Citation in context
March 2, 2015 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
Jim Liberman commented that there are a lot of professionals involved in this project. He asked about the trash enclosure.
7 Ms. Fumagalli stated that the garage which is below the master bedroom has a side door leading to the trash area.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that it is a nice-looking home.
Sally Cohn mentioned the 17’ X 17’ outdoor space. She noted the Maple Trees appear to be planted on 4-foot centers, but these trees, if given a chance, would be 15-foot wide.
Being no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Jim Liberman and unanimously approved by the Board.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – MODIFICATION TO SIGN ORDINANCE (SIGNAGE) – 172 CARONDELET PLAZA
Due to a conflict of interest, Josh Corson recused himself. He left the member table and did not participate in the discussion or vote regarding this application.
Ryan Daniels, Bates & Associates Architects, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that this is a request for a modification to the City’s sign regulations. A new restaurant proposes to occupy the vacant tenant space, and on February 9, 2014, the applicant submitted a Sign Permit Application for a 168-square-foot temporary sign that would be placed in the storefront window while the tenant space is renovated. The sign is a white canvas banner with an ink printed rendering, logos and letters. The banner would hang from the interior bulkhead of the window. Upon review of the Sign Permit Application, staff determined that the proposed sign would be classified as a construction sign. Pursuant to Section 425.140 of the Sign Regulations, building alteration projects in which no construction fence is required may have a temporary sign not to exceed 32 square feet in area erected behind the building line. Such signs may announce the type of building or development under construction, the names of those associated with the project, leasing information, and shall be removed upon completion of the work and prior to occupancy of the building. The proposed sign exceeds the allowable size and therefore a sign modification is being requested. Pursuant to Section 425.180 of Sign Regulations, modifications should only be granted due to unusual conditions of the building or site. According to the applicant, their intent is to draw attention to and generate excitement for the future restaurant tenant. They argue that the existing mullion storefront system makes providing a conforming sign difficult, and that the rendering portion of the sign should not be considered signage. Signage modification requests for temporary signs are extremely rare. For this project, the Sign Regulations permit a 32-square-foot sign and a 168-square-foot sign is proposed. The rendering portion of the sign meets the following definition of a sign:
“Any identification, description, illustration or device, illuminated or non-illuminated, which is visible from any public place or is located on private property and exposed to the
required 8.2-foot side yard setback.
existing home to the north.
Susan stated that a 10-foot wide exposed aggregate driveway is proposed on the south side of the home that leads to a rear-entry, at-grade attached garage with a raised panel garage door painted to match the trim. A low, brick veneer retaining wall is proposed adjacent to the driveway in the front yard and at the trash enclosure. No permanent fences are proposed. The project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District, the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District, and the Architectural Review Guidelines. Susan stated that staff is of the opinion that the design is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby homes and recommends approval as submitted.
Ms. Fumagalli presented the following material samples to the members: brick (Brook Haven; brown tone), stone trim, roofing material and window sample. Ms. Fumagalli noted that although the window sample is black, the windows they propose are bronze in color.
Ron Reim asked about the new construction at 227 Lancaster.
Louis Clayton informed the members that the City has received the application for building permit. He stated that he asked for information on both existing and proposed for comparison for purpose of this review.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the north side of 227 (new) has a one story portion which was most likely in reaction to this home; now that this home is being demolished, does the new home at 227 still need to provide that step-down?
Louis Clayton indicated that if they choose to revise their plans, they would have to come back to this Board.
Jim Liberman commented that there are a lot of professionals involved in this project. He asked about the trash enclosure.
For this project, the Sign Regulations permit a 32-square-foot sign and a 168-square-foot sign is proposed. The rendering portion of the sign meets the following definition of a sign:
“Any identification, description, illustration or device, illuminated or non-illuminated, which is visible from any public place or is located on private property and exposed to the
8 public and which directs attention to a product, service, place, activity, person, institution, business or solicitation, including any emblem, painting, numbers exceeding twelve (12) inches in height, placard or temporary sign designed to advertise, identify or convey information, with the exception of window displays and national flags.”
Susan noted that while staff acknowledges the creative approach taken by the applicant in providing visual interest to passersby during the time of construction, staff is of the opinion that the applicant has failed to demonstrate where practical difficulties exist in the application of the Sign Regulations and that a temporary construction sign could be feasibly constructed in conformance with the Sign Regulations and therefore, recommends denial as submitted.
Mark Winings asked what would be in the window during construction if this proposal is denied.
Louis Clayton indicated that either plain white butcher paper or the City provided decorative paper is acceptable.
Mr. Daniels commented that they are looking to generate “buzz” during construction.
Jim Liberman asked when they plan to open the new restaurant.
Mr. Daniels stated that they hope to open in August.
Sally Cohn asked what would constitute 32 square feet.
Mr. Daniels indicated the panes are 30” X either 53” (side) or 78” (middle).
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if they could use the City provided paper and 32 square feet of “signage”.
Louis Clayton replied “yes”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if that’s the case, what’s wrong with this sign.
Louis Clayton stated that the City provided paper is made available to all owners.
Susan Istenes stated that the intent is to tell people what’s coming; that in January, 2014, the Board approved “special event” signage to help business owners announce special events such as grand openings, special sales, etc. She stated that this proposed signage blends an opening sign with other information.
Jim Liberman stated that he likes the rendering, but including the architect and contractor makes it huge. He suggested putting all three names on one “panel”.
Jim Liberman stated that he likes the rendering, but including the architect and contractor makes it huge. He suggested putting all three names on one “panel”.
9
Mark Winings commented that this is far in excess of what’s allowed; however, aesthetically, this is preferable over the City provided paper or plain white paper.
Mr. Daniels commented that all previous businesses failed in this location.
Louis Clayton stated that each of the side panes is 10 square feet and each middle pane is 15 square feet.
A brief discussion regarding various options took place.
Mr. Daniels informed the members that the sign has already been made.
Kevin O’Keefe asked what the Board thought of confining only the text to 32 square feet.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he would be fine with that.
Susan Istenes stated that the entire thing is considered signage.
Craig Owens asked if the City’s code was amended to include the use of City provided paper along with white plain paper for vacant storefronts.
Susan Istenes replied “no”.
Craig Owens questioned if this Board couldn’t classify this as an alternative to the butcher paper.
Susan Istenes stated that she fears that if we don’t apply the regulations, the City is opening the door for all sorts of requests and graphic designs.
Kevin O’Keefe stated that this promotes a Clayton restaurant and begs the question of “is this art or is this signage”? He asked where the line is drawn.
Craig Owens stated that he really likes this sign and that if it is a true reflection of what’s to come, then he thinks it should be permitted.
Jim Liberman asked if that’s the case, what’s to say there wouldn’t be a row of different renderings along the street.
Sally Cohn noted that each would have to be approved by this Board. She added that the City could use some creativity.