February 2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Oxian asked Mr. Vos to explain how the proposed signs could be attached with out damaging the fagade of the building. Mr. Vos stated that the transformers would be located behind the wall making the letters very light. The letters would be supported by a few rods that would be inserted threw holes made into the wall. He further noted that if the sign was removed the holes could be easily filled in and not noticeable from the street level. Mr. Oxian asked how many holes would be drilled for each sign. Mr. Vos stated that each letter would have four holes giving a grand total of twenty-eight holes per sign, each being 3/8 inches wide. Mr. Talley stated that when the owner communicated with the Historic Preservation Office concerning the signs, the staff got the feeling that the owners were not in favor of the upper level signs. Mr. Ryan submitted a letter from the owner of the building stating that they are in agreement with the smaller signs, proposed by the Design Review Committee. He further noted that there would be no problem in altering the way the sign would be attached if the wall were in fact terra cotta. Mr. Ujdak stated that the building never had glaring signs on top of the structure, in fact the original bank only used one, small, bronze sign by the door, which was very tasteful and effective for the time. Mr. Vos stated that the Tower Building would be the first Old Kent Bank branch with halo lit letters, in an attempt to retain the integrity of the building. Mr. Talley stated that a halo lit sign would be great at night but how does one address the bright orange color of the signs during the day. Mr. Vos stated that the signs would actually be a very tasteful Cardinal Red. Mrs. Sporleder expressed concern over the fact that the sign is very contemporary in design, which will clash with the Gothic Style of the building. Mr. Oxian suggested that a compromise be allowed where the west fagade sign be allowed and the east fagade sign be tabled until further information and bracket designs can be submitted that will not destroy the fagade. Mr. Talley cited the guidelines in that no super graphic is allowed on any landmark building, unless, original to the structure and that only one sign is allowed per business. He further noted that the proposed signs violate the guidelines by exceeding the allowable number of signs and by being classified as super graphic. Mr. Talley then stated that the Commission would have to decide if they wanted to abide by the guidelines or make an exception. Mr. Oxian noted that the Commission did not take into account large structures and business when the guidelines were written, thus, leaving the door open for exceptions to the rule. Mrs. Sporleder stated that the proposed sign for the west or Lafayette facade was all right, however, she expressed severe concerns over the sign proposed for the east elevation. Mr. Ujdak concurred that the sign was inappropriate for such a spectacular and unique building and that the bank did not comprehend the inappropriateness of their proposal. Mr. Vos stated that the bank has taken great amount of time and effort in creating a sign that would be in scale with the structure and that the sign on the west elevation would enhance that wall. The Commission concurred that the west elevation sign would not be a problem. Mr. Oxian moved to approve the signage on the west/Lafayette fagade and to table the signage for the east facade until more appropriate signage can be submitted. Mr. Helmus seconded the motion. There was some discussion over the number of signs allowable on the first floor. Upon discussion of the issue the Commission came to the conclusion that in fact a sign had not been located on the first floor of the west fagade for decades. Mr. Oxian amended the motion to approve the east and north first floor facade signs and deny the west fagade first story sign. Mr. Helmus seconded the motion as amended. The motion passed unanimously. 12