Home > Government > Boards and Commissions > Sign Review Board > 2011 > June 22, 2011

Sign Review Board

Black Eyed Susan Conference Room
September 7, 2011
9:00 a.m.

Re:  Rockville Pike Talbott Shopping Center

SRB2012-00532 - Talbott Shopping Center

Meeting Motion to discuss unfinished business from last hearing on July 27, 2011, which was the Rockville Talbott Center request for approval of a new comprehensive sign plan.

Ms. Goehrung opened the floor for comments or discussion from last meeting.

Ray Whalen with Talbott Center Associates suggests that if the consensus was in the affirmative then he rests his case, and if there are any questions or if the consensus is leaning the other way then he has something to say.

Ms. Goehrung asks if the other members of the Board had any questions and neither of them did.

Mr. Whalen suggested the Board offer feedback and or/questions and would be able to address each of them.

Ms. Goehrung did research and received a memorandum from the City of Rockville dated Sept. 1 which recommends against the granting of a variance to Talbott Center.  She did an extensive review of the facts of what was being dealt with along with her and the Board's position. She begins to recite the purpose of the Sign Review Board. "The Board is authorized at the request of an applicant in our City review any application per site and make a determination as to whether or not the sign proposed complies with the requirements and the purpose of the sign requirements." The current sign ordinance states, "That for a lot occupied by more than one business or tenant each sign must be and harmonious but not necessarily identical in terms of design, color, shape, size, style, material and mounting when all the other signs on the building in a center. In addition, the Board may grant modification from a sign regulation with a strict application of sign regulations will result in a peculiar or unusual practical difficulty or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of the property or the owner of such sign without substantial impairment of the intent purpose integrity of regulation."  She begins to summarize her interpretation of the ordinance stating that it is her understanding that she and the Board have to stick with what's on the records and what is being requested by Talbott Center Association, which is not a small tweak or variance for one tenant. They're asking for a totally new sign ordinance within the mixed-use zoning code. The SRB does not have the authority or the directive granted by the City to grant such a variance and must render their decision based on the requirements, purpose and intent of Article 18.  Regardless of the antiquity or beauty of the signs, it is not the SRB's responsibility to change the Code. That is a matter of the Mayor and Council, public and City's input.

Have freedom of design, color, topography and graphics is not in accordance with the requirements purpose or intent of Article 18 as it is written today. We can't render a decision on what we would like the ordinance to be or what it might be some day albeit the sign package is thorough and attractive, currently the regulations on the books don't allow tenants or the landlord freedom when it comes to signs in the mixed-use zones.  The only time sign mixtures have been granted was in three planned developments in the PD zone, which distinguishes themselves as whole community projects and not strip centers along Rockville Pike and there are many strip centers in contrast to the PD developments. She says that if the Board approves the variance the Board will have negated the trust and responsibility that the City entrusts in the Board with the standards of the existing sign laws on the books today. A decision cannot be rendered based on personal likes or dislikes of the sign package, but must render a decision based on the intent on the regulations. There are other avenues the Talbott Center Association can pursue to change the code, specifically filing a Text Amendment. Renovating the shopping center especially in a downturned economy is commendable but is not a valid reason to grant a variance under any interpretation of ordinance. Other local public strip malls have recently renovated their properties and have kept their signage in accordance with the present code as required. One hardship you mentioned is the economy and that hardship is not unique to Talbott Center and your hardship is invalid.

Ms. Goehrung states that the Talbott Center Assn. mentioned that the shopping center is hard to see but disagrees saying that Talbott Center is one of the most exposed shopping centers on Rockville Pike because of its large open parking area and no trees in front of the shopping center. She continues, stating that the bright green signs catch your eye as you pass and believes this is not a valid hardship. She summarizes that besides the fact that Talbott Center is asking for a total change to the sign code for the mixed use zone that the SRB is not authorized to change, she finds no valid hardship in which to grant the variance."

Ms. Hanessian states that in the meetings she has attended and the petitions that she has reviewed, the SRB has granted each of the individual requests that are included in the package to other businesses that petitioned and thinks it's unreasonable to deny the forward- thinking request of the Talbott Center, although she is not in agreement with everything in the package and should be downsized a bit. She is not willing to vote to deny the petition in total.

Mr. Whalen states that the Board is allowed to grant a variance and when the Board asked Jim Wasilak during the last meeting if the Board has the authority to grant this variance his answer was absolutely "Yes" but this is not a change in code it is strictly a variance and this is the fundamental issue, which is what needs to be settled, whether or not the SRB has the authority to change the code or not.  

Ms. Reitz refers to Ms. Goehrung's research and thinks that tradition has influenced the boring, hard to distinguish monochromatic signs and what they're proposing fits in with the language that's currently in the code.

Ms. Goehrung and Mr. Whalen begin a discussion about the color/harmoniousness of signage. Mr. Whalen states that the wording came directly from the Falls Grove application (word-for-word, with the exception of the name of the shopping center and fiscal information) which was approved by the Mayor and Council, Planning Commission, SRB. He states they're not asking for anything different from what has already been approved. A planned community sign code has been in place since 1982 and planned communities were not en vogue as much as they are now. The Talbott Center was not built as part of a planned community; it was planned as part of the community and is a single owner.   

Ms. Bozzonetti states that she has looked at all the strip centers from Route 28 to Rollins Avenue/Twinbrook Parkway and says that uniformity helps. She has concerns that a dangerous precedent will be set to the zoning if they approve and everyone on Rockville Pike is going to ask for something different.  She goes on to say that too much signage is just as bad as not having enough. She is also concerned that it does not comply with the zoning requirements for that part of Rockville.

Mr. Whalen says to solve the administrative problem they will file the text amendment taking a huge burden off of the City and SRB.

Mr. Gottlich says that over time the Talbott Center signs have experienced various stages of discoloration. If the signs had individuality you wouldn't notice the discoloration. He goes on to describe what his organization does to give credibility to his argument against uniformity of signage. It's difficult to see and identify when colors are uniform. Creativity of signage material is encouraged. This is the best opportunity to redesign the shopping center especially if it probably won't be renovated for the next decade or more. He believes that it is significant to have identifiable signage.

Ms. Goehrung and Mr. Gottlich discuss the Wildwood Shopping Center and how it was the landlord who wanted to have consistent signage and not Montgomery County.  The city isn't responsible for the fact that some signs are faded and other are not.  The fading of the signage has nothing to do with the SRB and fading will occur regardless of the color.

Vote on the granting of the Talbott Center modification request for approval of a new comprehensive sign concept: Ms. Goehrung motioned for the vote, Ms. Bozzonetti voted to deny, Ms. Hanessian voted to approve. Ms. Goehrung voted to deny. The application is not approved.

Ms. Reitz and Mr. Whalen ask for clarification on what parts of the application are acceptable and whether or not they should take down the signs and Ms. Goehrung says they can change the application to fit the code or maybe come back and talk to Ms. Dietrich about what is acceptable.

Ms. Dietrich suggests to Ms. Reitz and Mr. Whalen that if they want to appeal this decision they can take it to the Board of Appeals within 10 days.

Ms. Bozzonetti moved to put pizza CS second on the agenda before Rockville Town Square, Ms. Hanessian seconds the motion.

SRB2012-00534 – Pizza CS

Mr. Eckel showed signs and colors on artwork – The signs are back off from the Pike and he wants to gain visibility, from the north, for both Pizza CS and shopping center asking for more color to help it stand out. They want to have two flames on the building signs. The freestanding sign panel is orange without the flames. Ms. Goehrung states that the channel letters are already approved for the shopping center so the only variance is for the two flames. Ms. Dietrich's says the freestanding sign with the orange lettering on the free standing panel on the pylon are included as well.

Ms. Bozzonetti - Are the channel letters going on both sides of the building or just on the side facing the parking area?  Mr. Eckel – Yes

Ms. Bozzonetti is not enthused with the flames on the side facing Rockville Pike but can live with the one with the channel letters facing the parking lot because visually it doesn't make sense. She goes on to ask how many other business operations do they have using this logo?  Mr. Eckel says this is their first restaurant in the MOCO area. They are a European franchise and their corporate logo is a flame which he suggests for the building entrance.

There is further discussion on the visibility of the signage from north and south bound traffic.

Ms. Goehrung asks if anyone wants to make a motion. Ms. Hanessian moves to accept the package as presented and Ms. Bozzonetti seconds the motion.  Motion carried.

SRB2012-00533 – Rockville Town Square

Mr. Mellander explains that the Mayor and Council took it upon themselves to act on the grocery store project about a month ago and that what is being presented today is the way-finding sign package which is a different sign package from the grocery store package. He was asked to elaborate on the context of this sign package and to indicate how many additional signs there will be. Mr. Mellander says there will be about 12 more: 4 signs on the garage face, 3 freestanding signs; 1 on Beall Ave., 1 on North Washington, 1 on East Middle. There is another freestanding sign off of the plaza. Two directional signs on the light poles and also the 2 signs on the band stand.

Mr. Cataffa is concerned about the visibility and placement of the signage and wants to ensure tenants receive maximum visibility; simple yet bold, to get attention of the traffic in the area.  He wants patrons of the Town Square to be able to identify the property and navigate easily once they are on the property.

10.07 – Replace Banners Currently on Site – Mr. Cataffa states they won't be banners but rigid panels made out of perforated metal, they won't wear and will last longer.

Ms. Bozzonetti motioned to approve, Ms. Goehrung seconded, Ms. Hanessian voted no.

10.8 – Light Pole Mounted Signs – Mr. Cataffa - they want to have a two-panel system per pole, one will have the district information on it and other will have the tenant's logo in a nicely controlled element out on the streetscape. What is currently planned is to have the name of the district but the long-term plan is to have both the district and tenant, this way some of the smaller tenants will be able to be more visible. Ms. Bozzonetti says she doesn't like it because of the potential for injury stating, if a taller person smacks their hand on the sign and catches it on its edge and injures himself.

Mr. Cataffa says he shares Ms. Bozzonetti's concern has an option in place for a rounded corner and will be able to soften the edges once fabrication begins.

Ms. Bozzonetti – motioned not to approve and Ms. Hanessian seconds the motion and Ms. Goehrung agrees.

10.10 – District Identity at Bus Shelters – plans to put Rockville Town Square on every (3 each) bus shelter & stop. The Board discusses how to distinguish the signs, by street name or letter/numerical sequence. They wanted to know who owns the bus shelters.

Ms. Bozzonetti motioned to approve with the suggestion for rounded corners and street identification; changed conditional, Ms. Hanessian seconds the motion and Ms. Goehrung agreed.

10.12 – Wayfinding – Ms. Bozzonetti says there are too many signs but makes mention of the maps that are already located on the poles which make it easy to navigate the Town Square. She wants to reduce them to 4 instead of the proposed 7, at the corners of Middle & Gibbs, Middle & Maryland, Beall & Maryland and Beall & Gibbs.

Ms. Bozzonetti motioned to approve 4 signs and not 7, Ms. Hanessian seconds and Ms. Goehrung agree.

890  10.13 – Directory Signs – These map signs will be repositioned higher and the color changed to green to make them more visible for all pedestrians including children.  Five signs have been identified for repositioning. They plan remove the moveable pylon signs and anticipate them being community event posters. There are two types of freestanding signs: the directory/ad panel (on the back of the directory) and the freestanding that will be used for special events. The 10.22 and 10.13 designs should be combined because there seems to be too many things right next to each other. The Board doesn't want the signs to be an impediment to either pedestrians or commuters.

Ms. Hanessian moves to deny 10.22 and approve the 10.13. Ms. Bozzonetti seconds the motion and Ms. Goehrung agrees.

10.14 A – Signs Garage A- Mr. Cataffa says that since Garage A is the main garage on 355 He wants to make a better pedestrian connection enhanced with benches and plantings between Garage B and the Square.

Ms. Bozzonetti suggests color coding the garage letter and street name with the Rockville logo colors of red, white and blue. She has a concern with the identity of the other garages in Rockville and would rather not use a letter sequence.

10.14 B – Canopy on the Garage B Entrance – Mr. Cataffa says that it's an architectural detail that will unify it with the rest of the architecture. Ms. Hanessian moves to withdraw the motion to deny 10.14B because they think the canopy will be a pigeon roost but prefers the channel letters to be directly installed on the building.

Ms. Goehrung motioned to approve 10.14 B with the shelf but with some kind of deterrent to pigeons and wildlife. Ms. Bozzonetti seconds the motion and Ms. Hanessian votes no.

10.15 – Wayfinding – replacing existing signs with the same size and location of the existing ones.  Will to put together a new sign package with the same color schemes, language and architectural style.

Ms. Hanessian moves to approve as existing and Ms. Bozzonetti seconds the motion and Ms. Goehrung approves.

10.16A – Existing Garage Wayfinding (Elevator) Signs – These (14) signs will help people easily navigate to and from elevators.

Ms. Bozzonetti motioned to postpose until an exact count is made of all elevator-service signs.

Ms. Hanessian seconds and Ms. Goehrung agrees.

10.18 A – Garage Wayfinding Passage Way – Ms. Bozzonetti motioned to approve with icon Ms. Goehrung seconds the motion and Ms. Hanessian agrees.

10.18B – Garage Wayfinding Passage Way – Ms. Bozzonetti motioned to approve. Ms. Hanessian seconds the motion and Ms. Goehrung agrees.

10.20 – Ms. Bozzonetti motioned to deny – Ms. Hanessian seconds the motion and Ms. Goehrung agrees.

Re:  Minutes

Ms. Bozzonetti motioned to approve the minutes of July 27, 2011, with corrections and Ms. Hanessian seconds the motion.

Old Business

Chamber of Commerce Sign Revisions, Ms. Hanessian would like to have the temporary lease signs not be permitted if leasing information is listed permanently on the freestanding sign.

Re:  Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 3:57 PM.

The next meeting of the Sign Review Board is scheduled for Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 2:00 pm in the Black Eyed Susan Conference Room, located on the 3rd floor of City Hall.