Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Signage Visibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee clears signs for new shop at 7 East State Street; staff to bring case to DRB Aug. 18
Summary
On July 21 the Montpelier Design Review Committee accepted proposed flat and projecting signs for 7 East State Street, offered guidance on letter and sign sizes to improve visibility, and will forward a staff report for the Development Review Board hearing Aug. 18; vote 4-0.
The Montpelier Design Review Committee on July 21 reviewed and accepted proposed signage for a new retail business at 7 East State Street, owned by Haney Family Limited Partnership and to be operated by applicant Tassie (Tasi) Garrett. The committee voted 4-0 to accept the signs and the staff's recommendation that Garrett may, at her option, increase letter sizes and slightly enlarge sign height to improve visibility without returning to the committee. Staff will compile the committee input into a formal staff report for the Development Review Board hearing on Aug. 18.
Garrett said she will continue the existing business operation previously known as Katie's Jewels under a new name and requested two new signs: a flat wall sign that is two feet shorter than the existing sign and a projecting (blade) sign to improve visibility from the corner of State and Main. "I'm hoping to put a couple of new signs up, to make myself more visible from the corner of State And Maine," Garrett said. She described a textured (sand-and-glass) finish on a black-painted background with silver leaf for the logo on the flat sign and a custom spiral bracket for the projecting sign.
Committee members and staff discussed placement, attachment, and legibility. The applicant said the projecting-sign bracket will attach to the framing behind the rounded shingled area rather than directly to masonry. Steve Everett and other members advised on letter sizing and visibility: staff advised the rule of thumb of 1 inch of letter height per 10 feet of viewing distance and noted a projecting-sign maximum of 10 square feet. Staff suggested letter heights of about 8 inches for the business name and 6 inches for a secondary line at the approximate viewing distance (70–100 feet), and that the applicant could increase the blade sign height from 33 to 36 inches to accommodate larger letters if desired.
Meredith Crandall, planning staff, said the city revised sign provisions in April 2024 so projecting signs no longer count toward a building's total frontage signage; that gives applicants additional flexibility. Crandall told Garrett, "I'll be in the office tomorrow... I'll package everything that you've provided already plus the input that comes from the design review committee tonight into a staff report" for the Development Review Board.
Discussion (options and concerns): committee members discussed legibility from the corner, sign contrast (black background/white letters recommended for visibility), whether the bracket attaches to framing or brick, and whether the building has historical precedent for a projecting bracket at that location. Garrett said she believed a projecting sign had existed on the building under prior tenants but had no documentary proof.
Decision: The committee found the proposed signs acceptable and approved the options to increase letter sizes and slightly enlarge sign height for readability without requiring the applicant to return to the committee. Vote: Martha Smerski, Rebecca Owens, Steve Everett and Eric Gilbertson voted yes; outcome approved 4-0.
Next steps: Staff will issue a staff report and the applicant will appear before the Development Review Board on Aug. 18; staff will post meeting materials and the final agenda in advance.
