Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201200028 Review Comments Miscellaneous Submittal 2012-03-26ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project #/Name ARB- 2012 -28: Stonefield Town Center Comprehensive Sign Review Review Type Comprehensive Sign Review Parcel Identification Tax Map 61 W, Section 3, Parcels 19B, 23, 24 and 25 Location At the northwest corner of the intersection of Route 29 North and Hydraulic Road Zoned Neighborhood Model District (NMD), Entrance Corridor (EC) Owner /Applicant Albemarle Place EAAP LLC /Edens (Chris Haine) Magisterial District Jack Jouett Proposal To install wall signs in the Stonefield Town Center. Context The Stonefield Town Center site is located in an area of mixed development. The Rt. 29 North corridor is a heavily developed commercial corridor. Buildings along Hydraulic Road include a mix of residential and commercial buildings, primarily at one and two stories. A shopping center stands near the southwest corner of the proposed site, and a residential development runs along the western border at Commonwealth Drive. Visibility The Stonefield Town Center will be visible from both the Route 29 North and Hydraulic Road Entrance Corridors. Buildings that are positioned internal to the site will be progressively less visible the further into the site they are located. Wall signs will have varying degrees of visibility based on location relative to the ECs. ARB Meeting Date April 2, 2012 Staff Contact Margaret Maliszewski PROJECT HISTORY DATE REVIEW TYPE RESULT 10//3/2011; 11/29/2011 Final SDP Hyatt wall signs approved. 2/6/2012 Sign review Approved Regal signs with conditions: faces and raceway shall be white. 12/19/2011 Work session Work session completed on monument sign design for town center. ANAYLSIS REF GUIDELINE ISSUE RECOMMENDATION 1 Create a consistent and unified design approach The submittal proposes minimal limits Revise the criteria to along the Entrance Corridors. The placement, on sign placement and no limits on limit color, font and/or size, illumination and colors of signs can create color, font or typeface. Signage typeface for greater unity along the corridor, or they can create a resulting from the proposal could compatibility among wall disjointed, visually competitive environment. appear unified, or it could appear signs throughout the Consistent and unified sign design allows the disjointed. The proposed criteria do not town center. businesses located along the Corridor to have equal ensure compatibility throughout. standing in visibility. It also provides a pattern of sign placement that makes the business locations and entrances more easily recognizable to both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 10C Compatibility among signs must be maintained through color or font and typeface selection. 2 Establish simplicity and reserve as preferred The applicant's proposal eliminates Revise the criteria to characteristics for sign design in these areas. This Buildings Al, A5 and BI (all major further limit the design of reflects the historic character of the area and tenants) from the comprehensive sign signs on the south sides enhances the aesthetic qualities of the Corridor. To review. In addition, the ARB has of A3 and A4 and the this end, the overall design of a sign will be already reviewed wall signs for the north sides of B2 and B3 evaluated concurrently with that of the building on Hyatt and the Regal Cinema, and the for increased which it will be installed. The design of a building's ARB previously determined that ARB coordination. walls, window locations, parapets and other review would not be required for signs architectural features will influence the Board's on Bond Street elevations. The evaluation of appropriate signage. Because each site majority of remaining elevations are is composed of a variety of elements that work the south sides of A3 and A4, and the together to create a unique character and appearance, north sides of B2 and B3, all of which ARB review of each sign proposal is guided by face parking lots and have limited, if these sign guidelines within the context of the any, storefronts. Limitations on the specific site for which the proposal is made. design of signs in these locations would be appropriate to increase coordination and limit visual impacts from these secondary elevations. REF GUIDELINE ISSUE RECOMMENDATION Given their distance from the EC and the narrowness of the available view, signs on the west elevation of A -4 and the east elevation of C 1 -2 are expected to have less impact on the EC, so greater flexibility in sign design on these elevations seems appropriate. Placement 4a The design of a building's walls, window locations, Where storefronts are present, the Add sign placement parapets and other architectural features shall applicant has proposed that the entire criteria to ensure that the influence the Board's evaluation of appropriate surrounding wall area be available to signs on the east signage. Wall signs can help establish rhythm, scale receive signage. Although this includes elevation of A5 will have and proportion across the facade of a building. locations where signs could conflict with architectural features, the a coordinated appearance on the building and in the 9a Wall signs shall be integrated with the architecture of the building and the placement of such signs applicant's intent is to not allow signs development. should not obscure architectural features or details, to overlap architectural features. This is including but not limited to cornices, windows, a detail that can be checked with each Provide additional columns, pilasters and paneling. sign permit application. The broad area available for locating signs around information regarding the signs proposed for the 10d Signs must be placed on the building in a manner that establishes a unified appearance. storefronts suggests that a disjointed east elevation of A3 and appearance could result. how they will be coordinated with the In some cases, the designated sign area windows. is so broad that there is no real limit proposed. For example, the entire east Add criteria to further elevations of C 1 -2 and A5, and the limit available sign west elevation of A4 are designated as locations in non - being available for signage (except the storefront bays on the rooftop screen walls). As noted above, parking lot elevations of the east elevation of C 1 -2 and the west A3/4 and B2/3 to ensure elevation of A -4 are expected to have a coordinate appearance. less impact on the EC given their position and distance from the road. Revise the criteria to limit the installation of REF GUIDELINE ISSUE RECOMMENDATION The east elevation of A3, which is the individual signs to wall EC elevation, identifies the window areas with a single area at the north end of the elevation as material /color. available for signage. Proposed sign locations on the parking lot elevations of buildings A3/4 and B2/3 are limited to the upper third of the walls. The sign areas range in size from 5' to 7' tall and 17' long. Sign placement could vary within these areas such that a disjointed appearance results. Further limitations on placement could ensure a more coordinated appearance. In some places, the designated sign area would allow a single sign to overlap two material types; for example, the upper part of the right end of the north elevation of B3. This would contribute to a disjointed appearance. Lettering and Typeface: 4d Lettering should be in proportion to the sign and the Because individual signs are not being See recommendations building for visual clarity and overall balance. proposed at this time, letter size will be above and below. Proportion of lettering includes font (size) and reviewed when individual sign permit typeface (style). The use of three typefaces or fewer applications are received. is more appropriate for signs in the Entrance Corridor. Additional typefaces may be approved No limit is proposed on the number of only if they contribute to a balanced, legible, unified typefaces used. It is anticipated that the sign design. number will exceed three. With limitations on other criteria, unlimited typefaces could be appropriate. REF GUIDELINE ISSUE RECOMMENDATION Color: 4e Colors must be harmonious with each other. Colors The proposal indicates that colors Add criteria regarding must not clash with other elements on the site, both should be harmonious with other signs color to ensure that signs when viewed in daylight and at night, whether the and with the building, but individual on the EC- facing signs are externally or internally lit. Overly intense colors are not identified and no limit is elevations will have a color, such as but not limited to dayglo or proposed for the number of colors to be coordinated appearance. fluorescent colors, are prohibited. used throughout the center. Add criteria to limit the The use of three colors or fewer is more appropriate Limiting the colors on parking lot sign colors on parking lot for signs in the Entrance Corridor. Black and white elevations could help limit focus on elevations to ensure a are counted as colors. Additional colors may be these secondary elevations. reserved, coordinated approved if they contribute to a balanced and unified appearance. sign design. Some degree of color coordination for signs on EC- facing elevations would be appropriate. 4f Trademarks, corporate logos and graphics: The The proposal suggests that corporate Revise the criteria to ARB may require that the color and scale of colors are to be tasteful and constrained eliminate logos and standard templates for trademarks, service marks, to a limited color palette that responds graphics from parking lot corporate logos and graphics be modified. When to nearby signs and materials, but no elevation bays without used, trademarks, service marks, corporate logos limits on graphics or logos are storefronts. and/or graphics should be incorporated as an integral proposed. Such limits on parking lot part of the overall sign. elevations could help reduce impacts. 9 Size 9d The size of a wall sign shall be coordinated with the Specific sign designs are not provided, Revise the criteria to size of the architectural element on which it is but the proposal indicates that signs indicate maximum letter placed. The sign should not overcrowd the should be an appropriate size and scale height within the architectural element, the wall, or the sign area. for the intended use, storefront design, available sign areas for Buildings and building elements should not be used sign area, placement on fagade, fagade signs. as a billboard. For example, an appropriate height architectural features, and neighboring for channel letters in a 30" high sign band is 18 ". signs. Clearances are proposed for This allows 6" of unoccupied space above and various sign types: 4" for fagade and below the letters. Generally, 4" of clear space above, projecting signs; 2" for canopy and below, and to the sides of a channel letter sign is awning signs; 10" from sign mounting considered a minimum, with larger clearances area. These clearances seem sufficient. REF GUIDELINE ISSUE RECOMMENDATION required for larger sign bands. The ARB will Indicating maximum letter height for consider the degree of visibility, the distance from fagade signs would be consistent with the Entrance Corridor, and the architectural design previous ARB actions and would of the building and the sign area in its determination confirm appropriate scale. of appropriate sizes and placement. 10 Wall Signs For Multiple Business Centers 10a A complete sign package shall be provided as part of The proposal indicates that signs See recommendations the submittal materials for the review of any new should be an appropriate size and scale above and below. multiple business center. The proposal should for the intended use, storefront design, address how compatibility among signs will be sign area, placement on fagade, achieved, and how new signs will be coordinated architectural features, and neighboring with the architecture of the building(s)... signs, but the criteria are so broad that compatibility and coordination are not certain. Type 10b Multiple business centers shall use a single sign type 6 signs types are proposed for the town Revise the criteria to for all wall signs. center, but projecting signs and channel allow a single sign type letters (either halo lit or externally throughout the town illuminated) are the types proposed as center on parking lot primary signs to be attached directly to elevation bays. walls. A variety of sign types may have an appropriate appearance on the Clarify the types of primary, active storefront elevations in fagade signs that would the town center, but greater limits on be mounted to the parking lot elevations could help interior of a storefront. reduce impacts. On page 3, under Component Sign Types, fagade signs are defined as signs mounted to the interior or exterior of a storefront. Mounting to the interior is unclear. Lighting 5c External illumination is preferred for approved Illumination of logos /graphics is not Revise the criteria to REF GUIDELINE ISSUE RECOMMENDATION graphics /logos; internal illumination may be limited in the proposal. Illuminated eliminate internal considered for approval on a case -by -case basis. The logos on non -EC and non - parking lot illumination of Board will evaluate the specific design for size elevations may be appropriate, given logos /graphics on EC (adjusted in proportion to the accompanying the nature of the town center. elevations and parking lettering), balance, complexity, and distance from lot elevations. and relationship to the Entrance Corridor. These factors will determine the extent of internal illumination that can be approved. 5f Any internal illumination is considered to contribute The projecting signs are proposed with Eliminate the to visual clutter and will be limited. light emitting from the edges of the sign body, in addition to the halo illumination of the edges of the projecting signs on 10e iii. Channel letters with translucent faces shall be constructed such that no light spills outward from illumination of the letters on the face of EC elevations and the top, bottom, sides or back. Faces and returns of the sign. parking lot elevations. channel letters shall be opaque when back -lit (halo - lit). LED lighting is proposed for channel Add the following note to letters and projecting signs. the sign drawings: The level of illumination provided by the LED lights will not exceed the illumination produced by a single stroke of 30 milliamp (ma) neon. 9e Lighting directed toward a sign should be designed External illumination is proposed for Clarify whether the and shielded so that it illuminates the face of the individual letter fagade signs. It appears external fixtures shown sign and does not shine beyond the edge of the sign. that this illumination would not extend beyond the sign itself. It is not clear in the fagade sign diagrams are lights that 10e ii. Lighting should be aimed so as not to project illumination beyond the sign. whether the illustrated fixtures are are already included in already included in the previous town the previous town center center lighting proposal. lighting proposal. We i. External illumination is preferred for signs in Internal halo illumination and external Revise the criteria to multiple business centers. illumination are proposed for signs in include a single type of the town center. Both illumination illumination for signs on types have an appropriate appearance parking lot elevations for the EC, but using a single type for and a single type for EC REF GUIDELINE ISSUE RECOMMENDATION parking lot elevations and a single type elevations. for EC elevations may be appropriate to increase coordination. Summary of Recommendations: Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion: 1. Sign locations: need for additional limitations 2. Sign types: need for additional limitations 3. Sign illumination: need for additional limitations 4. Different criteria for varying locations: EC elevations vs. parking lot elevations vs. other elevations 5. Is ARB review required for signs on A1, A5, B1, and the EC elevation of A3? Staff offers the following comments on the preliminary plan: 1. Revise the criteria to: a. Limit color, font and/or typeface for greater compatibility among wall signs throughout the town center. b. Indicate maximum letter height within the available sign areas for facade signs. c. Clarify the types of fagade signs that would be mounted to the interior of a storefront. d. Clarify whether the external fixtures shown in the facade sign diagrams are lights that are already included in the previous town center lighting proposal. 2. For the south sides of A3 and A4 and the north sides of B2 and B3, revise the criteria to: a. Further limit the design of signs for increased coordination. b. Further limit available sign locations in non - storefront bays to ensure a coordinated appearance. c. Allow only a single sign type. d. Allow a single type of sign illumination. e. Eliminate the illumination of the edges of the projecting signs. f. Eliminate internal illumination of logos /graphics. g. Limit the sign colors to ensure a reserved, coordinated appearance. h. Eliminate logos and graphics from bays without storefronts. 3. Add sign placement criteria to ensure that: a. The signs on the east elevation of A5 will have a coordinated appearance on the building and in the development. b. Individual signs shall be installed on a single material type /color. 4. Provide additional information regarding the signs proposed for the east elevation of A3 and how they will be coordinated with the windows. 5. For EC facing elevations revise the criteria to: a. Add color criteria to ensure that signs will have a coordinated appearance. b. Eliminate internal illumination of logos /graphics. c. Eliminate the illumination of the edges of the projecting signs. d. Allow a single type of illumination. 6. Add the following note to the sign drawings: The level of illumination provided by the LED lights will not exceed the illumination produced by a single stroke of 30 milliamp (ma) neon. TABLE A This report is based on the following submittal items: Sheet # Drawing Name Drawing Date/Revision Date 1 Cover 22 December 2011 2 Key plan 22 December 2011 3 Signage overview 22 December 2011 4 -7 Sign types: fagade, projecting, blade, canopy, awning 22 December 2011 8 -9 Signage — Building Al 22 December 2011 10 Signage — Building A3 22 December 2011 11 Signage — Building A4 22 December 2011 12 Signage — Building A5 22 December 2011 13 Signage — Building B 1 22 December 2011 14 Signage — Building B2 22 December 2011 15 Signage — Building B3 22 December 2011 16 Signage — Building C1 -2 22 December 2011 17 Signage — Building C1 -3 22 December 2011 18 Appendix 22 December 2011 10