University District board approves sign package and variances for Bloom on 16th

The University District Design Review Board voted to approve the graphics package and sign variances for the Bloom on Sixteenth project at East 16th Avenue at its meeting; staff recommended approval and the board carried the motion.

Staff told the board the submission included an internally mounted aluminum projecting blade (previously larger), an internally illuminated wall sign, non-illuminated metal address numbers, and four new exterior light fixtures. The originally proposed blade had been reduced substantially from the prior submittal so it now fits within the revised size constraints, and staff said the proposed lighting fixtures minimize uplighting and light spill.

Why it matters: the proposal required variances from the city sign code because the blade will be closer to building openings than the code’s standard and some sign dimensions exceeded recommended sizes. Staff recommended support, saying the building’s size and the design changes made since the prior review justify the variances and maintain pedestrian-oriented design goals from the University District plan.

Details: staff described the originally proposed projecting blade and the revised dimensions on the record. The package included an internally mounted aluminum projecting sign (presented as roughly 12 feet by 3 feet 2 inches in the materials), an internally illuminated wall parking/tenant sign (described in the submittal as 19 feet 4 inches by 20 inches in the narrative), non-illuminated address numbers approximately 24 inches by 7 3/16 inches, and four new wall-mounted light fixtures (two of which include a 10-inch by 3.5-inch blue logo element). Staff noted the projecting blade was moved farther from the building openings in the revised designs and reduced in area so it is within the plan’s usable square-foot limits for the building after the reduction.

Code references and staff recommendation: staff identified that the project required relief from Section 33.76.02 (distance of projecting signs from windows/openings) and Section 33.76.04 (maximum sign area and height limits), and also referenced the access-point signage limit in Section 33.77.14. Staff concluded the revised materials are consistent with the University District plan’s guidance on pedestrian orientation, lighting, and material palette and recommended approval of the submission with the requested variances.

Public comment and board action: no members of the public spoke on the item. An applicant representative confirmed the reduction of the blade sign and explained that the remaining requested variance was for the distance from the building (approximately 6–8 feet from certain windows). Several board members expressed support for the smaller blade and the lighting approach. The board then moved, seconded and voted to approve the variances and the submitted graphic package. Board members recorded on the record as voting “yes” included Miss Parker, Mister Leeds, Mister Sillett and Mister Snigsby. The motion carried.

What’s next: the approval allows the applicant to proceed with the approved graphics, signage and lighting as presented to the board; building permit and sign-permit reviews will follow per city procedure.