Rush River Commons’ signage plans move forward

The Washington Town Council and Planning Commission voted unanimously Monday to refer plans for signage around Rush River Commons to the Architectural Review Board for further review.

At the joint meeting, Planning Commission Chair Caroline Anstey said errors made by the Rush River team were found in the signage application that was approved by town staff.

Two directory signs should not have been included in the initial proposal because they are part of the residential side of the project, which falls under a different zoning district, according to Anstey. The application also included building number signs, she said, that did not need to be in the application. 

With the revisions and corrections, the proposed signage now falls below the threshold of 15-square feet per building for the need of a special use permit (SUP). 

In an interview, Stephen Gyurisin, town zoning administrator, acknowledged that the error made by Rush River Commons was not caught in the town review of the first application. 

“Who’s fault was it?…The applicant for not putting it on the spreadsheet, and my fault for not catching it,” Gyurisin said. 

Mayor Joe Whited said there is no particular action needed before the issue moves to the ARB, but because of the “clerical error on the part of town staff,” he motioned to reimburse the Rush River team for the costs of the SUP application and the cost of the meeting advertisement they were required to cover. The council voted in favor of his motion.

“My apologies to the applicants…you’re off to the ARB now, I’m sure we’ll see you there,” Whited said.

The Rush River Commons’ team had applied for a special permit to display signage around the development, such as a 9.11 square foot project identification sign, a six square foot Food Pantry sign and a 13.34 square feet of office building signage. In the initial proposal, the square footage exceeded the maximum allowed by the town. 

Earlier this month, the Town Council and Planning Commission had voted to table the signage proposal for the complex. 

At that time, Rush River Commons’ engineer Steve Plescow had told the bodies that they would scrap the idea of an identification sign after town officials said it would separate the development from the town. 

Now, Plescow said, the team would like to keep it, since they are under the signage cap–none of the signage areas exceed 15-square feet. 

Anstey said the commission still has concerns over the identification sign, and argued that although the proposed sign is technically smaller than the town welcome sign–which the proposed sign will sit across from–it is taller. 

“It’s smaller as I understand it, but it’s taller, it’s quite a lot taller, and tall, to my mind, feels bigger,” Anstey said.

Commission member Constance Bruce asked Plescow if the proposed location of the sign at the corner of Warren Street and Leggett Lane was the only spot it could be placed, or if the identification sign could face Leggett Lane and not directly compete with the town sign.

“If we put it any further back from the road, you can’t see it from the road,” Plescow said.

He argued that The Inn at Little Washington and The Washington School have similar identification signs. But Anstey said this would not be the same, as those are building identification signs, and the Rush River Commons’ sign would be a “campus sign,” which does not exist anywhere else in Little Washington. 

“I think we’ve made our views very clear, and I understand that this is an issue that now goes to the ARB,” Anstey said.

Council member Gail Swift was not present as well as Drew Beard who serves on the council and commission. Commissioner David Pennington also was not present.