6/8/2020 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

base and frame with applied vinyl copy along with an electronic message center. Church members currently have to change type on both sides of the sign; a digital sign would allow for messages to be changed more simply from the church office. The top portion with the logo would not be illuminated but the portion with the church name would be backlit. The LED message portion would be about two feet high with one message displayed at a time. Mr. Morse thought the LED portion seemed much bigger than the changeable area on the current sign. Mr. Beeman said the current sign is about seven feet tall and the proposed sign would be more than ten feet tall. Mr. Morse asked if there are alternative materials for the upper portion of the sign, Mr. Beeman said vinyl lettering is standard for signs and painting would be much more labor intensive. Mr. Neville thought more traditional materials could be used, such as wood. Mr. Morse thought the vinyl material would be obviously modern looking, especially with the height and shape of the sign. Mr. Morse did not think the sign would look good next to the church, but thought widening the base would help. Mr. Neville thought the top of the sign reflected the top of the church but more could be done to mimic the Greek Revival style, such as friezes on the sides of the sign. Mr. Beeman said the sign will be in the same location as the current sign, approximately 50 to 70 feet from the building. Ms. Lieber said that while new construction should not present a false sense of history through replication, additions and new features must be compatible and harmonious with the existing structure. She did not believe the materials of the sign proposed are appropriate with the 1840s structure. The current sign code prohibits digital signs, but under the proposed code update some digital signage will be permitted, except in the historic district and on landmark properties. Ms. Cardarelli asked if the message would scroll across the sign and how bright it would be, Mr. Beeman said the message would be stationary. Mr. Schumann was concerned about an electronic sign because the church is in a residential area, Mr. Limpert agreed. Mr. Limpert added that the lighting on Porter Road is not very good so an electronic sign may help, but was concerned about the height of the sign. Ms. Williams said the background of the digital sign would be dark with white lettering. The sign would not be on overnight and they want to fit in with the neighborhood. Mr. Warren described the difficulty of changing the current sign message. He pointed out that there are other digital signs in the city, the church on Columbia, which are in residential areas. The current sign has permanent lettering that is vinyl on wood, which needs to be maintained every few years. Having the sign higher allows for landscaping to be installed around it. The digital portion would allow for three lines of wording and can be dimmed or set on a timer. Mr. Schumann pointed out that digital signs have capabilities that would be difficult to enforce if the property owner did not want to limit them as agreed upon. Mr. Beeman said the church would be considerate of the neighbors and turn off portions of the sign to decrease the brightness throughout the day. Ms. Lieber appreciated the church's interest in having a changeable sign. She explained that digital sign on Columbia was approved in error by a newer employee that is no longer with the city. She thought permitting a digital sign at this property could lead to digital signs being proposed in the historic district which could greatly impact the appearance of the district. Mr. Neville thought if the appearance and materials of the sign were altered, the Commission may be more amenable to it. Mr. Morse was most concerned about the height and having the sign go from a horizontal orientation to more vertical. Ms. Cardarelli added that when viewed from the