Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage And Wayfinding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design board asks applicants to scale back and refine signs for several student housing sites; three signage packages continued
Summary
Three related signage packages for multi‑building student housing properties (parts of the “State House” portfolio) were discussed; the board asked applicants to revise sign sizes, placement and projecting sign details and continued the applications for further review.
The University District Design Review Board reviewed signage packages submitted for multiple student housing properties in the district — including proposals for projecting signs, illuminated channel letters and awning signs for properties described by applicants as part of a coordinated “State House” portfolio (Highline, Varsity and Marcy/other addresses).
Staff said the University District Plan allows internal illumination in some circumstances and endorses projecting and wall signs that complement storefronts, but also urges limiting sign size and careful placement so signs do not dominate building facades or shine into residential windows. At the hearing staff recommended continuance to allow applicants to revise size, placement and quantity of signs to better align with plan guidance.
Applicants told the board the packages are intended to unify multiple properties under a single brand and to identify leasing offices and main entrances. Board members and staff raised several recurring concerns: the height and projection of blade/projecting signs relative to upper‑floor windows and trees; the number of illuminated wall signs on a single façade; and whether a large “State House” wordmark is appropriate at the high point of a pedestrian‑scale building rather than nearer the storefront or primary entrance.
Board members suggested options including lowering blade signs, relocating larger wordmarks to appear above main entrances rather than at the highest parapet, reducing the number of illuminated wall signs on a single elevation, and reducing red illuminated elements that could be visually dominant. Several members said leasing office and directional signs are appropriate, but that redundant or oversized identity signage should be reduced.
For each of the three sign packages — the Highline package, the Varsity package and the Marcy/State House package — the board voted to continue to give applicants time to revise the proposals. Staff also noted that a small set of minor administrative items were approved as staff approvals during the meeting; the board voted to ratify those staff approvals.
The applicants agreed to return with revised, smaller and better‑located sign proposals, adjusted mounting heights for projecting signs to avoid shining into residential windows, and more consistent consolidation of identity marks across the buildings.
