Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants signage variances for 88 Sixteenth Avenue but flags blade sign scale and placement
Summary
The board approved the Blue 1 Sixteenth Avenue signage package, including an oversized projecting sign and garage entry sign, while urging the applicant to reduce visual impact on adjacent units and to refine scale and mounting details.
The University Impact District Review Board approved a graphics package and related variances for a mixed‑use project at 88 Sixteenth Avenue after staff recommended approval conditioned on placement and mounting adjustments.
Staff presented the proposal, which included a large illuminated projecting (blade) sign, a parking wall sign and light fixtures that display a small logo. Staff noted the proposed projecting sign would sit roughly 6–8 feet from the building face and exceed the typical placement recommendation of 50 feet from the building in Section 33 76.02 (as cited in the staff report). The proposed parking garage entry backer was cited as approximately 32.3 square feet whereas Section 3377.14 limits access-point signage to smaller sizes.
Alicia Orlando, representing the applicant, said the blade sign was placed high and "brought forward as far as possible," noting the distance between the back of the sign and the facade is now about 10 feet 7 inches in the revised packet. Contractor Oliver Holtzberry described the sign intent as improving visibility from approaching pedestrian and vehicle routes.
Board members supported the idea of identifying a building that is set back from High Street, but several members criticized the blade sign scale and placement because the sign’s back could be visible to adjacent residential windows. "I don't know what the answer is... I'd be more sympathetic to some other sign that gave identification and branding without reducing the quality of a couple of the units," said Board member (name not specified). Several members suggested examining a monument sign or smaller projecting sign and noted vandalism concerns if a ground monument were used.
After discussion the board voted to approve the graphics package with staff recommendations in mind; staff indicated the applicant already pushed the projecting sign forward and updated their materials to mount through mortar joints where required. The board asked the applicant to return with a refined proposal for the projecting sign if they intended to keep the current scale, and to resolve any potential impacts on adjacent residential windows before permits are finalized.
