Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001_05_17 Board of Architectural Review Minutes 41) AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MAY 17, 2001, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Edward Z. Jacobson, Chairman Sue Ellen Commender Robert M. Immerman 01011111 Anthony Spagnola Pamela T. Washington 4 RECEW C3) .44 Also Present: Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building D Vtn Judith Myers, Liaison 1-4 �u tWOCCIC PATRIC%P4* Mk 4 MAMARONECX CALL TO ORDER ��,` HY• The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jacobson at 8:07 p.m. 01. (6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Jacobson said the first item on the agenda is the review of Minutes of a number of meetings. He • asked if there were any additions and/or corrections to the Minutes April 19, 2001. Mr. Immerman noted corrections to be made on pages 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. After some discussion and corrections noted, upon a motion made by Ms. Washington, seconded by Mr. Spagnola, the amended Minutes of the April 19, 2001 meeting were unanimously approved. Mr. Jacobson thanked Mr. Immerman for carefully reviewing the Minutes. Mr. Jacobson asked if there were any additions and/or corrections to the Minutes March 15, 2001. After some discussion and corrections noted by Mr. Immerman on pages 2 and 3, upon a motion made by Ms. Washington, seconded by Mr. Spagnola, the amended Minutes of the March 15, 2001 meeting were unanimously approved. Mr. Jacobson asked if there were any additions and/or corrections to the Minutes January 18, 2001. After some discussion and corrections noted, Mr. Jacobson said that Anthony Spagnola was not present at that meeting. He asked if there were any other corrections. Ms. Commender said "anywhere it says Ms. Myers, Ms. Commender was speaking." Mr. Jacobson asked if there were any other comments. There being none, upon a motion made by Ms. Commender, seconded by Ms. Washington, the amended Minutes of the January 18, 2001 meeting were unanimously approved. Chairman Jacobson read the application as follows: PSPA OF STS. JOHN & PAUL CHURCH/Karen G. Corrigan - 280 Weaver Street - Block 217, Lot 1 - sign (adjourned 4/19/01) Mr. Jacobson asked what PSPA stands for. Ms. Corrigan said it stands for Parish School Parents Association of Sts. John& Paul School. • Board of Architectural Review May 17, 2001 Page 2 • Mr. Jacobson asked those speaking to introduce themselves for the secretary, as the Minutes are taped for transcription. Ms. Corrigan and Mary Haney are present as representatives of the PSPA of the Sts. John&Paul School. Ms. Corrigan said they have applied to have a sign erected facing Weaver Street for Sts. John & Paul Church and School. Mr. Jacobson said the Board had some discussion about the application when it was received. He said there were two major comments. The first is that the Board is not clear on just where the sign was to be located because they are all aware there is a sloping ground area which is outside the fence and there is not much ground inside the fence to put a sign. Second, Mr. Jacobson said the Board felt in general that the sign was overly large. Ms. Corrigan said they spoke last night to the Zoning Board and they, the Board, referred the site of the sign to the Traffic Commission for possible relocation. It is PSPA's idea to have the sign up against the fence on the street side, facing Weaver Street and facing the Fire Department. It has been referred to the Traffic Commission, to determine where the best site would be and if it is a traffic hazard at all. Ms. Corrigan said the size of the sign is determined by the language they want to put on the sign. When they spoke with the sign company, and this sign company has done other signs in Larchmont, this was the least size for what they wanted on the sign, Sts. John & Paul Church and School with a sub-board listing the mass schedule. • Mr. Jacobson asked if the sign is as tall as a person. Ms. Corrigan said the sign is 6 ft. by 6 ft. Mr. Jacobson asked if it needed to be that high. Ms. Corrigan said that the board itself is 3 ft. by 6 ft. for Sts. John & Paul Church and School, and the sub-board is 6 ft. by 2 ft. Mr. Spagnola asked if there is any way to combine the information to one board, so they don't have all of the wasted space below the words Church and School to the top of the sub information, so it doesn't need to be as high. Mr. Spagnola asked if that information would ever change. Ms. Corrigan said no. Ms. Washington said they could probably still make the sign in two pieces, but have them join together without there being any detriment element between them. They could still take the bottom off or remake the bottom and have the top be made permanently and have the bottom be flexible. Have them butt up to each other. Mr. Immerman said all they have to do is scale the design down by 10% or something. It doesn't mean they can't get the lettering down. It should be a little bit smaller. He said the Board thinks that this is gigantic for their purposes and unpleasant for the people who live across the street. • Ms. Haney asked if the Board has any recommendations as to the size. Ms. Washington said one question that she has is, it was in the sign laws to have the name on the side of the church as it is above the colonnade, to have the mass board or the flexible communication board and to have this sign. She asked Mr. Carpaneto if it is permitted to have a second sign. Board ofArchitectu ral Review May 17, 2001 • Page 3 Mr. Carpaneto said that this sign would require an area variance. Ms. Commender said she doesn't know why they need this sign, because obviously the church is there and it says Sts. John and Paul in big letters over the church. There is a board right next to it that has the mass schedule. If this is put parallel to Weaver Street, no one is going to be able to see it. Ms. Haney said it won't be parallel, but slightly slanted in order to see it from the street driving toward Boston Post Road. Ms. Commender asked how it's going to be slanted. Ms. Haney said it will be slanted slightly. Mr. Spagnola said slanted isn't the right word. Ms. Washington said it's going to be skewed in relationship to the fence line, with which Ms. Haney agreed. Ms. Commender said it's going to really stick out. Mr. Immerman said it's hard to tell. The Board does not have anything that tells them that. Mr. Jacobson said in addition to that, given the slope of the land, one leg will be longer than the other because it's on a slope, with which Ms. Haney agreed. • Ms. Haney said you can't see the mass schedule that's on the church from the street. The name of the church is pretty high. They were looking for something that is visible, so an individual would know there is also a school there. Ms. Commender said when an individual drives by on Weaver Street, their eyes shouldn't be looking at the sign. They should be looking at Weaver Street, because right where the sign is going there is a curve and that person has to make sure they're not going to hit the person in front of them. Ms. Haney said the sign is before the curve in the road. Ms. Washington said it's a busy place. You have to worry about whether a fire truck is going to come out of the firehouse and the road is curving. Especially at rush hour and in the evening, a lot of people are turning left at that street. Ms. Haney said that's why the Zoning Board wanted them to talk to the Traffic Commission to determine the placement of the sign. Ms. Corrigan said what they are also going to do on Friday is put up some stakes, so people can see where this sign would be. Mr. Immerman said that the plans given to the Board were inadequate in terms of location. Ms. Corrigan said they are the plans that were given to her by the Building Department. Mr. Carpaneto said those were the plans in the file. • After some discussion, Mr. Jacobson said the information marked "X" on the plans isn't definite enough. Mr. Carpaneto said that the survey that was in the file was a land survey that didn't show the building. Board of Architectural Review May 17, 2001 • Page 4 Mr. Immerman said they have to show where the fence is, there are trees along there and asked how it's going to be related to the trees that are there. Ms. Washington asked when the stakes are going to be put up. Ms. Haney said they're planning to put them up tomorrow, after school is out. Ms. Washington asked if they will stay up for the weekend. Ms. Haney said they could stay up for the weekend or for a while. Mr. Spagnola asked if the stakes are going to be tall. Mr. Carpaneto said he suggested the stakes stay up until the Traffic Committee has a chance to look at them. Mr. Spagnola asked if they would be put in by the sign person. Ms. Corrigan said they, PSPA, would put in standard sticks, to get an idea of where it is that the sign would be. They will be as tall as the proposed sign will be. Mr. Spagnola asked about the coloring of the sign. Mr. Corrigan said they were thinking of maroon. • Ms. Haney asked if this Board had seen the Mamaroneck Garden sign? That's the color being considered. Mr. Spagnola asked if the field color is maroon. Mr. Corrigan said yes, the field color is maroon with a gold leaf lettering. Mr. Spagnola asked about the posts. Ms. Corrigan said the posts would also be maroon to make it blend in. Mr. Immerman said they should have submitted the color to the Board. Mr. Spagnola said the Board's general concern is that the sign is very big, and they, PSPA, don't have a lot of space. Ms. Corrigan said she can talk to the sign company to see what ideas they have. Mr. Immerman said they can put it on the sign company reduction copy machine and scale it down. Ms. Washington said people are physically very close to the sign. It's not as though the sign is so far away on the property that you can't see it. It's right there in your face. Mr. Jacobson said you come right up next to it. The cars can pass within 2 ft. of the sign. Ms. Washington said since right there at that curve lawfully you're not supposed to be going faster than • 30 miles per hour, conceivably you're going 25 miles per hour. The sign doesn't have to be very big for someone to be able to read it. Ms. Corrigan asked if the Board is familiar with the Mamaroneck Gardens sign, and asked if that is the size that would be acceptable. Board of Architectural Review May 17, 2001 • Page 5 Ms. Washington said she will go look at it. Ms. Corrigan said if you go down to Weaver Street and make a left onto Palmer Avenue, it's right there. Ms. Washington asked if they have school colors for signs. Ms. Corrigan and Ms. Haney said no, because the school colors are red and the children wear blue. Mr. Corrigan said she will call the company to find out if they can reduce the size of the sign and what that would be. Mr. Spagnola said they could probably look at the art type at the top with the cross, which is making the sign a lot bigger. He's sure there is a way it can be laid out, so it's a little more linear and won't have to be as large. Mr. Spagnola said he doesn't want to design the sign for them, as that's not what the Board is supposed to do. He asked if the framing couldn't be more of a metal framing, so it feels like the fence or something a little lighter. The posts and all are really heavy-handed. He doesn't know what they have available, but metal framing is pretty much standard. Also, if the way it's supported could be maybe wrought iron or something that relates to the black fence, the whole assembly would look better. Ms. Commender said if it's going to angled to the street, it's going to look like a billboard. Mr. Spagnola said if they're angling it only so that you can see it as you come around, if it's parallel to • the fence it's not going to help her. There's no other position it can go. After some discussion, Mr. Spagnola said his concern is that going 30 miles an hour to try to read the mass schedule, it's not going to happen. You'll get the name, but that's all. Ms. Corrigan said the sign is more for aesthetics. Mr. Jacobson asked if Mr. Spagnola has any reaction about the words church and school, as they're so much more powerful than the other information. He was wondering whether that seems to be a correct relationship. Mr. Spagnola said he thinks it should all read the same, because it's one thought. To make church and school bigger, it's fighting it. Ms. Commender said it's reasonable to give the place some identity. Maybe they could affix the sign to the fence or put it perpendicular right by the drive into the church and school. Ms. Corrigan said they had thought about that as a second idea. That's where their handicap entrance is located. Following some additional discussion, Ms. Corrigan said after last night's Zoning Board hearing the matter would be referred to the Traffic Committee. Ms. Haney said they need to talk with the sign company again and get a smaller size and put stakes up so it is clear where the sign is intended to be placed. • Mr. Jacobson said his concern, with respect to these applicants, is that there's a big job here. The Board doesn't want them to walk away thinking if they make the sign smaller and keep it in about the same place that this would be O.K. with the Board. The Board thinks there are many more problems with the sign. Will anybody in a car see it. He said Mr. Spagnola made an excellent point about how the sign is structured, not doing those massive posts. Doing something that's lighter scaled. He said there are a lot of issues here to be resolved. Also, the issue brought up that perhaps it would be more comfortable if it Board of Architectural Review May 17, 2001 • Page 6 were moved further down towards the curve. He reiterated there are a lot of issues to think about and size is only one of them. Ms. Corrigan asked if the idea of them having a sign is O.K. Mr. Jacobson said that's perfectly fine. Mr. Immerman said Ms. Commender thought they shouldn't. Ms. Commender said the sign as presented is like a billboard. Mr. Jacobson said the Board doesn't disagree with that. Ms. Commender said if it was smaller, if it was repositioned, if the mass schedule wasn't on it, she thinks it would be fine. As presented, she just doesn't think it would work. Mr. Jacobson said he thinks they all agree on that. Mr. Spagnola asked if the sign company will be able to help them with this. Ms. Corrigan said yes, they're very helpful. Ms. Corrigan said the sign company has examples of all the ones they have done in this area and other areas. She can speak with them tomorrow. She is not sure about the wrought iron part of it. She hasn't • seen anything like that among the examples. Ms. Haney said they're a wood company. Ms. Corrigan said they will put the stakes up at 6 ft., and throw some flags around it so the Board can see the location and size. Mr. Immerman asked if there are County road restrictions along Weaver Street? Mr. Carpaneto said there are sone restrictions there. Mr. Immerman asked if the fence is on the church's property line. Mr. Carpaneto said it may he beyond the fence. Mr. Immerman said he thinks they have to come back to the Board with the colors they want to use and a definitive change in scale and placement. Ms. Corrigan said in the mean time they will put up the stakes tomorrow. Mr. Jacobson thanked Ms. Corrigan. Mr. Jacobson read the next application as follows: GETTY/Robert Lewis - 2385 Boston Post Road - Block 505, Lot 415 - sign • Robert Lewis appeared to address the Board. Mr. Lewis said he has some photos of the Getty site for the Board. He said presently there's a free-standing sign on a pole that is 42 in. high by 8 ft. in width that no longer meets the code of the Town of Mamaroneck. What the Board has before them is a presentation of what Getty is proposing to do. r . . Board of Architectural Review May 17, 2001 Page 7 . ill Mr. Lewis said what they would like to do is take the existing sign, which is the Getty tomato red background with the white lettering, and the yellow dot, and lower it onto an aluminum pedestal which is 2 ft. high by 4.1 in. in width, 10 ft. in depth. Mr. Immerman asked if he said 4.1 in., because the drawing says 4 ft. Mr. Lewis said the position of the sign is the same as existing, it's double-sided, perpendicular with the Post Road and it would still be internally illuminated. Mr. Immerman said it's in good condition. Mr. Jacobson asked if anybody has any concerns about whether or not the sign that's this long can work down at the ground level. Mr. Spagnola said the Board has talked a number of times about how a monument sign is the lesser of two evils than a post sign. But, when you take the post sign and bring it down to the ground, you blast the folks on a sidewalk level with these big things. From a streetscape level, it's probably better to have them lower. From a pedestrian level, they're like gargantuan things at your feet. He doesn't really know if they need an 8 ft. sign with a 24 in. letters or 15 in. letters. He said they're not going to ever have the readability of a monument sign on a road like this as you would a post sign from a distance. Mr. Jacobson said that the Board understands their motivation to relocate the sign, but it's too overwhelming at ground level. • Ms. Washington said they can relocate it to a different location. Mr. Jacobson said just to he clear, we think this is too overwhelming. Mr. Spagnola said he doesn't know what scale would be better. Ms. Washington said if the sign were 6 ft. long, it would be much better than if it was 8 ft. long. Mr. Lewis said that actually was his suggestion. After some discussion, Mr. Lewis said he pointed this out to Getty. He told them that the Board will probably give it a hard time,just lowering the pole sign. Mr. Lewis said he thinks Getty would be willing to adapt to a size change. Ms. Washington said it would be better if it were 5 ft. or 6 ft. long and it would be better if it were opaque background. Mr. Spagnola said it would be lovely if they would consent to having an opaque red, so at night it's just white letters and not a red field glowing. Mr.Jacobson said he has mixed feelings about at night that dark contrast of the white letters against a black form. He said he knows why the Board wants to do this. He just wonders if it is really better to have a dark field. Mr. Immerman said that would be better than a big red thing. • Mr. Jacobson said personally he is not sure. He thinks that this dark black mass with these white letters, the contrast, what it does is it makes the white so much more dramatic. Mr. Immerman said there's a light pole adjacent, so you're going to still see the red. Mr. Jacobson said the important thing is to knock this thing down to scale. Board of Architectural Review May 17, 2001 • Page 8 Mr. Immerman said and not have the red glowing. Mr. Jacobson asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Lewis said he had mentioned that they may want to look at backgrounds. He doesn't think they would have a problem with that, as long as they can have that yellow dot. Mr. Jacobson said the yellow dot is fine. Mr. Immerman asked if the sign could be moved further back from the road. Mr. Lewis said they were hoping to use the actual footing, but that would dramatically add a lot to the cost of the job to dig that whole thing out and shift it. Ms. Washington asked if this sign would be projecting onto the sidewalk if they use that footing. Mr. Lewis said as seen in the photo, he pointed to where the sidewalk is. Their sidewalk is really about 10 ft. It's already set back quite a bit, as compared to some of the other spots. Mr. Spagnola asked if they're dropping it straight down. Mr. Lewis said yes. Mr. Spagnola said if it's smaller you can just bring it in more, maybe in line with the sidewalk. • Mr. Lewis said they could cantilever the sign. Mr. Spagnola said they should not cantilever, but the base will hide the concrete. Mr. Lewis said yes, definitely. Mr. Spagnola asked if they will come back with another proposal. Mr. Lewis said yes. Mrs. Washington said she would propose that a set of parameters be set out and if followed by Getty then he wouldn't have to come to the Board. If his company didn't follow the guidelines, then he'd have to come back. Mr. Jacobson asked if everybody was in favor of that. The Board replied yes. On a motion made by Ms. Washington, seconded by Mr. Spagnola, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Robert Lewis/White Plains Sign for Getty has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to fabricate and install a free-standing monument ground sign to replace a pole gas station sign; 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, Robert Lewis/White Plains Sign for Getty submitted an application for approval to the Board; and Board of Architectural Review May 17, 2001 • Page 9 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 APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The sign be 6 ft. long, not 8 ft. long. 2. The background be opaque, not translucent. 3. The forward edge of the sign aligned with the change in surface between the sidewalk and the asphalt. Ms. Commender asked about the base. She asked if the base could be the same size. Mr. Spagnola said that the base would shrink. Mr. Lewis said it would be scaled down. Mr. Jacobson said the base is locked in with the size of the sign. He thinks there's probably a correct size base that looks good with this sign which may change in dimension. • Mr. Jacobson said he would leave the base to their discretion. Ms. Washington said it should be as small as practicable. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Jacobson reported on the meetings that have taken place with respect to the Town Board of Trustees for the Myrtle Boulevard project. Mr. Jacobson said that there was a meeting last week on site with members of the Board of Trustees. Ms. Washington,Mr. Immerman and Mr. Jacobson were present. He said that they walked the site and talked about the issues the Board had raised, widening the sidewalk,planting trees, and effectiveness of the medial strip. Mr. Jacobson said he thought the Town Board in general felt strongly that there was an aspect to the medial strip which had to do with safety and the speed of cars, which is important. He thinks it boils down to the issue of if the sidewalk was widened, did that then preclude the possibility of medial strips in the future when they could be afforded or when they could be built by some other financial means. He thinks they came to the conclusion that if they widened the sidewalk up at the upper end of Myrtle, it wasn't quite clear how much was needed for turning lanes, etc. Mr. Jacobson said they went away having reinforced the Board's position that widening the sidewalks with trees was exceedingly important. It is still his understanding, having talked to Ms. O'Keeffe yesterday, that the Board of Trustees is divided between those who agree that it's important to widen the sidewalks in order to plant the trees and those who don't agree. That's basically where it is. Ms. Washington said that she wants to understand why it is that when this Board sees commercial tenants in the community and they come before the Board, the Board makes suggestions and they follow them. Why is it when the Board makes suggestions to the Trustees they don't feel as compelled to take BAR • guidance under consideration and why they would feel so strongly that the comments the BAR makes are not that valuable. Board of Architectural Review May 17, 2001 Page 10 • Ms. Myers said she thinks the confusion or indecision on the part of the Boards of Trustees seems to be because we've had "conflicting" information from the County and from our consultants that we paid to do a study of this area. It's three different opinions. Mr. Jacobson said since we've been having these discussions, Ms. O'Keeffe and other members of the Board have been very respective to the BAR recommendations. Mr. Jacobson said he has been very impressed. Mr. Immerman said we should go on record to say that we were invited by the Board of Trustees to participate. Mr. Jacobson said he thinks the reception was very good. Ms. Myers added something she just received today. One of the Town's Board people, Nancy Seligson, spoke with two of the principals of the consulting firm, Buckhurst, Fish, Jackhardt, who did the study of that area, the urban planning. What George Jackhardt said to Nancy, as she says in her memo, George told me that widening the sidewalks is not as effective as a median in slowing traffic. Wider sidewalks can slow traffic and have been used for such, but it is not as effective. He also says the medians were chosen because it is the best way to aid pedestrian crossing. Mr. Jacobson said part of this dilemma and the reason the Board goes over and over and over the same ground, goes back to this discussion that Ms. Seligson had with the planner. He responds by saying that widening the sidewalks are not as effective in reducing the speed of traffic as islands. Mr. Jacobson said that kind of response seems to have nothing to do with what the Board is talking about. • Ms. Myers said George Jackhardt is a traffic specialist. Mr. Jacobson said he understands that, but he is making a response that doesn't address what the Board is talking about. Ms. Myers said she also wanted to know what their opinion is on the aesthetics of wider sidewalks in that area versus medians. Mr. Jacobson asked what the response was to that. Ms. Myers said that George Jackhardt told her that widening a sidewalk is not as effective as medians in slowing traffic. Mr. Jacobson said he didn't say anything about the aesthetics. Ms. Myers said widening sidewalks to slow traffic has been used for such, but it is not as effective. He also said that medians were chosen because they are the best way. Mr. Jacobson said the question in his mind is where does the Board go from here. He asked Judy where are we and where's are we going. Ms. Myers said we are at point where we have to come to a conclusion on the issues, but we have to be able to tell the contractor on the 5th. She said she knows that Steve has a meeting set up with them shortly. 411 Ms. Washington said it is her understanding that the work they wanted to do results in a higher price and the contract is more. Ms. Myers said the Board is divided. Two people want to go wider with the sidewalks and have a skinnier median eventually when it is put in and two people are still of the opinion that we should not really widen the sidewalk,just put better trees in there and it should have a larger median in the middle. Board of Architectural Review May 17, 2001 • Page 11 Mr. Spagnola asked why that is. If the alternative plans that you've come up with allows the island to slow traffic and aid people walking across, then that part of the equation, which he assumes is the Board's decision from a functional standpoint, is solved. From the BAR standpoint, which is talking aesthetics, we have a solution here and he doesn't understand why there is still a question here. If they can pull that off, he doesn't think the sidewalk really needs to be widened down at the garage. He thinks it is a brilliant idea. It seems like you get your cake and eat it too here. If it's a matter of an aesthetics kind of choice, he thinks the BAR should definitely go with the alternative plan and there shouldn't be any more discussion. He thinks there are other discussions to have. He knows that Steve is talking about the light poles on the street and we've not really gotten a clear view as to what kind light poles we were getting and what the street furniture is like. Ms. Myers said the light poles are still pretty much the way they were. Ms. Commender said even though the Board has said very specifically that they were too ornate for the area. Ms. Myers said yes. Ms. Washington said even though they're aesthetically objectionable. Mr. Spagnola said he doesn't think we should do that here. Ms. Washington said we're spending the taxpayers' money, and ignoring the aesthetic recommendation of this Board that dutifully sits here month after month trying to make the community beautiful, setup by the • Town and being ignored by our elected officials. Mr. Jacobson said it's important to recognize that compromise is always very much a part of the civic process. We can understand why the Board of Trustees chose to go with the light fixtures for financial reasons, given the budget constraints even though the BAR would recommend against it. He said he thinks the Board does understand it. Mr. Spagnola asked if Ms. O'Keeffe is aware that the BAR never talked about light fixtures at the last meeting. Is Ms. O'Keeffe aware the BAR feels that those are not the right fixtures. Ms. Myers said yes, she thinks the whole Board knows. Mr. Jacobson said he thinks that's true, and we have spent most of our energy on the issue of the planting, sidewalks and that kind of thing. Mr. Spagnola said he thinks there is no question about what the BAR should do here. If we can move this around a bit and pull from one end to the other, everybody is going to be happy. In the long run, even those Board members who are not in favor will see the whole thing. Mr. Jacobson asked if the light poles have been purchased already. Ms. Myers said no. Mr. Jacobson asked the Board what they think about whether or not this kind of light pole makes a contribution to the neighbors or whether or not if we could accomplish what we want to accomplish with trees and sidewalks, using the existing lights is an insignificant issue. Therefore, maybe our • recommendation would be that, from an aesthetic point of view, they're really better off without having new lights because they don't help. The lights that we have are kind of a non-issue in a sense. Ms. Washington said the lights that we have are innocuous enough that they don't clash with the environment. Board of Architectural Review May 17, 2001 • Page 12 Mr. Spagnola asked if the lights are being used or added because we need more light. Mr. Jacobson said no. Mr. Spagnola said so it's an aesthetic thing. Mr. Jacobson said yes. Ms. Myers said similar to those on the Boston Post Road. Mr. Immerman said he doesn't like those. He thinks they're inappropriate on the Boston Post Road. Ms. Myers said that the Board by and large loves them. Mr. Jacobson said if we could agree that in this particular environment we don't need those kind of lights, because they convey the wrong character. It's not worth spending. It would be wrong to spend the money on them. The lighting that we have, which is understated and kind of goes away, it's just a light up there. Maybe if we make that recommendation to the Board, that would have some impact. Ms. Myers said she can do that, but it would probably he better if it came from the BAR. Mr. Jacobson said he would he happy to call Ms. O'Keeffe tomorrow. Jacobsonagreed. with which Mr. putting it in writingg Ms. Myers suggested p g 11111 Ms. Myers said to just jot a memo. If she does it, then it's her interpretation of what the BAR is saying. Mr. Jacobson said he agrees 100%. Mr. Spagnola said it would he interesting to see where they're proposing, how many and what it does to the whole lay of the street. A discussion ensued as to where they're going, with Ms. Washington saying it's like three city blocks. Ms. Myers said it's Washington Square. It's all the way down Myrtle, down Madison and up Washington Square. Ms. Myers said she thinks the total is 28. Mr. Jacobson said they're $8,000 a piece. Mr. Spagnola said it's like a goose neck on top, not just a pole at the top. Ms. Meyers said it's not a pole with the lamp on top, it curves down. It doesn't have a whole bunch of stuff, but it is fluted. Mr. Jacobson said it seems that the Board all agrees. He will call Ms. O'Keeffe and then will write. Ms. Myers said she would put it in writing. • Ms. Myers said the lights cost about $8,000 each. Ms. Myers said 28 times $8,000 is $224,000. Mr. Jacobson said that's half the budget. r - Board of Architectural Review May 17, 2001 • Page 13 Mr. Spagnola said this means on the narrow existing sidewalk or new narrow sidewalk, there would be the trees and these poles. Mr. Jacobson said not only that, he asked if that will include the electrical wiring for the lights. Mr. Carpaneto said he thinks it's just the fixture. Mr. Jacobson said that's just the fixture alone, which means between running the conduit and installing these things could be a couple thousand bucks per fixture. Half the money that's going to be spent is on these lights. Ms. Myers said because the recommendation from the County was to put in lights such as these. It's a deal to get them from this source, because it's a foundry that's already got the mold and is turning them out for the city. Ms. Washington asked if anyone priced out any other source. Ms. Myers said they did price out other alternatives. Mr. Jacobson asked if they realize that that amount of money could build the medial island. Ms. Myers said that amount of money could build them twice. She thinks the median is $90,000. Ms. Washington said she thought they were trying to solve the traffic problem. It seems to her they're • trying to solve the traffic problem and lighting problem. Mr. Immerman said there isn't a lighting problem. Ms. Washington said they're spending money on lighting aesthetics and not spending the money on the traffic problem they're trying to solve. Ms. Myers said right now no. Ms. Washington said it does seem like a misdirection of priorities. Ms. Myers said to remember that this is a County grant, and they do the planning. They were the ones that came up with these lamps and this idea. Mr. Spagnola asked couldn't we shift the monies so that we can have the island, the wider sidewalks,have all the trees and maybe dress up the islands with the type of block they use or more landscaping in them and bag the lights. Why wouldn't they consider that. It would make such an impact. Ms. Jacobson said a light of that character is not inappropriate on a street like Washington Square. Mr. Spagnola said maybe there's a different light fixture on Washington because there's a different need, or the lighting is considered because of what Mr. Jacobson just said because the scale is right. Ms. Myers said you just put those lights there on Washington Square and use the cobraheads everywhere else. • Mr. Jacobson conceivably. Mr. Spagnola said he'd compromise on that, if we could take the monies and do more with it. He said if you give them the islands they're going to be safe, traffic is going to slow down, then I'm saying on top of that build the aesthetics which would be to build the landscape more. Board of Architectural Review May 17, 2001 • Page 14 Mr. Jacobson said he will attempt to get in to see Ms. O'Keeffe tomorrow or Monday. Mr. Spagnola said he is glad the Board had this discussion about the lights, because he was looking at it as an aesthetic issue. Ms. Myers said the lights will go in and the island will go in later. Mr. Spagnola asked if we can turn the wheels around now with the contractor, to put in an island. Ms. Myers said it can be done. Mr. Spagnola thanked Ms. Myers for coming. Mr. Jacobson asked if there was any other new business. Ms. Commender said once again that Castro Convertible and the parking lot at Blockbuster, the planting that was promised hasn't been installed yet. Mr. Carpaneto asked about Castro Convertible. Ms. Commender said the Castro sign needed planting around the base of the sign. Mr. Carpaneto said he sent a memo and Castro Convertible said that the planting would be coming in the Spring. • Ms. Washington said now it's almost June. Mr. Carpaneto said they took the sign down up on the top. Ms. Commender continued saying they removed that and they were going to plant around the base of the sign. Also, in the parking lot at Blockbuster, they reconfigured the whole thing. There was a little island in there, that's supposed to have Junipers or some sort of planting in it. Also, there's a pine tree by the street and it was supposed to he grassed in. None of that's been done. Mr. Carpaneto said he thinks there's a problem with the planting island. They were driving over it with the big SUV's. What he wants to do there is put in a Bradford Pear in the island. Mr. Jacobson said a tree would be great. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the BAR will be held on June 21, 2001. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Ms. Commender, seconded by Mr. Jacobson, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:30 p.m. 72-7 7202L4_ • Marguerite Ci/ina, Recording Secretary