Appearance Commission denies sign and storefront alterations at 100 South Pollock Street

Thomas Selma Appearance Commission · December 16, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Thomas Selma Appearance Commission denied a certificate of appropriateness for 100 South Pollock Street after finding proposed signs and glass garage panels inconsistent with the West Selma historic district and unclear about materials.

The Thomas Selma Appearance Commission on Dec. 15 denied a certificate of appropriateness for 100 South Pollock Street, rejecting a proposal to add two wall signs and glass paneling to two garage doors for a proposed liquidation storefront.

Commissioners said the proposed signs and storefront alterations did not fit the special character of the historic district and that materials and details were insufficiently specified. Chair, leading the findings discussion, said, “I would definitely say it's inconsistent,” and commissioners questioned whether the application’s unspecified choice of wood or metal and the proposed lighting met the district’s standards.

Staff presented renderings and said the requested sign faces would be 10 by 4 feet and 16 by 4 feet with minor rear illumination and that two garage openings would receive glass panels to improve retail visibility. Commissioners accepted the testimony and evidence into the record and then moved through the required findings of fact. On the finding that the proposed change was consistent with the district’s special character, the body concluded the work was inconsistent.

On a motion to deny the certificate of appropriateness (moved by Miss Gaskell and seconded by Miss Smith), the commission voted by voice to deny the request. The minutes show commissioners voiced concerns about the signs appearing more like advertising for a flea‑market operation than signage compatible with nearby downtown historic signage.

The record does not include a subsequent formal resubmittal timeline; staff and commissioners discussed next steps generally but did not record a specific schedule for a revised application.