Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201300002 Review Comments Miscellaneous Submittal 2013-01-18Brent Nelson From: Brent Nelson Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 10:54 AM To: 'cbyrd @gropen.com' Subject: ARB 13 -2, Portico Church Signs, ARB Staff Comments Importance: High Caitlin - I have completed my review of the above -noted sign proposal. The following issues, based on established Architectural Review Board (ARB) Sign Guidelines, have been identified. These issues would need to be adequately addressed for an administrative, staff approval. Sign Scale, Proportion & Location: The ARB Sign Guidelines state: "Wall signs shall 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.... The size of a wall sign shall be coordinated with the size of the architectural element on which it is placed. The sign should not overcrowd the architectural element, the wall, or the sign area. Buildings and building elements should not be used as a billboard. The ARB will consider the degree of visibility, the distance from the Entrance Corridor, and the architectural design of the building and the sign area in its determination of appropriate sizes and placement. " A "roof' sign such as this is not considered to be integrated with the architecture of the building and does in fact detract from the roof as an visual, architectural element. However, the ARB has recognized in the past that certain circumstances, including a building's orientation to and distance from the Entrance Corridor and the use of a colonnade (as on this building), can make a wall location lack sufficient visibility. As a result, a location on the fake mansard becomes an option. Roof signs in general are not permitted in the Zoning Ordiance; however, the ordinance defines a sign on a fake mansard (such as this proposal) as a permitted wall sign. As noted above, ARB Sign Guidelines do indicate the sign should not overcrowd the architectural element and the building element should not be used as a billboard. With that said, the goal becomes to limit the visual impact of the sign structure (backing) on the roof to which it attaches. The two -sided feature of the current sign structure gives it the appearance of overcrowding the roof element and emphasizing the awkward, unresolved relationship to the mansard roof and overall building. The close proximity of the two illuminated logo cans to each other only increases this impact. The sign's proposed location at the end of the roof does not coordinate with the location and design of the colonnade below. Recommendation: Revise the proposal by making the sign one -sided facing Route 29 and repositioned so that it is centered between the two columns beneath it. Include a return to the sign structure on the Airport Road side so the rear (inside) of the sign structure would not be visible from Airport Road. Sign Color: In the current proposal, the corrugated metal sign backer is to be an unpainted, metallic color. As previously noted, the visual impact of the sign structure itself, not the sign, needs to be limited due to it's unresolved and awkward appearance on the mansard roof. Painting the corrugated metal backer the same dark green color as the roof shingle would be appropriate. This may require another color for the sign letters as black letters may not read sufficiently against a dark green background. Recommendation: Revise the sign drawing to indicate the corrugated metal backer will be painted a color to match the dark green roof shingle. Provide the pantone color number or paint color on the sign drawing. Sign Illumination: In the current proposal, the white background of the logo can is to be illuminated. Also, exterior gooseneck lighting is proposed but the bulb type and wattage is not indicated on the drawing. Both the ARB Sign Guidelines and the Zoning Ordinance require that the background of the logo can be opaque at night. The Zoning Ordinance requires that all exterior lighting, like the gooseneck lamps, be full cutoff if they emitt 3,000 or more lumens. Since this fixture, by the nature of it's design,cannot be full cutoff, the bulb must be under the 3,000 lumens output threshold. Recommendation: Revise the sign drawing to indicate the background of the logo can shall not illuminate, only the blue logo itself shall illuminate. Revise the drawing to indicate the bulb type and wattage for the gooseneck lighting. Panel Sign /North Elevation: The sign drawing does not include the name of the blue vinyl proposed and the dimensions for the text and logo in the panel sign on the north elevation. The drawing does not indicate if this sign is to be illuminated. When illumination is desired, ARB Sign Guidelines encourage exterior lighting like the gooseneck fixtures proposed for the other sign. As previously noted, the bulb would need to be under the 3,000 lumens output threshold. Recommendation: Revise the sign drawing for the panel sign in the north elevation to include dimensions for all text and the logo, the name of the blue vinyl proposed and an indication as to whether or not the sign is to be illuminated. If illuminated, indicate fixture type, color, location, bulb type and wattage. Wall Color: The sign drawing indicates the north wall, facing Airport Road, is to be painted a dark gray color. The existing wall color, a terracotta red, matches the brick in the front elevation. While only a suggestion, and not a requirement for sign approval, leaving the wall color as it exists would be more appropriate. This building was not reviewed by the ARB as it was constructed prior to Airport Road & Route 29 being designated as Entrance Corridors. ARB guidelines for building design would have recommended that this elevation be the same brick as in the elevation facing Route 29. Should the applicant feel that he does not want to revise the proposal accordingly for an administrative staff approval, they can request a full review of the original proposal by the members of the ARB at their February 19, 2013 meeting. Some one representing the proposal would be required at the meeting to address the Board. Please let me know no later than Friday, January 25th as to whether you intend to revise for an administrative, staff approval or are requesting a full review at the February 19th meeting. Our office is closed on Friday, January 18th and Monday, January 21 st for the holiday. I will put it on my calendar to call you on Tuesday to see if you have any questions. Brent Brent W. Nelson Planner Planning Services Department of Community Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 434 - 296 -5832 x3438