|
Triangle Shopping Center June 23, 2008, Planning Board work session The Planning Board went into special session to approve a freestanding sign at the Triangle Shopping Center. Bridle Ridge Location: London Rd & Curry St, Yorktown Heights Contact: Sonok Design Group Description: Replacement of development signage and plantings. June 23, 2008, Planning Board work session During the Courtesy of the Floor section of the meeting, Jim Sonic, landscape architect from Sonic Design Group, reported that his company was replacing the signage in the Bridle Ridge subdivision . The plan is to rebuild and repair existing signs, but in a slightly different style, i.e. masonry and granite slabs. He asked that the project be put on the July 14, 2008 Planning Board agenda and referred to ABACA, which was done. August 18, 2008, Planning Board work session Decision Statemen All the modifications requested by ABACA and the Highway Department having been met, the Planning Board passed a resolution approving the new permanent sign and its landscaping. Mobil Gas Station (Saw Mill River Road) October 20, 2008, planning board work session On a referral from the town board, the planning board discussed the request for a new stand alone sign at the Mobil gas station. There was some confusion as to the height of the sign because the site plan showed two different numbers, one approximately 12ft and the other 16ft high. Mr. Flynn noted that according to town law, there could only be one sign on a site and the station's canopy already had a sign. The board will wait to hear from ABACA before reaching a decision.
January 27, 2009, town board work session
February 17, 2009 A representative for Mobil Gas explained the company's plan to erect a monument style sign that would be 8' x 7.6'. He added that the proposed sign, that had been designed in response to a November 20, 2008 memo from ABACA, was actually less than what ABACA said was permitted in its November memo. However, a February 9, 2009 memo from ABACA called attention to the fact that the town code permits a 60 sq ft maximum aggregate amount of signage for the site but that when the proposed new sign was added to the existing signs on the site the maximum signage would total 101 sq ft. While board members were in agreement that the proposed new sign was not an eyesore, and they were sympathetic to the applicant who redesigned the sign to conform to ABACA's November memo only to be told in February that the sign didn't conform to town code, they felt that the they could not ignore the maximum signage limitations in the code. Commenting during the hearing, Ray Arnold asked who set the coverage limits in the code and who interpreted them. Town Clerk Alice Roker responded that the application for the special permit had been referred to the building department for comment but that the department chose not to respond. Paul Moskowitz urged the board to honor its own code and suggested that the town would look better with smaller signs. He also doubted that more signs would sell more gas. Acting on the board's suggestion, the Mobil representative will go back to the owner and see if any existing sign on the site could be eliminated in order to bring the total permitted signage into compliance with the code. The hearing was adjourned, tentatively to March 3rd. March 3, 2009 In a continuation of the public hearing, the Mobil representative explained that the company could not comply with the aggregate limit permitted in the law without removing all the other signs from the site. He then called the board's attention to a provision in the code that allowed the board to vary the aggregate signage allowance for good cause. The code allows an aggregate signage of 60 sq. ft. The proposed new monument sign is 60 sq ft; the Mobil Mart sign if 14.7 sq ft and each Mobil sign on the canopy is 13.1 sq ft. The Mobil representative explained that the new monument sign could not be reduced in size because the sign company that Mobil uses only provides signs in standardized sizes. While board members were in agreement that the proposed new monument sign was an improvement over the existing older pole sign, they were reluctant to issue a variance that could set a precedent and which would compound the problem of sign clutter. In response to a question from Councilman Martorano about the signage on existing gas stations, Planning Director John Tegeder said he thought that some of them may be exceeding the requirements of the code but that the signs may have been grandfathered in. Resident Paul Moskowitz noted the aesthetic differences between the Shell and Mobil stations, plus the fact that the Shell station offered its site for community purposes. The Mobil station, he noted, does nothing for the town , adding that he didn't think the town owed the station anything. (Note: Councilman Bianco stated that the two stations were owned by the same person.) The board asked Mr. Tegeder to get more information about the signage at the town's other gas stations and will take up the issue again at the March 24th work session. The hearing was adjourned. March 24, 2009, work session Planning Director John Tegeder presented the board with his report that analyzed signage use at some of the town's other gas stations. The signage for five stations that were approved between 2003 and 2006 were under the allowed limit; some built in the late 1990s, prior to the adoption of the current ordinance and signage manual, are over. The station in Jefferson Valley is over by seven square feet but explained that there were special circumstances surrounding that one. Also, there were special circumstances surrounding the signage at the Shell station on Route 202. Noting that there were five stations in the heart of the town and that none of them exceeded the signage limits, Councilman Bianco expressed his concern for preserving the quaintness of the area. Councilman Campisi said he shared Mr. Bianco's concern and noted that the issue was the signs on the canopy and building and not with the proposed new sign that was within the town's guidelines. He asked why ABACA had initially approved the new sign and then did a turnaround. He added that the intention of the law that limited the aggregate signage to 60 square feet was not clear. Questioned about the need for the sign on the building when the building at the Shell station did not have one, the Mobil representative explained that the Mobil building had less visibility because of the trees and existing town signs. He also pointed out that the sign was not illuminated, He explained the site's limited visibility when driving westward on Commerce Street. In an effort to reach a compromise, the Mobil representative will talk to his client about removing both canopy signs (he had already agreed to remove one). While that would still leave the site with two signs and exceed the limit, the board may be more willing to issue the variance under those circumstances. The applicant will return to the board at a future work session. April 7, 2009 The Mobil representative advised the board that the second canopy sign would be removed bringing the site's total signage to 74.60 sq. feet. The board then voted to approve the request for the new sign. The Learning Experience (Route 6) January 12, 2009, Planning Board work session The applicant is requesting a temporary “coming soon” type sign that he can erect while the building that will house a new day care center is under construction. He estimated that the sign would be up for 8-12 months. ABACCA objected to a phone number and email address being included in the sign on the grounds that this was advertising and that advertising signs were not permitted in the town code. The board questioned this recommendation and decided that it had no problem with a phone number or email. A resolution approving the sign for one year will be prepared for a future meeting.
Shell Station (Route 202 February 24, 2009, work session The owner of the existing station plans to add a 7-11 franchise and modify the site's signage to include both the Shell and 7-11 logos. (The existing car wash will continue operating on the site.) ABACA had no problem with the two logo signs but wanted the applicant to coordinate the colors. However, the representative of 7-11 said that this would change the recognizable logo for 7-11 and if the sign was not recognizable, there would be no benefit to the company. The board's consensus was that the sign was non intrusive and putting aside ABACA's recommendations, decided to set the sign request for a public hearing on March 17th
March 17, 2009 |