The Galleria Design Center is a showcase for interior and exterior home design and construction. Located in the interstate trade (IT) zone on Middle Street, which does not allow retail sales, the Galleria calls itself "A Home Show Every Day." Gerry Martorelli, owner of the Galleria Design Center, told the Board that his main competitor is Home Depot.
Martorelli said that because the Galleria does not have the huge advertising budget of his competitors, he needed to erect a large LED sign which could display a new image or text every 6 seconds to drivers on I91, "Our sign is critical to the survival of our business." He said the sign would be a replacement to his existing sign on I91. It would be 16 feet tall and 20 feet wide, and he said that he hoped to get a variance to enable him to put the sign on taller posts than is currently allowed by the zoning regulations.
Jeff Bianco, Chair of the Design Review and Preservation Board, expressed his skepticism about the appropriateness of a large, permanently lit sign on the Middletown stretch of I91 that between Westfield Falls and the southern end of Mt. Higby is completely rural, if not even wild. Board member Bob Plumley echoed this concern.
Ben Shoemaker also raised concerns about how the content of the screen could be realistically regulated, and several board members pointed out that on most applications for signs they provided input not to the content but to the style of the display.
Martorelli offered to accept approval that was conditional on the Board later determining how bright the sign could be, and perhaps even providing input on what would be displayed on the sign.
However, with no Middletown experience to guide them, the Board decided to table the application, and asked Martorelli to provide a mock-up of the sign so that they could evaluate what it would look like.
CVS Proposes To Tear Down and Rebuild With A Drive-Through
The CVS Drugstore on Main Street Extension is proposing to replace their existing store with a new one on the same lot. Their proposal is to tear down the empty video rental store in the back, build a new store with a drive-through window, and then tear down their old store.
Attorney Ralph Wilson represented the owners of the lot and CVS before the Board. He introduced an engineer who discussed the parking plans, and then Robert and William Stark, architects for the new CVS. The Starks presented a CVS "center-entrance prototype" to the Board. The design is of a brick building with a facade of repeated faux, stucco arches.
Bianco objected to the arches, saying that arches should be supporting something, and these seemed to be nothing more than decorations, "It doesn't look structural, it looks busy." The Starks very mildly objected, saying that CVS wanted the arches as an icon to identify their stores. However, they did agree to submit a modified plan with the arches removed.
The Board also questioned the need to cover the entire remainder of the lot with parking spaces. Wilson stated that the number of parking spaces was specifically required by CVS and they would not build if their pre-determined number of spaces was not approved.
The Board asked for more trees and bushes in the parking lot.
The redesigned building and the increased number of trees and bushes will be submitted to the Design Board at their next meeting, and then the application will be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
26 comments:
I fail to understand how such signs are even legal. Their purpose is to divert drivers' attention to read the sign and continue reading the next message that comes up. Why should we compromise safety so someone can compete with Home Depot? Why locate your business somewhere that "requires" a variance to stay in business? If retail is not allowed, how can a retailer be a main competitor? I definiely will be at the next board meeting.
how much does it cost to install and operate an LED billboard? Due to the energy needed to keep it running I guess there is a continual operating cost that never goes away. How is that manageable for a business in financial difficulty? I have heard that plain old regular poster type billboard rent for about one thousand dollars a month. This doesnt seem like the most effective strategy to me.
Leds are more energy efficient and last longer than traditional spot lights etc
There are tons of billboards in Hartford?why not let a Middletown business compete? Oh right we discourage business
"There are tons of billboards in Hartford?..." so let's have tons of billboards in Middletown??
the billboards in Hartford, or Durham for that matter, are not an argument in favor of this one. Billboards are visually polluting. Look at how much better Vermont is without them.
It's not amatter of bill boards it's a matter of Middletown discouraging new technology. This isn't ye olde towne anymore it's a city
re; the CVS plan, I have always felt that the existing entrance is too close to the intersection and it looks like there's no change. Is that a 2 way access from East Main St.? That whole intersection exemplifies the "Geography of Nowhere", a Kunstler reference. Suburban plot plan dropped into an urban setting. Ugly.
The City should pay for Galleria's sign like they did for O Rourke's-
I'm sure the downtowner's won't like this comment
LEDs may be more energy efficient than other types of lights but they are most certainly less energy efficient than NO LED lights at all. This is very wasteful. Why can't they have a well placed and easy to see sign of a reasonable size. A lighted billboard is extreme. Another thing about billboards is they are notoriously magnets for graffiti. I bet its not far off for the graffiti writers to figure out how to write onto the lighted signs just the same as the traditional ones. The back part of the sign may also become a graffiti canvas. Then we can have another comments discussion in the EYE about the graffiti. wonderful. There are so many various ways to advertise and promote a business its too many to name. A resourceful business owner should be able to employ use of techniques that are agreeable to the town and not detrimental as in an energy drain. IF one thing doesnt work, move on tot he next.
The new entrance will be about where the North end of the former video store is now-well in from the intersection. It is one way in with exiting onto Main St. Extension.
I guess we are to be impressed with the Kunstler reference?
It is not in town but on I-91. So I don't see the problem with it. We as a community should support our local businesses and hope they grow. If this can help than I am all for it.
i don't understand how the galleria is in competition with HD. it's not even in the same ballpark. that's a weak argument. as for the sign, it would take away from the natural beauty of the area. i'm sure i'm not the only one glad to leave behind the visually (and otherwise) polluted Hartford and literally head for the hills. this is a beautiful wooded area and should remain as such, without the visual detraction such a sign would cause.
Re CVS:
I'm perplexed about the claim that CVS needs to increase the number of parking spaces at this site. We use that CVS regularly, and the existing lot is never more than 1/3 full. And I imagine the number of customers has dropped since Walgreens was allowed to put in a store across the street. So why exactly does CVS need another store's footprint's worth of parking spaces?
- Norman
Count me as another that sees the LED billboard as not a problem.
It's on I-91... not Country Club Rd. or downtown.
Let the company advertise.
The comment about the arches is uncalled for. Why does the Eye keep deleting my comments criticizing this board and the president? Favortism?
Natural Beauty of the area? The sign in question is going up along I91 not some rural scenic side road. In case you havnt been down I91 lately.. there's a huge army base going up that removed most of the trees all the way up to the highway. I highly doubt one sign will ruin the area.
I see I am not the only one troubled by the conduct of the Design Review and Preservation Board. The idea behind the board is a good one, but it has turned into the arbiter of good taste. If a national company like CVS has determined that they want arches on the facade of their buildings what is the problem? Why should they have to go back and revise their plans and return to the board because one person feels that they look "busy". As an advisory board, DRPB has no legal power, but as the applicant recognized as a practical matter you have to build to suit the taste of the board members or you don't build. The board is supposed to advise P&Z as to whether or not the application complies with the published design guidelines. It makes sense to have design guidelines, but the board routinely goes beyond any type of guideline and just makes applicants make changes because they don't like the way something looks or just think something else would look better. You can read the guidelines from now until doomsday and you won't find any prohibition against arches or a facade looking "too busy". A developer has absolutely no way of knowing in advance what can or cannot be approved by the Board. You can comply with every guideline in their book and still have to waste time and money revising your plans because a board member doesn't like "busy" arches.
I be submitted numerous comments all being deleted because the Eye won't dare criticize jeff bianco. He puts himself out there and there for deserves the same criticism as politicians deserve. If he can dish it he should be able to take it. He acts like the authority on architecture for the city when in fact he is not the town planner nor architect. Anon you are correct if bianco doesn't like it the board doesn't go for it.
Correction you must build to suit the taste of Jeff Bianco the president because he doesn't allow the other members a say and assumes he speaks for everyone. It seems the Planning dept is ok with using his standards for everything!
Dear Anon @ 4:22,
It's true that we haven't published all of your comments. When you submit multiple comments in a short period of time, saying the same thing with a few variations, and none of them are signed, then you can expect that either one or none will be published. If it's important to you to have every comment approved, then please sign your name.
-Jen Alexander
Personally, I would like to see much more criticism and constraint of proposed buildings in Middletown. We, the citizens, are the ones who have to look at these buildings for decades. I bet any CVS stores in the hometown of CVS's board chairman or CEO meet the design standards of that town. Drive through any attractive town in CT and you will see national chains have complied with local standards. If we don't block ugliness in the proposal stage, then we get what we deserve.
I think anonymous is conflating two issues.
First he (she?) seems to think that there should be no Board which weighs in on design issues in an advisory capacity to Planning and Zoning. While I do not agree with this position, I would immediately approve a comment in support of that position. Please send it in.
Second, he (she?) seems to think that Mr. Bianco is flawed (in his qualifications, integrity, his taste in architecture, how he runs the meetings, etc.). Anon is free to disagree, but I will not approve an ad hominem attack on someone who is volunteering time and expertise on a city Board.
If you disagree with a decision of the board, you can anonymously start a healthy discussion over the role of the board and the decisions that it makes. If you want this to happen, be respectful and if you can do it, sign your name.
In my own opinion (signed), I think the board allows developers, especially out-of-town corporations, to build crap which devalues our city and profits only them. When a corporation wants to destroy a perfectly good building to construct a drive-through monstrosity and parking lot, DRPB talks about the arches and some bushes in the lot. I'm grateful it is something, but as someone said to me recently, it sure feels like a discussion about the shade of lipstick to put on the pig.
Middletown should have tougher standards when it comes to new buildings; it's a shame to see more ugly buildings being built in this town and takes away from any character the town has. I want to live in Middletown, not the Berlin Turnpike.
I agree with Ridge Road Resident and Tree Fanatic that we shouldn't allow ugly buildings to be built. Of course someone has to decide what is ugly so I think that person should be me. You wouldn't have any problem with the mayor appointing me as the final judge of ugly in the city of Middletown and giving me the power of deciding what could or couldn't be built would you? That way we could all be sure that nothing ugly is built in town. I would come up with some guidelines to tell everyone what is allowed, but the bottom line is even though I can't fully describe it I just know ugly when I see it. Since I can't fully tell you what is ugly I will have to look at everyone's plans before anything is built and make changes if I think something is ugly. I have really good taste so you know that all of my decisions would be good. You would be okay with this, wouldn't you?
Signed
DRPB
For those who would like to educate themselves.
The Board has design guidelines to help developers: http://www.middletownplanning.com/documents/guidelines.pdf
Signage guidelines: http://www.middletownplanning.com/documents/SignageIlluminationGuidelines.pdf
Landscaping guidelines: http://www.middletownplanning.com/documents/DRPBLandscapingScoringSystem.pdf
Post a Comment