Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sign Variance 411 Washington topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sign variance appeal for 411 Washington Avenue North forwarded without recommendation after split views
Summary
The committee forwarded without recommendation a variance appeal for a sign on a non‑primary building wall at 411 Washington Avenue North to the full council, after competing arguments about practical difficulty, downtown policy, and precedential effects.
The Business, Housing and Zoning Committee forwarded without recommendation to the full council a variance appeal regarding a proposed sign on a non‑primary building wall at 411 Washington Avenue North during its March 4, 2025 meeting.
Hilary Divaric (CPED planning staff) explained that the applicant sought to place a sign on the north wall of the Steelman Exchange building; staff and the City Planning Commission concluded that the wall is not a primary building wall under the zoning code (a primary wall faces a street or on‑site accessory parking area) and recommended denial because findings of practical difficulty were not met. Staff noted alternative options: placing signage on the building’s primary walls facing Third Street North or Fifth Avenue North, which are allowed under current rules.
Applicants, including Kirsten Schilling (general manager of Steelman Exchange) and Clara Petasano (JPMorgan representative), argued the sign is needed for wayfinding for clients arriving from Washington Avenue and to direct clients to parking accessed from the alley; they noted the two buildings on the parcel are mechanically connected and operate as a single unit and that the proposed sign would occupy less than 1% of the wall and be well within allowable size on the property. Applicants offered technical data on illumination and proposed limits on hours.
Several council members, including Councilmember Rainville and Councilmember Cashman, supported the applicant’s case; others, including Councilmember Ellison and members worried about setting precedent, emphasized the need to adhere to variance findings and protect neighbors from potential signage encroachment elsewhere. Given the difference in views and concern about precedent, Councilmember Chowdhury moved to forward the item without recommendation to allow the full council to weigh the matter; the motion carried.
The full council will next consider the appeal and any findings developed by committee members who offered to work with staff on a proposed factual record.
