HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB200900008 Review Comments Miscellaneous Submittal 2009-03-06ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
Project #: Name
ARB- 2009 -08: Hightech Signs Sign
Review Type
Certificate of Appropriateness for a Sign
Parcel Identification
Tax Map 45B 1, Section 5, Block A, Parcel 14
Location
2165 Seminole Trail, located on the east side of Route 29 North across
from Wal -Mart
Zoned
Highway Commercial (HC), Entrance Corridor (EC)
Owner
Briran LLC
Applicant
Hightech Signs
Magisterial District
Rio
Proposal
To reface and relocate an internally illuminated channel letter wall sign.
ARB Meeting Date
March 16, 2009
Staff Contact
Eryn Brennan
SITE/PROJECT HISTORY
The current application is to reface and relocate an existing internally illuminated channel letter wall sign.
The existing sign was approved on September 21, 1998, subject to conditions. The applicant initially
proposed a sign showing a color gradation from green at the top to purple at the bottom. The ARB
determined that the gradated colors were inappropriate in the EC because they were not compatible with
the building and the color gradation was modern in appearance and had no relationship to historic
buildings in the County. The sign was approved with the condition that the color be changed to teal,
which was one of the shades in the proposed gradation.
The current application originally showed a color gradation from light orange (PMS 137C) at the top to
dark orange (PMS 144C) at the bottom. The ARB briefly reviewed the original color sample as an "Other
Business" item on February 2, 2009. It was the consensus of the ARB that the "orange color is not
compatible with the color of the building." The applicant then submitted a revised color sample on
February 6, 2009, as discussed below, and requested to proceed with the regularly scheduled ARB
meeting on March 16, 2009.
CONTEXT
The area west of the site is characterized by dense commercial, strip developments facing the Route 29
Entrance Corridor, while the surrounding area east of the site is characterized by single - family residential
housing. The building is painted a light blue, with dark blue shutters, and white trimwork. The Rug Depot
is moving out of the building, and Hightech Signs plans to take over the entire building; hence, the
applicant would like to relocate the sign in the center of the west elevation.
ARB 3/16/09 Hightech Signs Sign- Page - 1
VISIBILITY
The proposed wall sign will be located on the front (west) elevation facing the Entrance Corridor and is
highly visible from the EC.
PROPOSAL
Wall Sign
Type: Refacing of an existing channel letter sign
Materials: Aluminum, Acrylic, Vinyl
Size: 27' -9" (W) x 30" (H)
Text: "Hightech Signs"
Graphics: None
Colors: Text: Color gradation from orange (PMS 130C) at the top to gold (PMS 7408C) at the bottom.
Returns and Trim Caps: Duranodic Bronze
Raceway: Painted to match building
Location: Horizontally centered on the west elevation, facing Route 29 Entrance Corridor, below the
second floor windows
Illumination: Existing internal neon
ANALYSIS (based on 2 sign drawings received 1/27/09 and a color sample submitted 2/6/09)
Issue: Color
Comments: The EC Sign Guidelines state that:
• Colors must not clash with other elements of the site, both when viewed in daylight and at
night, whether signs are externally or internally illuminated.
• Overly intense color, such as but not limited to dayglo or fluorescent colors, are prohibited.
• Establish simplicity and reserve as preferred characteristics for sign design.
• External illumination is preferred. Internal illumination is considered to contribute to visual
clutter and will be limited.
The orange and gold colors proposed for the refacing of the sign clash with the light blue building and
dark blue shutters. Although dark blue and gold can be complementary colors, the value of the light blue
building contrasted with the highly saturated orange and gold of the sign are not complementary. The
orange and gold are also overly intense for the EC, and would appear even more overly intense when
illuminated at night. The color gradation, proposed here from orange to gold, is also not appropriate for
this sign, as determined by the ARB in 1998, because it presents a modern appearance not compatible
with the Colonial Revival style of the building or other historic buildings in Albemarle County. Also, the
gradated and saturated colors do not represent simplicity and reserve. Finally, the internal illumination of
the proposed graded sign color will produce visual clutter in the EC. Consequently, the orange and gold
gradated color proposed by the applicant does not meet the EC Sign Guidelines.
Recommendations: Revise the color of the vinyl proposed for refacing the channel letters to one that is
less intense, more coordinated with the colors of the building, and not gradated. Blue, white, or black
colors would be more appropriate.
Issue: Location of the Sign
Comments: The EC Sign Guidelines state that:
• Wall signs should be integrated with the architecture of the building and the placement of
ARB 3/16/09 Hightech Signs Sign- Page - 2
such signs should not obscure architectural features or details, including but not limited to
cornices, windows, columns, pilasters, and paneling.
The proposed location of the sign is a significant improvement over the existing location of the sign;
however, the proposed location appears to conflict with the downspouts on the front of the building.
Although the applicant has indicated that the raceway will be mounted to the wall without interfering with
the gutters, the resulting appearance is uncoordinated. Relocating the sign to the south end of the building,
centered over the double door entrance, would be a more appropriate location.
Recommendations: Revise the proposed location of the sign to the southern portion of the west fagade,
centered over the double door entrance below the second floor windows.
SUMMARY OF REVIEW
The orange and gold colors proposed for the refacing of the existing channel letter wall sign are overly
intense and are not coordinated with the building. The proposed location of the existing sign also visually
interferes with architectural elements on the building.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion:
1. The proposed color of the sign.
2. The proposed gradation of color.
3. The proposed location of the sign.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Hightech Signs sign because the
proposal does not meet the following guidelines:
• Colors must not clash with other elements of the site, both when viewed in daylight and at
night, whether signs are externally or internally illuminated.
• Overly intense color, such as but not limited to dayglo or fluorescent colors, are prohibited.
• Establish simplicity and reserve as preferred characteristics for sign design.
• External illumination is preferred. Internal illumination is considered to contribute to visual
clutter and will be limited.
• Wall signs should be integrated with the architecture of the building and the placement of
such signs should not obscure architectural features or details, including but not limited to
cornices, windows, columns, pilasters, and paneling.
Staff could recommend approval of the proposal with the following conditions:
1. Eliminate the graded color.
2. Revise the face color to white, black, or a shade of blue that is compatible with the building.
3. Revise the proposed location of the sign to the southern portion of the west fagade, centered over
the double door entrance below the second floor windows.
ARB 3/16/09 Hightech Signs Sign- Page - 3
ARB 8/18/08 Stellar One Sign Attachment C - Page - 4