Design Review Board Minutes 03/21/2016
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MARCH 21, 2016
MINUTES FROM REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson, Jennifer Murnane, opened the Regular Meeting of the Design Review Board at 5:30 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices. Board Members and Alternates also in attendance included Ron Perry, Jonathan Laschever, Anthony Drapelick, and Paul Lanza. Also present were Jamie Rabbitt, Director of Planning and Community Development; Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
ROLL CALL
Appointment of Alternates
Chairperson Murnane noted Board Member Anca Dragulski was not present and there were no alternates to appoint.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Elect Secretary
Chairperson Murnane made a motion nominating Ron Perry as Secretary.
Board Member Laschever seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
APPLICATIONS
Discussion and Possible Action:
(CONTINUED FROM 03/07/2016) Application #16-06 of Clyde Grindall, Agent; Steven Antonio, Antonio 5 LLC, Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment and Sign Permit for a unified sign plan on the property located at 1225-1231 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map I05, Block 403, Lot 019). Zone B-2. (received 03/07/2016; decision must be rendered by 05/11/2016)
Application #16-06 was read into the record.
Lisa Antonio, Property Owner, reviewed their goal to be clear about what signage currently exists on the building including, a 3-inch white border around each side to help the signage pop out. She noted the Board’s previous request for 1-2 inches of additional border, but believed it looked good to have the sign fit into the existing box in order to provide tenant signs maximum visibility from the street, and that is their request. She confirmed that frame would be on all five signs. The Board asked for clarification that even though the exhibit provided shows 2 inches, the Owner was not proposing that. Mr. Rabbitt clarified that the exhibit provided to the Board was prepared and recommended by Staff last month for the Applicant to include a 2-inch border on the 3 smaller signs and a 4-inch border on the 2 larger signs, providing the effect of a double back on a picture frame and creating depth and change in shadow lines for the print; Staff continues to make that recommendation and prepared a draft motion for the Board reflecting that. Mr. Rabbitt indicated the Owner acknowledged receipt of the exhibit and thanked Staff and that is what was discussed. The Owner responded that was not their proposal and believed the signage had to fit into that space. Mr. Grindall, the sign maker, asked who decides and whether the Board’s concern was architectural and/or an issue of square footage. The Board indicated there was an issue of square footage.
Mr. Rabbitt reviewed that the Board process would be to make a recommendation to the Zoning Commission who ultimately grant or deny approval. Mr. Rabbitt read the potential draft motion: “Motion to Approve Application 16-06; Application for Clyde Grindall on behalf of Steven Antonio, et al, Site Plan Amendment Approval for Sign Permit subject to the following conditions: 1) the tenant signage insert size for the Sunrise Convenience Store installed on the Hopmeadow Street and Ely Place building elevations will be reduced so that a 4-inch border is provided within the sign place card … 2) the tenant sign insert size for the other tenants on Hopmeadow Street building elevations will be reduced so that a 2-inch border is provided within the sign place card … frame; 3) the Zoning Permit will be required for the signage installation. The former commercial development signage is considered to be non-conforming with regards to current Zoning Regulations as it relates to area permitted for the building mounted signs. In granting the approval, the Commission agrees that the proposed signage will result in a decrease in the overall square footage of building mounted signage, thus a reduction of the non-conformance. The existing square footage of building mounted signs will be abandoned as part of this approval for regulatory purposes. The new non-conforming area of the building square footage will be no more than X square feet and shall match Exhibits 15.”
Mr. Rabbitt added from last month’s discussions it was not clear what the square footage of the signs would be for Application 16-06 as they moved horizontally and vertically, which is why it was left blank (X) and clarified the sign must fit within the 4-inch reveal on the larger signs and 2-inch reveal on the smaller signs – or 8 inches vertically and 8-inches horizontally on the larger signs and 4 inches vertically and 4-inches horizontally on the smaller signs. Mr. Rabbitt noted that the strict interpretation Zoning could take would be that these signs are not considered existing non-conforming from the historic nature of what was there and the Applicant would have to reduce the size of the sign substantially, so it was reviewed from an architectural standpoint given the existing building elevations as it relates to what used to be there. Mr. Grindall asked if they were within square footage without these borders? The Board asked the Applicant how large the signs were; the Owner responded it was in the package provided; Chairperson Murnane clarified that Zoning would approve the square footage if this Board approves the sign presented. Mr. Rabbitt indicated if Zoning makes a strict interpretation of regulations allowing one square foot of signage for every linear foot of frontage to determine sign sizes facing Ely or Hopmeadow and what is before the Board exceeds those dimensions for Hopmeadow, then the Applicant will have to return to the Board. Chairperson Murnane expressed hope that Zoning would approve what has been presented noting that as previously requested by the Board, the Applicant has brought in the red border slightly from the white border and noted the substantial existing 3-inch white border as part of the design. The Owner indicated they were looking for a business-friendly solution in order to not penalize their tenants.
Board Member Laschever explained the statute limits square footage based on building frontage on the road, e.g. if the building were twice the size, you would still have the same limitation on signage square footage, with the signs proportionally much smaller in comparison to the building so arguing these signs are too small does not calculate, and there is nothing that says the maximum sign size must be used. Board Member Laschever added the Board is reviewing the sign aesthetic and the historic interpretation has been that aesthetically signs as large as these require more border. Mr. Grindall indicated they are adding 2 inches to the previous 3 inches for a total of 5 inches; the Owner clarified they did not want the 2 inches. Chairperson Murnane noted the Applicant was asked for some border and there is now 3 inches; Board Member Laschever noted they are not agreeing to what is shown on the exhibit; Mr. Rabbitt explained they would be losing some of the channel on the border of the sign if you put it up against the frame, e.g. a double mat scenario vs. a single mat scenario, and they are using vinyl signage backing, not an extruded or raised sign, so it is a flat frame against a flat sign with no reveal to the signage. Mr. Grindall indicated there would be a reveal with an aluminum phase standing off the back about 1 - 1 ½ inches and the frame would be another ½ inch from that and would not be flat against the building; and they would like to do it without the 2 inches. The Board indicated it must be a specific amount; Mr. Grindall requested ½ inch to allow for bracketing. Board Member Perry had a problem with making a recommendation to Zoning for something that doesn’t meet the Guidelines. Mr. Rabbitt clarified that the Applicant has a building fronting on 2 streets and the Applicant is adding those frontages together and applying to the total to what is allowed on the building and to put the majority of it on Hopmeadow, and the Zoning Commission can interpret that they cannot do that. Board Member Laschever discussed the 14x44-foot Sunrise sign and noted 134.10 sq. ft. of signage for 4 signs, but there are 5 signs or about 180 sq. ft., which the Owner believed was below the allowed amount. Chairperson Murnane was fine with the additional ½ inch around the 3-inches; Board Member Laschever felt it should be at least 1 inch given that the Board is making an aesthetic judgment and continued with his objection that the signs are disproportionate for the whole building and should be scaled down and there should be a 2-inch border as shown on the Exhibit. Steve Antonio expressed that they are trying to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in the Town and it is ‘ball buster’ to fight over ½ inch; when Big Y comes and sees this, will they want to do business; that is the whole problem with the State of Connecticut making it tough to do business. Board Member Laschever explained that it was 1 ½ inches on each dimension and they are aware of the Applicant’s concerns. Mr. Antonio responded that the Board should do what it wants and the rest of the property would be left in its current dilapidated condition and this is not the way to show appreciation for the huge resources they have poured in. Board Member Laschever expressed appreciation for the Applicant’s efforts, but the Board cannot rubber stamp every application that comes in.
Chairperson Murnane made a motion to approve Application #-16-06 with ½ inch, instead of 2 inches; the 3-inch existing border and the ½-inch around the red sign.
Board Member Drapelick seconded the motion, and it was passed 3-2.
The Board discussed that it is not possible for all members to agree on every application and how to better deal with whether signs meet the scale required by Town Guidelines in advance of applicants appearing before the Board.
GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS
Commission Education/Workshop
Mr. Rabbitt suggested holding the Workshop or Special Meeting on a separate meeting night, potentially April 25th from 6-8 p.m. in either the Board of Ed or Engineering meeting rooms. Staff will email a reminder in a few days to Board Members noting the meeting could be held earlier in the day. Mr. Rabbitt would like to further define the Board’s perspective and view of architecture so Staff can early on articulate to potential applicants what the Board is looking for working to build consensus, e.g. what’s in Town and how it meets design expectations over time and how to replicate what is liked.
Mr. Rabbitt noted there is only one meeting in May, and a Workshop could also be held on May 9 or 23; Board Member Drapelick is not available in May.
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from March 7, 2016
Board Member Drapelick made a motion to approve the March 7, 2016 minutes, as written.
Board Member Lanza seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Board Member Drapelick made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Board Member Laschever seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.