Committee Report CR-5
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 7, 2010 beginning at 4:34 P.M. in the Sullivan Chamber. The purpose of the hearing was to continue 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 Henrietta Davis, Councillor Craig Kelley, City Clerk D. Margaret Drury, Susan Glazer, Acting Assistant 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 and Jeffrey Gardner, Neighborhood Planner, CDD.
Councillor Toomey convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He invited CDD staff to describe the most recent proposed modifications to the petition. Ms. Glazer said that in response to discussion at the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee hearings in July, the staff suggested some modifications. Those suggested modifications were then discussed at the Planning Board at its August meeting and as a result the staff made some additional changes, which have been incorporated into the material that CDD is now submitting to the Ordinance Committee and Planning Board (
Mr. Barber then described the modifications. He stated that the most substantive changes are in the "Building Identification Signs", Section 7.16.22 D.3. They include establishment of a special permit process before the Planning Board, narrowing of the zoning districts where such signs may be permitted to areas of concentrated office development at the eastern and western end of the city, restrictions of the signs to non-residential building only, limiting the signs to identifying the whole building or an office tenant occupying a substantial portion of the building, prohibition of the signs in local conservation and historic districts and enumeration of the criteria for approval of the signs, inkling impact on nearby residential districts, open space, historic districts and the Charles River, and light pollution.
Mr. Barber provided a chart that summarized the overall proposed changes in the amendment as modified by suggested staff:
Signs in the public way (e.g. banners across the street, banners hung on flagpoles, signs on bus shelters, A-frame signs)
are defined as exempt from the provisions of the Ordinance. This is the administrative interpretation of the current sign regulations. Such signs would continue to be subject to City Council jurisdiction.
This is a newly created category of sign. The proposed regulation allows the Planning Board to permit no more than two wall signs on a building to be higher than 20 feet above ground (the normal standard) and up to ninety square feet in area (that area is now limited to 60 square feet), after the issuance of a special permit, provided the signs meet specific lighting and design standards. The total area of all signs currently permitted on the lot is not increased.
Applies to non-residential district concentrations in the east and western portions of the city, where building heights of 50 feet or more are allowed
This new provision would allow the Planning Board to waive, by special permit, the individual dimensions and lighting standards imposed on wall, projecting and freestanding signs if a plan is created by the property owner for the allocation of all sign area that would be allowed on the lot. No sign in the plan could be located higher than 20 feet above the ground (the existing limitation) unless some other regulation would allow it and there would be no increase in the amount of sign area allowed on the lot now.
A new provision is introduced to allow the now common temporary banners and posters erected by museums and performance venues to announce their current exhibits or activities. Such signs, if meeting the limitations in the ordinance, would be allowed for non-profit entities.
Councillor Davis requested that Mr. Barber explain the general waiver provisions. Mr. Barber said that the CDD staff and the Planning Board believe that in general the Sign Ordinance works well in most circumstances, the choices that it codifies into standard requirements are just one particular set of decisions and dimensional standards, and it is possible that a better designed more attractive and informative arrangement of dimensions and lighting could be beneficial. This provision would allow for an overall allocation of the total area allowed for signage on a property to achieve that sort of result. No increase of the total area of signage for the property would be allowed. For example, Fresh Pond Shopping Center has received four or five variances for signs, and the result is somewhat of a hodgepodge. On the other hand, Porter Square did an entire design package of signage as part of its special permit, and the overall effect is more aesthetically pleasing and comprehensible. Councillor Davis said that she would be in favor of re-filing the petition to give people more time to understand the proposal.
. He said that he does not believe that the current proposal would cover the type of temporary sign, for example a sign about Lent during the Lenten period that his church, Christ Church would be interested in displaying. Mr. Barber said that religious institutions are generally seen as falling within the definition of nonprofit organizations. The intent of the nonprofit exemption was designed to enable public announcement of performance-type events, not just the regular congregational or organizational information. Councillor Kelley said that he is not sure that Lent fits the definition of a performance event. Councillor Reeves said that he is also a member of Christ Church and he sees an interesting First Amendment issue in whether one could advertise a circus but not Lent. Councillor Toomey said that this issue should be referred to the full City Council along with the petition, if the committee decides to refer the petition. He said that he is sure that there will be another Ordinance Committee meeting on this subject.
Councillor Seidel asked , with regard to building identification signs in Section 7.16.22 D 3 (c) (7).what constitutes a "significant" or "substantial" portion of the building sufficient to allow a tenant to have a building identification sign. Mr. Barber said that this question has come up, so it would probably be good to address it. He said that one doesn't want the City to be telling the building owner what tenant can have a building i.d. sign; on the other hand, one does not want to see a tenant renting 3,000 square feet in a large building to be able to put up such a sign. Mr. Barber suggested that perhaps there should be a minimum requirement of 20% or 30% of the overall building. In response to Councillor Seidel's question of whether a special permit signage plan general waiver would be binding on future owners, Mr. Barber replied in the affirmative.
In response to a question from Councillor Davis as to how the building signs for Genzyme and EF compared to what could be allowed with a special permit, Mr. Barber replied that both signs are the result of variances and both are larger than what would be allowed under the proposed amendments, and in addition, the EF sign has illumination that would not be allowed.
In response to a question from Councillor Kelley about how allowing illumination as part of a general waiver would work, Mr. Barber said that the provision is now in effect in Harvard Square and is administered by the Historical Commission.
Attorney Kevin Crane, 104 Mt. Auburn Street, stated that he represents InterSystems Corporation, 1 Memorial Drive, Cambridge. He referred to his letter dated August 26, 2010 (
which he sent to the Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee and which he said contains a longer version of what he will summarize in his comments at this meeting. There is no reason for making this change. The variance procedure works well. Good proposals are allowed. A special permit process will just open the floodgates of unnecessary applications. The proposal still does not address the dangers to the Charles River. In addition there is a widespread perception that this process has not been a good one. Changes are proposed without sufficient time to study them before hearings..
Terry 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. When large businesses move into a building and use large business identification signs on the building, other businesses in the building lose their identity. Such signs are bad for local business. On the Boston side there is an almost complete absence of signs along the Charles River. He urged a more open public process.
Renata von Tscharner, 2 Hubbard Place, 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.
Charles Marquardt, 10 Rogers Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment. He lives in one of the "red line" districts where these signs would be allowed and he sees similar signs from his residence. He has come to despise the Sonesta sign. He said that the Planning Board should allow another opportunity for public comment.
David Fillingham stated that he is a member of the Veteran for Peace, which meets in Central Square. His concerns are billboards and electronic signs. They have no place along the Charles River.
Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and submitted a photograph and cartoon (
. She said that the photograph is a picture of an extremely unattractive collection of signs along Fresh Pond Parkway, opposite from Fresh Pond Mall. She said that these signs came about through the variance procedure and urged the City Councillors to think about how much worse the situation will be when there is a Planning Board special permit procedure instead. Ms. O'Hare said that she is very disturbed by the process. This is not the second draft; it is the third draft and there are differences between the two that were not described in CDD's presentation. There is a much simpler solution to any problems caused by the granting of variances. Just say no.
Pebble Gifford, 15 Hilliard Street, said that she agrees with Kevin Crane that this has been a botched process and should go back to square one. The proposal treats the Charles River much too casually and does not deal with the horrible mess of sandwich signs on the sidewalk.
Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street, spoke in opposition to the proposal. She stated that she lives in the sight line of the eastern sign ghetto. From her home she can already see a whole bunch of signs. Why are we doing this?
Bruni Casparus, 47 Creighton Street, stated these signs are just another form of tagging- graffiti. She urged the City Council to reject the proposal.
Terrence Smith, Director of Government Affairs for the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce and resident of Manassas Street, spoke in support of the amendments. He said that the proposal is modest and has been made more modest by the suggested changes. He reminded the committee that signs also serve some good purposed for information and waymarking and aspiration.
Walter McDonald, 172 Magazine Street, said that since he first heard about this proposal, he has become much more aware of the signs in his environment. He would favor more restrictive provisions on signage, not looser regulation.
Paul Lukez, 19 Mason Street, Lexington, spoke in opposition to the proposal as an architect and urban designer with a very special feeling for Cambridge. This proposal threatens Cambridge's identity.
James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, Apt. 45, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He stated that the City Council has been asleep in this area in the past. The "billboards" that are jour bus shelters are horrible. Arlington said no.
Barbara Broussard, Third Street, President of the East Cambridge Planning Team requested that someone from CDD come to a meeting of the East Cambridge Planning Team to explain and discuss this proposal before the next city meeting on this issue.
Attorney James Rafferty, 40 Larch Road, stated that he has several clients who have interests in this matter, including Microsoft.. There has been a consistent overstatement by the opponents of this proposal, beginning with an orchestrated PR campaign. When the process for applying for a sign that does not conform with the Sign Ordinance requirements is a variance, there are no standards. IN a special permit process, the Planning Board has to use specific standards in deciding whether to grant or deny the application.
Councillor Toomey moved that the petition and proposed amendments be referred to the full City Council and that the Ordinance Committee retain subject matter jurisdiction. The motion passed on a voice vote, with Councillor Davis recorded in the negative. Councillors Seidel and Toomey thanked those present for their attendance. The hearing was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.