Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-00500104- 00073291City of College Station Development Services P. O. Box 9960 — 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 (979) 764 -3570 PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE (PRC) MEETING June 3, 2002 TO: Austin and Ken Harkness, via email Grant Barnby, via email Mike Junek, via email Robert Forrest, 1230 S College Avenue, Bryan, TX 77803 FROM: PRC Review Subcommittee: Kyle Hawthorne, P &Z Commissioner Phil Trapani, P &Z Commissioner Carolyn Williams, P &Z Commissioner Staff Attending: Natalie Ruiz, Development Review Manager Molly Hitchcock, Staff Planner Jennifer Reeves, Staff Planner Tammy Macik, Secretary SUBJECT: New York Sub - Discussion and consideration of the attached signage located at 301 College Main (01 -104) The PRC held a meeting on Wednesday, May 26, 2002, to review the above - mentioned project. In regards to the attached sign, Staff Planner Hitchcock stated that in the Northgate Guidelines it states there should not be any internally illuminated signs. She also stated that the NRB approved the Northgate Center sign that reflects back on the building behind the sign. There was another sign that was to be suspended but Staff Planner Hitchcock did not know if it was internally lit or backlit. Mr. Barnby stated that originally they were going to ask for an internally illuminated sign with channel letters on the disk. They wanted to suspend the disk with red iron in the overhang area and extend iron from the sides into the columns. If they could not have the sign internally illuminated, the disk sign would have to be lighted with floodlights or placed on the wall. Commissioner Hawthorne asked where they would place the floodlights. Mr. Ken Harkness stated that the floodlights would probably violate the aesthetic integrity of the building. Mr. Barnby stated that if they had to put it back on the wall with R: \HTLTR \PZLTR \PROD \PZ2002 \P0006246. DOC reverse channel letters, it would be hidden. Reverse channel letters do not illuminate, but the neon glows off the wall behind it. Staff Planner Hitchcock stated that the guidelines address internally lit signage, but this was something a little different. The past decisions on these types of signs had been made by the NRB, so it was at the Board's discretion as to what they want. Commissioner Hawthorne asked Staff Planner Hitchcock to expand on the comment "a little different ". Staff Planner Hitchcock stated that the sign is not illuminated from the inside, but shines from behind the sign. There is a glow behind the lettering. Commissioner Hawthorne stated that it is an internal light, but not actually contemplated as internal lighting. Internal lighting gives off a glow through the front, while what is proposed creates a shadow look as light against the wall makes the nontransparent lettering standing out. The question Commissioner Hawthorne stated was if the Board and the city wanted internal lighting that glows out forward. Ms. Ruiz stated that the intent of no internally lit sign was to have either an up lighting or down lighting. When the Northgate Center sign was approve by the Northgate Revitalization Board, it was approved with reverse channel and a glow behind it. Commissioner Hawthorne felt it would not be as aesthetically pleasing to have floodlights. Commissioner Trapani stated that the next step would be to have it flushed mounted against the wall with reverse channel lighting and for it to match the other sign on the side of the building. Mr. Ken Harkness stated that he would not want to have it flushed against the wall. Commissioner Trapani asked about the color. Ms. Ruiz stated that it was at the Board's discretion about the color. Commissioner Trapani stated he was sympathetic but so many other applicants had come through and the Board said no to their internally illuminated signs. Commissioner Trapani asked the applicants which would they want: the option of hanging the sign with no internal illumination or mounting the sign flush against the wall with reverse channel. Mr. Barnby stated that the sign would not be visible if it is flush against the wall. Mr. Forrest stated that the Northgate Center is a lit sign and was one of the first signs approved and other signs have followed. Commissioner Williams asked about the brightness of the lights. Mr. Barnby stated that controlling the brightness would be difficult to do. Mr. Barnby then recommended an exposed neon sign. It is brighter but it is not internally lit and it can be suspended. The graphics are made out of the neon. Commissioner Hawthorne asked if exposed neon could be considered the same as an internally lit sign. Ms. Hitchcock stated that it is not an internally lit sign. Commissioner Hawthorne made the motion for the side of the structure to use reverse channel lighting and leave the disk sign to the owner option of either using exposed neon scripting or flood lights, but it could not be internally lit. Commissioner Trapani seconded and the motion carried 3 -0. R: \HTLTR \PZLTR \PROD \PZ2002 \P0006246. DOC PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Molly Hitchcock Date: May 15, 2002 Email: mhitchcock @ci.college- station.tx.us For NEW YORK SUB (SDSF) (02 -104) All proposals involving site development or redevelopment in the Northgate District shall require a review of the Project Review Committee (PRC). Zoning District: NG -1 Historical Northgate Location: 301 -A College Main Applicant: Austin Harkness Item Summary: New York Sub is moving into a lease space in the Northgate Center, which is located at the northwest corner of Church and College Main. This first tenant in the center has proposed two illuminated, attached signs on the building. A 49- sq.ft. round sign will be suspended under the tower at the southwest entrance into the building and a 33 -sq.ft. channel letter sign will be located along the Church St. fagade. Project Background: There is currently signage on the tower of building identifying it as the Northgate Center. This signage, which was approved by the Review Subcommittee of the Northgate Revitalization Board in December 1999, is back -lit with white neon. Issues /Items for Review: 1. Signage • Type . • Design • Placement - Supporting Materials: 1. Application 2. Copy of sign proposals