Todd Rizzo informed the committee that WPI intends to replace an existing sign on the face of the building with a light box that contains WPI's logo and website address. WPI does not propose to have a freestanding sign in front of the property. Joe Hickey queried if the size of the sign had been reviewed by Peter Gillespie, WPI responded that it had and was deemed acceptable. Tom Harley referred to the planning and zoning ordinance and pointed out that there may be too many items on the sign, citing the slogan and website address in addition to the logo and company name. WPI responded that they would be willing to reduce the number of items within the border of the sign if it was deemed necessary. Tom Harley confirmed that the sign requires a staff permit and not P&Z approval, and that Peter Gillespie may complete a final review on May 19th. Tom Harley motioned to recommend approval with the condition that Peter Gillespie review and accept the content of the sign. Joe Hickey seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Kris Loughlin informed the committee that the existing free-standing sign had been damaged and suggested that replacement of the sign would be an improvement to the site. He suggested that the new sign will be more consistent with other signs in the area and will be more contemporary in style. Tom Harley noted that the property has no frontage on the Berlin Turnpike and it appeared that there is less than 100 feet of frontage on Oleson Road. Tom Harley indicated that according to the P&Z Ordinance, the free-standing sign would be limited to 25 s.f. and a height of 8'-0" if the property frontage is less than 100'-0". If the property frontage is greater than 100'-0", then the sign could be up to 40 s.f. but with a maximum height of 5'-0". Tom Harley suggested that Peter Gillespie review the site to verify which criteria should be followed. Storage USA agreed to either reduce the size of the sign to 25 s.f. or reduce the height of the sign to conform to the ordinance. Jay Hallinan suggested that the awning replacement was more of an integral architectural piece of the building and did not need to be included in the total sign square footage. The committee discussed the wall sign at the storage building and agreed that its size and image were acceptable. Joe Hickey motioned that the committee recommend approval of the sign proposals with the conditions that the suggested modifications to the free-standing sign be addressed and that Peter Gillespie confirm that the sizes of all the signs conform to the ordinance. Jay Hallinan seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
The representatives of Extra Space Storage (ESS) informed the committee that their intent is to advertise available space at the facility. ESS presented documentation to establish that they are a Real Estate company and that they are advertising to rent. ESS brought photo documentation of other real estate properties throughout the town that have signage similar to what is proposed. Three options were presented: 1.) temporary free-standing signs that will be set up and periodically changed throughout the week with the exception of Sundays. 2.) A vinyl banner with rope framing draped on the face of the building. 3.) A permanent frame that will house temporary signage. Tom Harley responded that it was not the function of the committee to comment on the legal definition of the company, but merely to review the proposed signage in conformance with the most recent P&Z Ordinance. Andrea Boyle suggested that the permanent frame was clearly a preferred option. Tom Harley added that temporary signage such as option 1 is exactly what the new ordinance is trying to discourage, and that existing conditions throughout the town may no longer be in conformance. Joe Hickey explained that the Design Review Committee was created to prevent the proliferation of non-compliant conditions. ESS informed the committee that Peter Gillespie had mentioned that temporary signage may only be allowed for periods less than two weeks in duration, and that ESS is proposing an indefinite period of time to display their signage. Tom Harley queried whether there was any other existing signage at the site. ESS indicated there are other signs on the building face, but that the proposed signage will be the only signage on the Silas Deane Highway. Tom Harley informed ESS that the total square footage would have to be considered to determine what additional square footage was available for signage. After a brief discussion is was estimated that the proposed 4'-0" by 12'-0" sign was probably acceptable. ESS queried whether there were any issues to be concerned with regarding the Wethersfield Historic District. Joe Hickey responded that while the site is not located within the Historic District, it is always good policy to show a certain amount of sensitivity. Tom Harley motioned to approve option 3 with the condition that Peter Gillespie verifies that it is conformance with the P&Z Ordinance. Joe Hickey seconded the motion, and all members voted in favor.
Although no applicant was present, acting chair Tom Harley suggested that the committee review the application. After a brief discussion, Tom Harley motioned to recommend approval of the signage at the face of the building with the condition that peter Gillespie verifies its conformance. Jay Hallinan seconded the motion, all members voted in favor.
Tom Harley suggested that it would be appropriate to delay a discussion of the revitalization plan until Peter Gillespie would be present. The committee is curious when the kick-off meeting will take place.
The committee would like to verify the schedule of events regarding the new facade for the Town hall, specifically when the next joint meeting of the Design Review Committee and Planning and Zoning Committee would be held (provided that the referendum does not pass).
Mr. Harley adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Jay Hallinan
Clerk
Design Review Committee