Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Goodwill Facade Sign topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission carries over Goodwill facade and sign plan at 9110/9116 Manchester Road for redesign
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission carried over a Goodwill facade and comprehensive sign plan for 9110/9116 Manchester Road after commissioners raised concerns about excessive signage, a large window graphic, and a pole/pylon sign; applicants were asked to return with moderated sign sizes and removal of the pole sign.
Get email alerts on the Goodwill Facade Sign topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Brentwood Planning and Zoning Commission on Aug. 14 carried over a proposed facade and comprehensive sign plan for Goodwill at 9110/9116 Manchester Road, asking the applicant to return with revisions that reduce overall signage and replace a large window graphic with a more conventional sign treatment.
Chris Henson of Dial Architects said the project would update the exterior with new brick, awnings and canopies consistent with Goodwill’s refreshed store design. He said the owner does not plan to remove the existing pylon (pole) sign immediately but will take direction if the commission recommends removal.
During staff and commissioner review, concerns centered on sign quantity and scale. Commissioner Bilderback summarized the commission’s preferences: remove the pole/pylon sign; allow the large north-facing front sign to remain; moderate the east and west elevation sign sizes (the chair suggested roughly 35 square feet as a compromise between code-compliant and proposed sizes); replace the west elevation’s oversized window graphic with a sign similar to the east elevation; remove an accessible sign tied to a relocated parking layout; and apply window tint or film that is not a brand color. Commissioners discussed durability of the proposed brick stain versus integral brick and long-term maintenance obligations.
Applicant asked whether the commission could pick a size that day or whether another meeting would be required; commissioners said the applicant could return with a revised sign size recommendation. Ultimately a motion to carry the item over for revisions was moved, seconded and carried.
The commission instructed staff and the applicant to work toward a revised submission that addresses the summarized points. No final action was taken; the application will return to a future Planning and Zoning meeting for further consideration.

