volunteer Boards and whose service is valued by the property owners in the 5 districts that they govern. It's a requirement to have this board for historic properties. We shouldn't throw away our historic city and trying to guide new development in order to be compatible with existing development in order to please a few out-of-towners pitching hissy fits. The work of the ARB helped create the value in the districts which attracted these out-of-town investors. Now we're supposed to stop the work that brought us here? No way. There is an abundance of vacant commercial property for sale 'outside' of the historic districts for those who don't want to adhere to ordinances put in place since the 1980's with broad public support and public hearings.

Anonymous said...

You AGREE with the Mayor. I just threw up.

Anonymous said...

It would be far easier to just strike most of the rules and guidelines that Pensacola has generated into its code. That way the approval process could be more clearly based on opinion and who you know, trimming off so much wasted effort in upholding this stupid rule or trying to find a work-around to ignore that stupid ordinance. Expectations would always be met because it would be clear who is going to win or lose any argument and the hours spent interpreting the city code book, along with the interminable meetings spent arguing over the merits of "strong mayor" vs. "strong council" could all be laid to rest.

Maren DeWeese said...

Anonymous at 2:07pm

Thanks for posting.

If these rules are in place how did Levin Papantonio, Coastal, Vinyl and others signs pass?

I'll do a survey of all internally lit signage in the 5 districts and let you explain how they all got there.

Also, can you tell me how the home formerly at 417 E Government was approved for reconstruction but is now a driveway?



Anonymous said...

Anon at 6:18am has hit upon a grand idea. Our City Council could call it the "Eliminate Paperwork Ordinance" as it would consolidate all existing building codes, zoning ordinances, and historical regulations into three simple rules.

RULE #1 - If your last name is any one of the following you can do whatever you want, whenever you want, and no one at the city will give you any flack. In addition, the city shall be required to give you property, baseball stadiums, tax breaks, and help you in any way possible to put more money in your pocket.


RULE #2 - If you submit a "Letter of Recommendation" from any of the above names, and your family has lived in Pensacola for at least five generations, you are eligible for certain considerations (to be determined).

RULE #3 - All others NEED NOT APPLY.