Committee Report CR-1
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Thursday, July 8, 2010 beginning at 4:15 P.M. in the Sullivan Chamber. The purpose of the hearing was to consider a petition filed by the City Council to modify the Zoning Ordinance regulation of signs.
Present at the hearing were Councillor Sam Seidel and Councillor Toomey, Co-Chairs of the Committee, Mayor David P. Maher, Councillor Marjorie C. Decker, Councillor Craig Kelley, Councillor E. Denise Simmons, City Clerk D. Margaret Drury, Susan Glazer, Acting City Manager for Community Development, Lester Barber, Director of Zoning and Land Use Planning, Community Development Department (CDD), Stuart Dash, Director of Community and Neighborhood Planning, CDD.
Councillor Toomey convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He invited CDD staff to describe the petition. Mr. Barber stated that there are five proposed amendments, mostly policy questions that CDD staff and the Planning Board have discussed for a number of years. Some are the result of having observed the outcomes at the BZA of applications for variances to install signs that are not allowed under the current law. In several instances where there were no objections from the public and the request for a variance seemed reasonable, the BZA granted the variance. Where such requests seemed to fall into particular categories, there was the thought that expanding the flexibility of the sign ordinance to allow such a category as-of-right would benefit the public interest in the efficient use of the resources of a busy regulatory board. Mr. Barber distributed copies of the proposed amendment language (
Mr. Barber explained that the first amendment would provide explicitly that the provisions of the Zoning Sign Ordinance do not apply to signs and banners located entirely within the public way. Banners across public streets and sandwich board signs are under the jurisdiction of the City Council pursuant to Ordinance No. 12.08.010 and the regulatory processes which the Council has authorized for such signs. These signs have never been deemed subject to the Zoning Ordinance which regulates signage on private lots. The first proposed amendment also reiterates the exemption from the Sign Ordinance of the MXD district that is already provided in Section 14.60 of the Mixed Use Development article of the Zoning Ordinance. The second amendment clarifies that when a corporation employs color or graphic patterns as part of its identification, those elements will be counted as part of the area of the sign, for example the green background in the Citizen's Bank logo.
Mr. Barber noted that the third amendment proposes a more major change. The amendment would allow certain building identification signs above the 20 ft. height limit as of right, subject to several limitations. One wall sign per building for each street the lot abuts (but in no case more than two signs per building) would be allowed to exceed the maximum Height of Signs and Area of Signs. Where the sign is located at a height greater than 100 feet, the maximum area of the individual sign could be increased to 90 sq ft. The sign would have to consist of individual letters or graphic symbols attached directly to the building or to a raceway, and all other provisions of Article 7.000 would continue to apply, including the Total Area of Signs Permitted per lot and the total area of signs permitted on any individual Sign Frontage. Mr. Barber noted that this proposal reflects both Planning Board and Board of Zoning Appeal experience with requests for signs to be placed higher than 20 feet and with the lack of public objection to such applications. He said that the Biogen building identification sign in the MXD district is an example of a sign that would be allowed as of right under the proposed amendments. On the other hand, the Genzyme sign, which was allowed by variance, would not be allowed as of right under the proposed amendment.
The fourth proposed amendment would insert a new Sub-section E in Section 7.16.22 to allow the limitations and restrictions of Paragraphs A-C in Section 7.16.22 to be waived by special permit from the BZA, within the context of an approved plan for all prospective signs on a lot. It would allow variations in the size, height and illumination of individual wall, freestanding and projecting signs by special permit. Mr. Barber said that the concept is that the flexibility would allow the special permit granting authority to permit variations in the design of individual signs so that they can better reflect the unique circumstances of a specific site and encourage better and more interesting sign designs. The total area of signs allowed on a site is not increased.
The last amendment would allow non profit art and educational institutions as additional signs the kinds of temporary graphic notices of changing exhibits and performance programs now customary at museums and performance spaces.
Councillor Kelley asked about the status of the "flippy" signs, such as the signs one sees at Dunkin' Donuts and cell phone sales offices. Mr. Barber said that those signs are classified as free standing signs and many of the ones that you see around Cambridge are not allowed by the Sign Ordinance. It is a question of enforcement resources and priorities.
Councillor Decker stated that she was taken aback by what she had heard about the proposal, particularly that there would be no public process. Mr. Barber said that the Planning Board would be amenable to keeping a special permit public process if the Council believes that would best serve the public interest. The Planning Board has been concerned about forcing people to go before the Board of Zoning Appeal for variances for signs that there was no public concern about. The idea was to define that type of sign and remove it from the variance approval process.
Councillor Decker said that she would like to see some sort of process written into the ordinance. She also expressed concerns about the effect on residential neighborhoods. Mr. Barber said that the proposed changes are almost exclusively for commercial districts. The only exception is the proposal to allow temporary signs and banners for nonprofit performances. Councillor Decker noted that almost all of Massachusetts Avenue is zoned commercially, but there are many residential occupants above the ground floor and right around the corner. Mr. Barber said that most of the buildings along Mass Ave already have all the signage area allowed under the ordinance. The amendments would not allow more signs or more signage area. If an owner wanted to put up a building identification sign on a building on Massachusetts Avenue, he or she would have to take down signs allotted to ground floor retail tenants. Councillor Decker said that she is not convinced that if a tenant wanted to pay enough money for such sign high up on a building the owner would refuse. Mr. Barber said that that option is already available; the only difference under the ordinance would be that the sign could be placed more than 20 feet high on the building.
Councillor Seidel asked for a clarification of what signage is allowable as of right under the current ordinance and how this would change if the amendments were adopted. Mr. Barber said that the Sign Ordinance defines the amount of signage allowed, the dimensions of individual signs and how they are illuminated. If the owner conforms to all of these requirements, then the signage can all be displayed as of right, below the height of 20 ft. The amendment would change this by allowing the signage to be higher on the building but with more restrictions. Mr. Barber added that he has heard that there is some discomfort on the part of BZA members regarding the requirement that the BZA make a finding of hardship, which is required by law for a variance, when the appropriate standard that allowance of a sign should be based on is reasonableness of design and placement, etc. In the context of application for a special permit there is no need for a hardship finding.
Councillor Seidel said that when you start to brand buildings, you brand an area. He asked whether there have been any planning discussions on this topic. Mr. Barber said that this is one of the policy considerations for the City Council. Mr. Dash added that discussions of the staff and at the Planning Board have included looking at how other cities treat signage and some discussion of place making. Councillor Seidel said that if one is on the Longfellow Bridge and looks toward Boston, the iconic view is the State House, with all its sense of history and place. When we look toward Cambridge, what do we want to see?
Councillor Kelley asked about the proposed provision for waiver of requirements by special permit. Mr. Barber said that the proposed amendments would allow waiver of the size, illumination and height of individual signs by special permit as part of approval of a total sign package for the area. However, the limit of total sign area on the lot could not be waived, nor could the 20 foot height limit. Councillor Kelley said that he would be more comfortable with the Arts Council deciding what signs are appropriate.
In response to a question from Councillor Toomey, Mr. Barber said that the ordinance does not allow signs to be above the building. Mr. Barber added that under the proposed amendments, signs above 20 feet cannot be illuminated internally, which prevents the really bright signs. Councillor Toomey said that he walked along the Charles River in preparation for this hearing, and he found that there are already many, many signs. He is very concerned about the Charles River, but the signs are already there.
Mayor Maher said that signs are not a bad thing. They can add a feature to the landscape. He wants to make sure that we are not encouraging over-illuminated, intrusive signs. He asked Mr. Barber why the special permit would go to the BZA rather than the Planning Board. Mr. Barber said that for smaller scale developments, the BZA is the appropriate review level; in larger developments the Planning Board would review the signage as part of its overall design review.
Attorney Kevin Crane, 104 Mt. Auburn Street, stated that he represents InterSystems Corporation, 1 Memorial Drive, Cambridge. His client is totally opposed to building identification signs. Any tenant in the building could have an identification sign, and if the sign is to be placed above 100 feet high, the sign could be 90 square feet as a matter of right. He provided examples of possible locations for these signs, the Henderson Building in Porter Square; the Commonwealth Lock Building, in which the Bank of America is a tenant, right next to the old Sears Building in Porter Square; the corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Shepard Street; a T-Mobile sign on the building at the corner of Mass Ave and Prospect Street, all as of right. The special permit waiver includes building identification signs. Attorney Crane submitted two letters for the record (
Phillip Ragon, resident of 8 Follen Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed amendments. He stated that he is the owner of InterSystems Corporation, 1 Memorial Drive, a business that employs 1,000 people, 300 of them in Cambridge and that he would like to expand his business. Microsoft is also a tenant at 1 Memorial Drive, and Microsoft wants to erect huge signs on the building. He believes that is what has stimulated much of this discussion. No company came to Cambridge because of signs and no company would leave because of signs. When large businesses move into a building and use large business identification signs on the building, other businesses in the building lose their identity. He submitted a letter of written testimony as well
Renata von Tscharner, President of the Charles River Conservancy, spoke in opposition to the proposed amendments because of the damaging visual impact of signs on the Charles River and submitted a letter of written testimony for the record. (
Charles Marquardt, 10 Rogers Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment because it would drastically limit the opportunity for public participation. He submitted written testimony (
Tom Sienewicz, 84 Magazine Street, former chair of the BZA, spoke in support of the proposed amendment. Cambridge has many signs that we can be very proud of.
The BZA variance process is not the place to make decisions about signs. A special permit process at the Planning Board would allow for public comment, conversation and improvements.
Robert Leff, 109 Antrim Street, said that building identification signs are similar to bill boards and are not appropriate.
Attorney James Rafferty, 40 Larch Road, stated that he has clients who have interests in this matter. There are many very good aspects to this ordinance. A special permit process would provide the needed flexibility around signage. The discussion about signage should not take place in a vacuum. The type of deviations that would be allowed by special permit do not include building identification signs. If there is uncertainty about whether they are included, clarify the language. When done well and placed appropriately, signs can be valuable additions.
Carolyn Mieth, Brookford Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed amendments. Special permits in Cambridge do not have strong enough criteria. She stated that she cannot imagine allowing identification signs as of right. What do you do in a building that has four tenants?
Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street, stated that when she looks at Boston, the first thing that she sees is the State House dome. It is a beautiful view which does not include a lot of signs. If there were a lot of signs up high on buildings, we would not see the beauty in the city. We do not need to use our city as an advertisement for commerce.
Jack Macharis, 285 Third Street, spoke in opposition to anything that would make these building identification signs more possible. They are wholly unnecessary.
Attorney William Macaulay, 600 Atlantic Avenue, stated that he is working with Attorney Kevin Crane. He said that by special permit a building identification sign could be as large as 500 square feet, and that neon signs could be allowed by special permit. He drew the committee's attention to a letter submitted by Charles Sullivan, Executive Director of the Historical Commission, in which Mr. Sullivan expresses concerns about the proposed amendments (
Paul Lukez, 19 Mason Street, Lexington, former Cambridge resident and architecture teacher, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He said that he fears long term unintended consequences t the image of Cambridge, which should not be dominated by corporate brands. He added that signs can have an important role in activating a streetscape and that is where they belong, at the street level.
Richard Clarey, 15 Brookford Street, said that the inference from the lack of public process at sign variance hearings could be that people are very happy with the current law. He also expressed concern over signs in the public way being delegated to the City Council.
Barbara Broussard, 148 Third Street, stated that she also walked along the Charles River and she did not see many signs. Her concern is signs along the Charles. For her, the river is sacred. She would also like to see a public process included in the ordinance. Ms. Broussard submitted written comment
Donna Keefe, 263 Hurley Street, said that when she looks out at Boston, she sees the Hancock Building. We do not need signs; we recognize the city by the building. She noted that Amgen, with its blue lighting around the top of the building, it is an identifier for East Cambridge.
Laura Kirshner, 97 Henry Street, Co Chair of the Ward Five Committee stated that as a past member of the BZA, she believes that the process is very important. The BZA works very hard to negotiate deals. She urged rejection of the proposed amendments.
It was agreed without objection that the petition would remain in committee. Councillors Seidel and Toomey thanked those present for their attendance. The hearing was adjourned at 6:18 p.m.