Angry Cactus Approved; Eggemeyer Still Angry, Too

After three months of discussion, harsh opinions and a board member firing, the Angry Cactus signage for Tim Condon’s coming downtown restaurant was unanimously approved by members of the Design and Historic Review Commission Thursday morning.

Two items pertaining to the sign were on the DHRC agenda yesterday, one being a proposal for the design of the sign and the other an amendment that would allow the entrepreneur to recess the walls of his building’s entrance to building an awning, atop which the 3D cactus structure would rest.

The meeting began with a presentation by city staff, who recapped the proposals from last meeting and stated that the current plan was to pursue approval for a 10-foot structure with a 2-foot base to be placed on an awning over the building’s front doors. At the end of the presentation, staff recommended approval of the sign.

Following the presentation, commissioner David Mazur questioned the size, noting that at the previous meeting Condon and former commissioner Eric Eggemeyer had gone back in forth in negotiations on the size.

At that meeting, Eggemeyer expressed that he felt it was just “too big” and “too eye-catching” for downtown. Condon compromised stating he’d be willing to go down to eight feet. Since last meeting, however Condon re-thought that decision and opted to maintain the original 10-foot proposal for the sign.

“I just want to make sure you guys are aware that the sign as it’s on the corner right now on the canopy is in 100 percent compliance with the River Corridor Master Plan…” Condon said during public comment. “…The planning commission was tasked with setting the size. I want to make sure you guys are aware of that…We believe after reading all the bylaws and reading the River Corridor Master Plan that that is not in the jurisdiction [of the DHRC]…If you don’t like the design, we can change the smile, we can change the color, we can change the lighting…This back and forth of negotiating the size is not what I came prepared to do.”

Condon said he’d spoken with all city council members but one on Wednesday, and reported that all of those council members had expressed overwhelming support for the cactus and wanted to see it approved.

Mason Porter, a citizen of San Angelo who was born and raised here, took to the podium after Condon and expressed what he believed is a dysfunctional city government at play.

“My whole life that building’s been empty…it looks like bums live there sometimes,” Porter said. “He wants to make a nice restaurant; he wants to put a sign out there—it doesn’t look that bad. I mean, I don’t like it that much, but I don’t like a lot of stuff downtown. There’s a lot of tacky, ugly stuff. But government’s not supposed to work like that. You’re not supposed to encroach on a small business owner. I appreciate y’all wanting to keep downtown looking nice, but that’s not going to make it look worse, it’s going to make it look better.”

Although councilman Rodney Fleming had fired Eggemeyer the day after the last meeting, Eggemeyer clearly wasn’t going to go out quietly. Briskly walking toward the podium after Porter had sat down, Eggemeyer fumbled with a binder he explained contained a copy of the city’s master development plan.

“What we have with this is not government coming down, telling business how to operate,” Eggemeyer said. “We want the business, we want new restaurants…while one bad decision or one element of bad taste might be approved and can…be taken to city council and city council can approve it. So what’s the reason of having this board if this board is being overstepped?”

Eggemeyer described this ‘overstepping’ of the board as due process that has happened in the past, then turned his speech to the board members themselves and the reasons for their appointment to the DHRC.

“The council elects each and every one of you as members of the board because they view that y’all have expertise of some sort,” he said. “Y’all aren’t just anybody off the street. Ya’ll aren’t some Facebook popular opinion.”

He reminded the board members that there’s only one “Block One” in San Angelo, inaccurately alluding to the restaurant location as being a part of that historical segment. It was later determined that Block One ends before reaching 1 W. Concho.

Referring back to the master plan, Eggemeyer said the content is representative of the needs of the city council and the community. He then continued to slam the city council and insinuated to the board members—who are appointed by council members—that the council is not knowledgeable on the issues before them and they should vote the way they wish.

The board had three options in dealing with the sign on Thursday: they could either approve it, deny it or remand it to council for a vote without recommendation.

“I don’t want to read out of this, but it also talks about appropriateness, ugliness—it talks about city council, if there’s an issue they have the ability and this board has the ability to find out why it is that the board votes this way. After all, y’all are the experts. It’s not the council. If it goes to the council, they’re going to approve it anyway,” Eggemeyer said. “The person that took me off the board (councilman Rodney Fleming) said, ‘either vote this way or you’re off’. I said, ‘what about if you get somebody in here to vote that doesn’t vote your way?’ He said, ‘then I’ll keeping getting somebody in here on this board until they vote my way.’ So that goes to show you they don’t know what this board is about.” 

Eggemeyer reiterated his stance on the size of the statue and his position that the cactus does not fit into historical downtown. He stated that no one has ever been able to just go before the board and throw a fit until they get what they want, then revealed he’s been unofficially talking to business owners downtown and asking for opinions on Condon’s cactus.

“This is not my made up words, this is what they say,” he began. “’It looks childish. It looks like a children’s attraction area. It looks cartoonish. There’s nothing like this within the area, why does it have to be here? It doesn’t fit anywhere on Concho Ave. It looks like it belongs in an amusement park. I don’t want it downtown. Are you kidding me? Aren’t there any other areas for this guy.’ These aren’t my words. These are the words of business owners who already pay taxes in this area.”

As Eggemeyer spoke, a couple commissioners nodded their heads in apparent disagreement, and public comment was closed for commissioner discussion. Condon chose not to respond to Eggemeyer’s comments.

Following some discussion, commissioner Sandra Morris spoke up and said she believed in what Eggemeyer had said about the board’s purpose. “It’s not about capitulating every time someone gets mean, ugly and in-your-face,” she said. “It’s about doing what’s right…that being said, staff has recommended approval and we know based upon other information that once it goes back to council they will approve it, so it may be a moot point. But I think it should go on record that most of us have had multiple reasons for not approving it and that that’s unfortunate.”

Ashley Young-Turner gave comment next, apologizing to Condon that the board “has been less formal and clear” than they ought to have been, which she said may have put more burden on the issue than necessary. 

The chairwoman then read numerous paragraphs from various city ordinances on what falls under the board’s purview, specifically focusing on portions that pertain to the design and height of signs.

Young-Turner stated that she felt if they had been more clear about their reasons for not approving the sign, rather than coming across as providing mere personal opinions, the whole process might have been less convoluted.

Prior to Young-Turner calling for the vote, commissioner Margaret Mallard spoke up to make one last comment.

“I think that we are obliged to be careful that we don’t get Concho Avenue so monotonous that it’s boring,” she said.

Thereafter, commissioner David Mazur made a motion to approve the sign, which was seconded by Mallard. A vote was then taken returning a unanimous decision to approve the sign as-is. Eric Eggemeyer made a quick exit.

The second item, an amendment to permit Condon to build an awning above the doors where the sculpture would sit, was also passed unanimously. Mallard made the motion for approval and was seconded by Morris.

Following the meeting, Condon was elated that the board had finally approved the signage.

“I’m super-excited that the vote was a 5-0 for the cactus,” he said. “I’m just relieved and we’re ready to go into the next phase, and that would be construction…” He thanked each board member for the approval and said he was ready to start work soon.

Commissioner Morris, who had previously voted against the signage and Thursday voted in favor despite nothing having changed from last meeting, said her decision to do so was motivated by not wanting to hold up the process any longer.

“Literally everything was aligned to make it happen and for me to stop it one more time would just make the situation worse,” she said. “It’s not that it was an improvement. His façade was masterfully improved, we were all in agreement about that, but I was very sad that the cactus itself could not be made smaller because I agree with what Eric [Eggemeyer] said and his canvassing of the downtown.

Morris said that council members had made their feelings known to her and “ultimately, council was going to approve it anyway”.

She had some concern, however that Condon’s statue might set a precedent for future business owners who would like to set up a similar structure. Her concern was shared by Young-Turner, both agreeing that if everything had been made more clear from the onset, it might not have become such a heated issue.

“I’m just glad that it’s gotten resolved at this point and I have great hopes that we will soon have the beginning of construction and ultimately another nice restaurant in the historic corridor,” Morris said.