Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs And Visual Character topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic Preservation Commission denies internally illuminated wall sign at 1810 University Boulevard
Summary
The Tuscaloosa Historic Preservation Commission unanimously denied a proposal to replace a freestanding pole sign with an internally illuminated aluminum wall sign at 1810 University Boulevard, citing design‑guideline prohibitions on internally lit signs and vinyl/plastic sign structures in historic districts.
The Tuscaloosa Historic Preservation Commission voted to deny an application on Feb. 11 to replace a long‑standing pole sign at 1810 University Boulevard with a smaller, internally illuminated wall sign that would include a red illuminated outline.
Applicant Lee Barlow told the commission the existing 'Top Hat' sign (installed in 1971) was being removed at the city's request and that the business wanted an outline that recalled the original neon look. Barlow said the revised package used internal LEDs for the outline and a white‑lit sign face. ‘‘The sign should be aluminum exterior painted,’’ Barlow said when commissioners asked for material details.
Sign installers from Southern Sign Solutions explained the build: an aluminum outer shell with an acrylic/plastic sign face and a red vinyl sticker applied to the inside edge to create the red ring; white LEDs would sit behind the face. Commissioners repeatedly referenced the design guidelines posted on the city website and said internally illuminated signs and plastic or vinyl sign structures are inappropriate for historic districts.
Chair Kathy Pagani said the guidelines are clear that internally illuminated signs are not appropriate in the city's historic districts. Commissioners agreed the materials and internal illumination conflicted with the guidelines and voted to deny the application. Pagani told the applicant city staff would help them develop an alternative design that conforms to the rules.
The commission recorded the denial and directed the applicant to consult with city staff on a revised proposal; the commission noted that staff will help navigate design‑guideline requirements and that any revised submission should be brought back for review.
