Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, June 9, 1995 TAG: 9506090102
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DAN CASEY STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Take a fading American icon, an insurance agency that wants to advertise, and the guardians of downtown Roanoke's historic character. Mix them together and what do you get?
The latest fuss over signs in downtown Roanoke.
The city's Architectural Review Board on Thursday threw a temporary wrench into plans by an insurance agent, ruling that the old-style billboard he wants to paint on the side of a Market Street building is too big.
Instead, the board asked Chris Caveness to shrink his sign. And it urged him to consider painting it below an existing but faded old Coca-Cola sign that Caveness wants to paint over.
The board postponed action on Caveness' application for a "certificate of appropriateness" until he scales back the proposed sign's size and makes other unspecified changes.
The issue won't be formally decided at least until the panel's next meeting in July.
"I know there's room for us to negotiate. I hope we can come to a happy medium," Caveness said during the hearing.
The brick wall in question fronts a parking lot off Salem Avenue behind the old Hotel Earle. Facing Williamson Road, it now sports a fading Coca-Cola sign that is about 50 years old.
The building, 114 Market St. S.E., is owned by Saunders and Wells Investments Inc. Caveness & Conner, local agents for the insurance company Mutual of New York, are tenants. The sign would advertise both the agency and the insurance company.
The chief problem the board seemed to have with Caveness' plan is that it would cover the soda sign.
"The Coca Cola logo is probably one of the most significant trademarks in the United States," said board member Robert Manetta. "It's about as historic as a trademark can get." Dave "Mudcat" Saunders, one of the building's owners, said he tried to get Coca-Cola to repaint the sign and rent the space from him.
The company said it would pay for the paint and painters but it wants the space for free because "the creative message on this sign would not be relevant to our present consumer constituency," according to a letter a Coke official sent Saunders' partner, Richard Wells.
Saunders said no deal and noted that Dr Pepper pays him $3,500 a year in rent for a neon sign on top of the building.
The board's other concern was that approving Caveness' proposal would open the door to other large signs in the district.
"We want it to be in scale, so we can defend it in the future," said member Tim Jamieson. "Otherwise, John Williams of Billy's Ritz is going to do something on his wall, and someone else is going to do something on theirs, and pretty soon we'll be in a totally nondefensible position."
Petty squabbles like this have given the board a reputation as a "bunch of bow-tie-loving pinko commie liberals," Saunders said.
"I've got a problem," Saunders said. "Why ... is it OK to approve one size sign if it's got Coca-Cola on it - that's for free - but not a similar sized sign" for Caveness & Conner?
by CNB