Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves storefront sign for 1006 Park Street after applicant presentation
Summary
After a brief presentation, Francesca, representing a Manhattan printing company, showed samples and said the new sign will match adjacent signage. The Board approved the certificate after questions about mounting and lighting; the record notes attachment should be through mortar, not brick.
The Board approved a certificate for a new storefront sign at 1006 Park Street after a brief presentation by the applicant. Francesca, the applicant who identified herself as representing a Manhattan printing company, described the project as "a new sign" for a new company and said the sign would be mounted above a hair salon. "My name is Francesca," she said during her presentation.
Board members focused questions on how the sign would look and how it would be attached to the building. A committee member asked whether the sign is internally lighted; Francesca said it is not. The member pressed on installation details and emphasized that attachments should be made through the mortar rather than through the brick to avoid damaging the facade: "The reason I'm asking is that it's important that the signage be attached through the mortar and not through the brick itself." Francesca confirmed the installer would follow the appropriate method and that the proposed sign height and lettering would mirror the adjacent sign that was put up within the past year.
After questions, the Chair moved to approve the certificate "as presented." The Chair called for a voice vote and declared the motion approved. The applicant thanked the board following the announcement of approval.
The record includes a reference to a neighboring law office name that appears in the transcript with two variants ("Cabanilla" and "Cavanillas"); the board discussion treated that adjacent sign as the model for placement and size. No statutes, ordinances or other legal authorities were cited during the discussion.
