Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board limits Holiday Inn Express signage package at Walnut Building, approves others with staff review
Summary
The board approved most signage proposed for the Walnut Building (Holiday Inn Express) but voted to eliminate one corner blade sign that members found redundant; staff will review mounting, illumination details and any phase-jumping (electrical) penetrations given structural constraints.
Get email alerts on the Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Design Review Board reviewed a large signage package for the Walnut Building (706 Walnut Street) that included multiple wall-mounted and projecting signs proposed by Holiday Inn Express and a sign manufacturer representative.
Samuel Hawk summarized staff review: the package included two illuminated projecting signs and several wall signs, one measuring roughly 223 square feet and another 65 square feet. Staff recommended conditions requiring sectional and mounting details for illumination and electrical penetrations to be submitted to staff for review.
Irina Stevens, representing the sign manufacturer, described technical surveys and said the team was trying to avoid face‑jumps (visible conduits between letters) where structural constraints make penetrations difficult. Owner representative Mohammed Abbas said a post‑tension concrete structure limited core drilling for electrical penetrations.
Board members debated sign quantity, placement and scale and how brand standards interact with district guidelines. "I think 5 signs is a bit excessive," said Jared Worsham (downtown resident representative). Other members suggested approving the overall package while requiring that the corner blade sign at one location be removed to reduce redundancy on that corner. A motion to approve signs 1, 2, 4 and 5 and to eliminate sign number 3, with conditions that details of illumination and wire/conduit placement be submitted for staff review, passed on a voice vote.
The board also asked staff to codify any delegated staff review parameters for relocation or phase-jump approvals so future adjustments could be handled administratively when appropriate.

