Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Starbucks sign package continued after board questions over multiple secondary signs
Summary
Starbucks's request to install multiple secondary wall signs at its Washington Street location was continued so the applicant can revise its package; the board raised concerns that multiple signs on one elevation exceed the zoning limit on secondary signage.
Starbucks and its sign contractor asked the Board of Appeals for permission to install multiple secondary wall signs on different elevations of the Washington Street store. The applicant requested approval for additional circular "siren" logos (6-foot diameter) and channel-letter signage on secondary elevations; the board expressed concern these secondary signs, as installed and proposed, exceed the code limits for secondary signage relative to the primary wall allowance.
Sean of Serrato Signs explained the existing 6-foot siren on the Washington Street-facing elevation is 28.26 square feet and the zoning code allows approximately 64.66 square feet on that primary side. He said the south elevation now contains two signs totaling 45.44 square feet and that combined size exceeds half the allowable signage for the primary side (half of 64.66 is 32.33 square feet). The applicant proposed an additional 6-foot siren on the east (rear) elevation as well.
Board members questioned whether the site's layout or lot topography constituted a hardship that would justify oversized secondary signage. Multiple members suggested the petitioner could comply by choosing fewer or smaller secondary signs (for example, channel letters over the doorway on the south elevation) rather than seeking a variance for more or larger secondary mounted signs. Board members noted visibility from multiple parking-lot approaches and the adjacent hotel but said they were not inclined to grant relief for the current package.
Starbucks asked for a continuance to consult with the building commissioner and revise the application. The board voted to continue the petition to its April 16 meeting; the applicant may withdraw in writing if it chooses to rework the package instead of returning for the variance.
