Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design options and signage under review for Sugar at 504 Park Street; commission resists painting primary brick
Summary
Architect David Rectenwald presented three conceptual design options for Sugar at 504 Park Street. Commissioners discouraged painting the unpainted front facade, suggested retaining recessed openings, and recommended exploring murals or a concentrated branding scheme on the south wall instead of painting primary historic brick.
David Rectenwald, architect for Rectenwald Studio Architects representing One Hospitality, presented conceptual exterior changes for 504 Park Street, a 1969 structure within the local historic context. The applicant proposed three options including painting side elevations, installing an internally illuminated double‑sided blade sign reading "Sugar," adding wood veneer around the main entry, and constructing louvered pavilion structures on the rear patio.
Staff recommended against painting the front brick facade (which staff said appears unpainted and original), but indicated the previously painted side elevation could be considered for paint. Commissioners generally echoed that position: painting the principal, unpainted brick façade would be a major alteration to character‑defining material and likely not supported. Instead, commissioners suggested alternatives such as: maintaining the brick and using a false window or light box in existing recessed ad openings; concentrating branding and color on the south elevation (which commissioners described as a suitable canvas); or using removable heat‑applied graphic wraps or a mural process that preserves the substrate.
The commission also discussed practical details: use of Western Red Cedar as a durable but higher‑maintenance trim option; avoiding glass block infill; and ensuring awnings, blade sign sizes and lighting meet sign and storefront requirements. Commissioners encouraged the applicant to submit a full south‑elevation package, larger photos of current conditions and any historic drawings that could support a design.
No formal action was taken; the review was conceptual and commissioners asked the applicant to return with refined designs and materials, and to submit any older drawings or prior permit records for staff to review.
