Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Window Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design review board directs staff to work with Anderson Plumbing on window signage after 31% proposal
Summary
Anderson Plumbing asked to add an 11th window sign that would raise window graphics to about 31% of its front facade; the board directed staff to work with the applicant to reduce coverage (target 25% guidance) and to consider non-reflective tinting and smaller clings, with administrative approval if guidance is met.
The Florence City Design Review Board discussed a request from Anderson Plumbing to replace and expand its window signage at 604 South Irby Street and directed staff to work with the applicant to reduce overall coverage and refine the design.
Staff told the board the business currently has 10 window graphics and is proposing an eleventh that would increase signage to about 31% of the entire front façade. Staff noted current code allows wall signage up to 25% of a front façade, but the zoning code does not directly regulate window signage. Planning staff said a proposed code amendment — recommended by the Planning Commission — would require permits for window signage and limit coverage to 25% of each individual window. Staff estimated the rule could take effect roughly within a 90-day window if adopted on schedule and that staff is considering a transition allowance for businesses.
Marshall Anderson, who identified himself as the owner’s son, said the family has owned the property 10–11 years and that the storefront is mostly a storage and service area. He told the board the business is across from the Greyhound bus station and cited recent security incidents on the lot. “If they don’t want us to do the signs, we can tint some of the windows,” he said, adding the family would consider dropping the additional window to meet the 25% threshold.
Board members raised concerns that approving a 31% allowance could set a precedent and prompt many variance requests. Several members suggested a combined approach of non-reflective tinting and reduced window clings placed lower in the windows to preserve sightlines and blend with the building’s character. Staff said that if the board provides sizing and coverage guidance, staff could administratively approve a revised proposal that meets that guidance; if not, staff would return the item to the board.
A board member moved to allow the applicant to work with staff on a revised design combining tinting and reduced clings, with staff authorized to approve administratively if the guidance is met. The chair seconded the motion and the board voted unanimously in favor. The board directed staff to work with the applicant under the guidance discussed and to return the item only if concerns remained.
