Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves White Glove Detailing signs at 779 Capitol Boulevard with conditions
Summary
The commission voted to approve two wall signs for White Glove Detailing at 779 Capitol Boulevard, contingent on an administrative review of a detailed site plan showing tenant frontages and a letter from the building owner permitting the signs.
At a recent commission meeting, members approved signage for White Glove Detailing at 779 Capitol Boulevard, granting permission for two wall signs but requiring a marked site plan and a letter from the building owner before a permit will be issued.
Mr. Rick, presenting a March 7 report, summarized the application and measurements: "The request is for two wall signs on the tenant space at 779 Capitol Boulevard," he said, noting the proposed signs measure 4 by 8 feet and 3½ by 7 feet for a combined area of about 56.5 square feet. He cited zoning code section 117903 F2, which allocates two square feet of sign area per linear foot of building frontage, and said staff needs tenant frontage measurements and the areas of existing signs to confirm the calculation.
The commission discussed the building frontage and tenant occupancy. County records were cited as indicating a building length of about 155 feet (one speaker referenced 195 feet), and speakers said White Glove appears to occupy most of the building while a front corner office is subleased. Commissioners and staff asked the applicant to supply a site plan that documents total building frontage, frontage by tenant, and the area of any existing signs so the department can confirm available sign area.
Members also discussed sign materials and style. The applicant indicated the signs would be aluminum cabinet signs; commissioners noted a preference in recent reviews for higher‑quality options such as individual channel letters or logos and raised practical concerns about electrical work for illuminated signs.
A committee member moved to approve the signs, "subject to administrative review of a detailed site plan showing unit frontages and existing sign areas and a letter from the building owner allowing the signs," and the motion received a second. The commission approved the motion by voice vote; individual roll‑call tallies were not recorded in the transcript.
Before a permit can be issued, staff said the applicant must submit the marked site plan and the owner’s letter for administrative review. The meeting then concluded and members adjourned.
