Sign project approved as is by the local design review committee via administrative review.  Motion to approve passed unanimously.

Voting Members

• Kathy Vislosky —Approve
• Benny Chew —Approve
• Carol Poh —Approve (1st)
• Elmer Turner —Approve
• Peggy Brown —Approve
• Olga Andreyeksa -- Approve
• R. Scott Nieswander -(2nd)

Waterloo Brew Sign:

The Waterloo Brew proposed sign is a two-phase project intended to combine the art, craft, and industry indicative of the Collinwood neighborhood. 

PHASE I Exterior Sign:

The primary sign will: 

·  compliment the historical mural painted on the facade of the attached Slovenian hall, 

·  be reminiscent of the landscape of industrial cities, (painted wall advertisements per Kathleen Husler, public historian of the New-York Historical Society, "They evoke the exuberant period of American capitalism.")

·  be hand-painted and well crafted cohesive with Waterloo's artistic district.

The artist will prepare the surface by pressure washing the exterior, tuck-pointing and repairing the damaged facade prior to painting

PHASE II Interior Signs:

The interior signs will be hand-crafted neon:

·  the "script" text chosen for the interior signs will be hand-bent, the neon craftsmanship that was prominent in the 1920's

·  will provide storefront visibility; as 4" neon letters are visible from 120 feet.

Committee Comments/Questions

• The sign looks outsized for the building, and the justification—that the sign is “reminiscent of painted wall advertisements”—does not hold, since this is not a wall sign. Also, what is it made of?
• Is the existing projecting sign staying or going away?
• I think the sign is great and don't mind the oversize at all. I approve as presented.

• I did not understand that the sign is to be painted directly on the building. Knowing that changes my opinion, and I would like to make a motion for approval.

•  I agree with in that the sign graphics is very attractive and will be a positive addition to the streetscape.  I have no issue with the signage size as it give the building a bit of a contemporary look.  My concern is with regards to it being painted directly on the front façade’s face brick.  Once the brick façade is painted it will remain that way, regardless of business occupant, since it’s difficult and expensive for paint to be cleaned/removed from this type of masonry. While it looks great with the graphics now, there is no guarantee that the graphic signage of a future tenant will look so attractive across such a large area. I appreciate the thought and historic references to this type of signage but my understanding is that this type of signage seemed to be limited to the ‘unfinished’ sides of masonry buildings where the masonry was of a smoother, lesser quality. I suggest that the presented sign graphics be painted on a removable backer substrate of some sort (framed exterior grade plywood? ). The graphic design seems to lend itself to this as you don’t see any of the unpainted masonry ‘through’ the graphics.  Lastly, will this be illuminated for night and if so how?

• While I like the sign, I have the same concerns.  If and when the business moves out, it will be an expensive undertaking for the next owner.  The use of latex enamel is fine as long as there is a clear latex sealer/primer under to avoid the paint from penetrating the brick.  There should be a clause in the lease agreement to pay for the removal of the sign when the Waterloo Brew leaves.  Purely on the basis of aesthetics however, I will vote for approval.

• I think the size of the sign is fine. It lines up with the original storefront horizontally and the soldier course and rowlock course under the windows vertically. I agree with on the need for a sign board because of his concerns, but also because I don't think the sign will appear as presented painted on the brick. The recessed mortar joints and the texture difference between the mortar and the brick I believe will prevent the sign from appearing as crisp as presented. Especially with smaller elements like the small stars. Will they read well when a mortar joint runs oddly through it? I like the design of the sign. I just don't think the bold graphics of the sign is best served by competing with the brick texture

• I will approve as shown. I do not mind the graphics painted directly to the wall. Earlier I had similar concerns with the point about the text being oversized but am fine with the nature of how it is applied. Although the recessed mortar joints will diffuse the boldness of the overall graphics, I do not have objections to it. I actually preferred it that way, otherwise it may overpower the entire building composition. It’s some risk the owner has to take for tenant changes in situations like this. Elmer’s recommendation is a solution to some of your concerns.

• I like the sign but think that it could be slightly shorter but don't feel that strongly that I it will keep me from approving it.  I think that the lettering will appear far more jagged than what is shown in the rendering.  If that is the effect that is desired then they will have succeeded.  Placing it on a solid backing would certainly give them a crisper finished product if that is the desired effect. Regarding designing something for future use - I don't believe that that should be taken into consideration when approving designs  for the current owner/tenant.  That's a building owner's prerogative and how he/she views their investment.  I would assume and hope that the tenant has the blessing of the owner before they come before us; again, that's a business deal between them.   I don't think that it enters into the design review realm. I approve the sign.  Was the lighting questions answered?