Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002_06_20 Board of Architectural Review Minutes • MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JUNE 20, 2002, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 744)WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK +,0 (11 Present: E. Robert Wassman, Chairman Cb 4 Anthony Spagnola Ronnie Wadler P,ECEIVED 00 DEC 24 2003 Absent: Sue Ellen Commender Robert M. Immerman PATRTOWN CLERKrr i0 A4AMAF.Oi ECK Pamela T. Washington /\N Also Present: Kevin T. Moore, Assistant Director of Building 9 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Wassman at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Wassman welcomed Ronnie Wadler as the new alternate member of the Board. Mr. Wassman said three members of the Board are present. He said that the applicants are advised that three constitutes a quorum,but in the absence of more than three decisions this evening have to be unanimous. Therefore, any applicant that has any reservations about proceeding with the applications tonight has the right to be held over to the next meeting, at which • time we would hope to have more than three Board members present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Wassman said we'll have to defer the approval of Minutes, because the Board this evening includes only two members that were present at the last meeting. Chairman Wassman read the first application as follows: COSI/James V. Mauceri - 1298 Boston Post Road -Block 410, Lot 463 - sign (adjourned 3/21/02;5/16/02) Mr. Wassman said James V. Mauceri is present, appearing to represent COSI. Steve Marsh said he is present this evening to represent COSI. Mr. Wassman said in the absence of the Building Inspector and those members of the Board who were present at your first approval hearing, maybe you can recite for us just what the situation is. The situation as I understand it, after reviewing the record some time ago, is that the applicant had submitted an application with the COSI lettering in the front,describing the size, color and extent of the lettering. What took place in letters that followed is that they did not execute the plan as submitted. They chose a slight modification. As I recall, you said this was similar to what you employed at other locations, but notwithstanding that, you apologized for not proceeding or completing the work exactly as defined on the drawing and begged the indulgence of the Board to approve the modified (the existing layout) which is shown here on this drawing, K-436A. After some discussion regard the date on the drawings, Mr. Wassman said do you know what date that • drawing was revised? Mr. Spagnola said it looks like it was most recently updated 11/1/01. Mr. Wassman said this is not the plan that was approved. Board of Architectural Review June 20, 2002 Page 2 • Mr. Spagnola said this is not the approved plan. This is what currently exists. Ms. Wadler asked, this wasn't the approved plan? Mr. Marsh said I believe this was what was originally proposed, but the red notes, this was drawn in. We originally approved COSI, with this tag line the same size and the same colors. Mr. Wassman asked, this tag line was on the original? Mr. Marsh said it's right under here. It was drawn in. It's going to say COSI with that. He said there was a communication error to the sign installer. He fabricated the sign and installed it. Mr. Wassman asked, is there enough room to put it below? Mr. Marsh said no, that header is not as big as we anticipated. What he determined was on the site survey by the installer. So they spread it out. It's the same size that was approved. It's within the zoning regulations. Mr. Wassman said, the COSI letters haven't gotten any larger. It's exactly the same? That's the main identification of the premise. He said, if we could take the time, for the benefit of the new Board member whom I welcome, Ronnie Wadler. Tony if you wish to review the records we can. I have no difficulty with it myself. Mr. Spagnola said I'd rather it not be there, but it's part of their identity. You can't fit it underneath, even if we choose to tell him to move it underneath. • Mr. Wassman said the words were going to be there anyhow. Ms. Wadler said it just doesn't fit, if you put underneath. I think it's much better over here. Mr. Spagnola said just so we understand this in the future, was it a mismeasure on the part of your sign manufacturer as to the size of that header? Mr. Marsh said I think it's potentially a mismeasure or miscommunication, but it's what's delivered by the landlord to us. Ms. Wadler asked, the Board originally approved that underneath? That I don't understand. There was some discussion among Board members. Mr. Spagnola said what was presented wasn't this at all. It was just as you see it there. Mr. Moore said I think what started the whole talk about the sign is the fact that this wording was like this. I think that was the original objection. After some discussion among Board members, Mr. Moore said this is the new one, right? That's the way they had it at the last meeting, which I happened to be at, and this was what was agreed upon. Mr. Wassman said I had one letter here, dated January 21, 2002, written by Sandor Scher, Cosi, Incorporated, which is part of the record, apologizing to the Board for the installation of signage that deviated from the approved plan,receiving acceptance from the Board of Architectural in July,2001,based • on drawing #K-436-A, dated 7/20/01. (YOU SAID 11/6/01; THAT WAS THE DATE FOR APPROVAL OR AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL? ADVISE). Board of Architectural Review June 20, 2002 Page 3 • We can't seem to identify the drawing with the letter by the date, anyhow. He continued to read the letter. After further discussion, on a motion made by Mr. Spagnola, seconded by Ms. Wadler, it was unanimously: RESOLVED to accept the COSI installation as made with the change in the positioning of the wording, "BREAKFAST LUNCH DINNER DESERT" to the right of the signatured name. Mr. Wassman said Kevin, the top drawing will be the one which has been approved. Mr. Marsh thanked the Board. Chairman Wassman read the next application as follows: DUNKIN DONUTS - 1311 Boston Post Road - Block 412, Lot 288 -signs (adjourned 3/21/02;5/16/02) Mr. Wassman said this application is for permission to have two existing interior signs hanging on the interior of the window. He asked, is that correct? Louis Patsis who appeared to represent Dunkin Donuts said yes. Mr. Spagnola said this is pretty standard for what Dunkin Donuts does. Mr. Patsis said yes, for all the stores. The reason why they were put there, I wasn't there when the improvement company, Paramount Restaurant Supplies,came there and they worked overnight. They put • it in about 7:00 p.m. When I went there, I said what is this? I'll have to check with Kevin or somebody. Mr. Spagnola said my problem with them, to be really honest with you, is that I think they are so broken up by all the window mullions. They just don't look good. If you had clear windows, which is probably pretty standard for Dunkin Donuts, it would be alright. Mr. Patsis said the windows were approved here? Mr. Spagnola said I know, but that's not the norm for Dunkin Donuts. If you had a clear window frame, then they would look a lot better. Then you have changeable posters for specials in the window. I think it's such a beautiful looking thing, I don't know that they're doing any good for anyone in front of the mullions. It looks really like an afterthought to me. Ms. Wadler said that's exactly what my feeling was. I kept thinking if it were hanging on the outside, it would look so much better. Mr. Patsis said the reason why they are in all the stores is because the equipment company comes in and puts them there and usually there is no problem. Here, in this town, they have special requirements. Mr. Spagnola said yes, that's over here. Mr. Moore said I was here the other time. Mr. Wassman said the last time you didn't appear. 410 Mr. Moore said for this? No, it's the first time for the signs. Mr. Wassman said the subject matter was discussed. Mr. Spagnola said you were on the agenda and no one showed up. Board of Architectural Review June 20, 2002 Page 4 IIIMr. Patsis said I sent the manager, but the manager .... Mr. Spagnola said no one came, so we had the discussion about them and we didn't like them. That's where we're at. Mr. Wassman said Tony is expressing it accurately. We feel it's too busy. It doesn't fit the fenestration of the window. The design of the store was very handsome. Mr. Patsis said the Board designed the store, by the way. Mr. Spagnola said they were not presented to us at the time that we were in the store. Mr. Patsis said yes, that's not my fault. I didn't know that I had to do that either. I didn't know that. That's something new. Mr. Wassman asked, is it a hardship for you not to have these signs? Do you find that they are central to your business? Mr. Patsis said the reason I would say it's good, is because during the night we don't have too much lighting outside so everybody noticed the signs. I tell you the franchise ....inaudible would love to have the signs, because they do like to have the new design right now in all the stores. Mr. Wassman said this is a franchise decision to have this kind of sign inside the window? Mr. Patsis said yes. All the stores are getting them right now. IllMr. Spagnola said like I said to you, the framing of the mullions of the window frames of your store is not what the norm is. They're all broken up by that. We were not shown these things when we approved the signage and now they're up. We don't like the way they look. It's that simple. It came in the middle of the night and you weren't there, but we don't like them. That's where we stand. Mr. Patsis said that's a $1,000 a head space. Mr. Wassman asked, that is what sir? Mr. Patsis said they're charging $500 each. Ms. Wadler said I drove by. It was hard for me to tell if they could be repositioned. Could they now? Mr. Patsis said no. There's no open space in the rear. Mr. Spagnola said the banners and posters that are up there now, there are no changes. Mr. Spagnola said ri ht. That's g fine that you say change and they move around, but these things are permanent signs that are part of the whole elevation. Mr. Wessman I didn't observe. Where are the posters? Mr. Spagnola said there's one on the left side of the permanent signs on the front. Mr. Wassman asked, on the window glass? 1 • Mr. Spagnola said it's hanging in front of the window. It's a yellow background. Mr. Wassman said they're limited to what they can do there, too. Board of Architectural Review June 20, 2002 Page 5 • Mr. Spagnola said I know. We're not saying not to do that. What we're saying is these are rear illuminated things that are hanging in the front that were not approved and interrupted. Ms. Wadler said it also does a disservice to the appearance of the place. It just doesn't look good. There's no way you could hang it outside, is there? Mr. Spagnola said that presents a whole other issue. Mr. Wassman said that's a matter then of exterior signage. They may not have the interrupted. Mr. Spagnola said I don't want to debate what they say and whether they're doing enough or not for the business. That's not what we're here to discuss. We're here to discuss that they just look lousy in front of the window and they were not presented when we approved this proposal for signage on the building. They're very much part of the facade of this space. If I thought they looked great, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Mr. Wassman said you're right Tony, you're right. Mr. Patsis said that's the look. Mr. Wassman said I think that subject to anything else you wish to say, that I should call for a vote on this. Mr. Patsis said it has nothing to do with me. This one is strictly Dunkin Donuts signs and they would like to have them in the windows. There's is nothing I can do to affect your decision yes or no. They just • put it there. That's it. Mr. Wassman said we don't feel that the signage is compatible with the design of the shop. If they had been submitted on the first submission, they wouldn't have been approved. Ms. Wadler asked, does the door have mullions as well? Mr. Patsis said no. Ms. Wadler said could they be hung on the door? Mr. Patsis said no. They're boxes. Mr. Spagnola said they're illuminated 10 inch boxes. They're internally illuminated, hanging from the ceiling and it's not an easy task to take them down. Mr. Spagnola said it's a shame and I'm not .... Mr. Patsis said it has to be decided, because I have to present it to Dunkin because they're going to come down on me and say what did you do? Mr. Spagnola said I think you should just tell them that we're just not happy with it. I'm sorry to put you in the middle position, but we're not. Quite honestly, I think we're speaking for other members of the Board. Mr. Wassman said I believe we are. Ellen and Bob I know were both at the previous meeting and we did • discuss what the applicant's request was. We had them before us. Mr. Wassman said I'd accept a motion along the line that Tony's presented here that your application be rejected and that the order be given that the interior signage be removed. Board of Architectural Review June 20, 2002 Page 6 • On a motion made by Mr. Spagnola, seconded by Ms. Wadler, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Dunkin Donuts has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to review two (2) interior existing signs; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the review by the Board of Architectural Review is required; and WHEREAS, Dunkin Donuts submitted an application for approval to the Board; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is DENIED subject to the following conditions: 1. The two (2) interior existing signage be removed. Mr. Patsis asked, will you give me something in writing? Mr. Wassman said yes, you'll get a notification. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the BAR will be held on July 18, 2002. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Wassman and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary • f �' Town of Mamaroneck 14. y County of Westchester *sr Town Offices: 740 West Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, NY 10543-3319 914/381-7830 Office of the Board of Architectural Review June 13, 2002 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the Board of Architectural Review of the Town of Mamaroneck will be held on JUNE 20, 2002 at 8:00 p.m. in the SENIOR CENTER, 740 West Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, New York. The agenda will include the following matters: AGENDA ® 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2. COSI/James V. Mauceri - 1298 Boston Post Road - Block 410, Lot 463 - sign (adjourned 3/21/02; 5/16/02) 3. DUNKIN DONUTS - 1311 Boston Post Road - Block 412, Lot 288 - signs (adjourned 3/21/02; 5/16/02) Marguerite a, Recording Secretary t2 Panted or Recycled Paper