Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001_04_19 Board of Architectural Review Minutes , • AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK APRIL 19, 2001, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Edward Z. Jacobson, Chairman Sue Ellen Commender p .+ Robert M. Immerman '4- Anthony Spagnola .4> Pamela T. Washington N. F '9/0/ F/jb Absent: E. Robert Wassman 0 '?1? 4" KAI AN, 41474,4 ,0re Also Present: Kevin T. Moore, Assistant Building Inspector .�! Noy 4. Judith Myers, Liaison 4/ 9 10 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jacobson at 8:07 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Jacobson asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the meeting of February • 15, 2001. Ms. Commender said that during that meeting she had made the suggestion that for any plantings that were chosen for the Myrtle Boulevard project, they pick assorted trees, so that they don't always use the same tree in case there is a blight that wipes out all the trees. She had also made mention of the fact that the Board had reviewed an application last year for The Flood Insurance Company, which Mr. Jacobson said the Board did, trees were taken down and they haven't been replanted. Mr. Jacobson said he thought there was only one to be replanted at the corner. Ms. Commender said that now all three are gone. All the trees are removed. That was something that needed to be addressed. She said also in discussion about changing the sidewalk width on Myrtle, they had also talked about changing the sidewalk width on Madison across from the New York Sports Club. Ms. Commender said those are the three things she wanted added. Mr. Jacobson asked if Mr. Spagnola had anything else to add. Mr. Spagnola said he had nothing to add. After some discussion and corrections noted, on a motion made by Ms. Commender, seconded by Mr. Spagnola, the Amended Minutes of February 15, 2001 were unanimously approved. Mr. Jacobson informed those present that the following application will not be appearing this evening. He said that he had mentioned to the secretary that if new material is not received from the applicants, they shouldn't be put on the agenda for that coming meeting: 0 Board of Architectural Review April 19, 2001 Page 2 • DUNHIN DONUTS/Patsis- 1311 Boston Post Road-Block 12,Lot 288-facade(adjourned 11/16/00;12/21/00; 1/18/01;3/15/01) Chairman Jacobson read the next application as follows: SUMMIT PHYSICAL THERAPY/Kieren Traymor - 1420 Boston Post Road - Block 409, Lot 131 - facade; sign (3/15/01) Kieren Traymor was present, representing Summit Physical Therapy. Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Traymor to take the Board through the revised proposal submitted. Mr. Traymor said he has four (4) window signs, which are represented in the diagram. He also has a lettered sign with dimensions on the plan, individual letters, that are going to go across the face of the building. He also has a sign by the front door, with the measurements on the plan as well. He said he will also be planting more shrubs by the front of the door, with more of the planting to take place on the left side, or the right side if you're entering the building toward the parking lot. Mr. Jacobson asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board. Ms. Commender asked what color will the sign be. Mr. Traymor said the signs are all black. Ms. Commender said this isn't a decal, it's a sign. • Mr. Traymor said it's a decal. Mr. Spagnola said on the windows it's a decal, because there were etchings on the windows from the prior owner. Ms. Commender said when she drove by, it was white behind the signs. Mr. Spagnola said the reason is the sign that it is covering on the window is etched into the glass. Mr. Traymor said that's why he had to do it in white. Ms. Commender asked where the front door is. Mr. Traymor said the front door is at the right end of the building. There's going to be a sign right next to the front door with the number of the building. Ms. Washington said it won't be lit except as indicated by the two bracket mounted lights. Mr. Traymor said that's right. Ms. Washington asked if they're open at night. Mr. Traymor said they're open until 8:00 p.m. Mr. Immerman asked if he intends to have two Colonial lanterns that somebody drew here. • Mr. Traymor said no,he isn't planning on having that. He did not ask that this be drawn. He said he has two (2) light fixtures which are right above the door, the spotlights. That's all he's really planned on having. Board of Architectural Review April 19, 2001 Page 3 . Mr. Spagnola asked if the building has yet been painted on the outside. Mr. Traymor said it has been painted white. Mr. Jacobson asked if there were any other questions. Ms. Commender asked if this is the old entrance. Mr. Traymor pointed out where the old entrance had been. After some discussion, Mr. Jacobson asked Ms. Washington if she had any other comments. Ms. Washington said she thinks it's fine. Mr. Spagnola asked what color the pin mounted letters are. Mr. Traymor said the letters are black. Ms. Washington said she hopes he is successful, to put more business there and maintain what's there. Mr. Traymor said hopefully they'll last. On a motion made by Mr. Immerman, seconded by Ms. Washington, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED as amended: • WHEREAS, Summit Physical Therapy/Kieren Traymor has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to a dome awning above the entry door with side lights and a 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, Summit Physical Therapy/Kieren Traymor 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 APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The application is accepted as amended. The two (2) light fixtures as shown on the outside of the entrance door are not intended to be included. Ms. Commender said they might want to put a soaker hose out for the bushes, a $20.00 item. Mr. Immerman explained that it's a hose that has holes in it and puts the water out at a slow rate. • Ms. Washington suggested buying a dial that turns the water on and off on a regular basis. Chairman Jacobson read the next application as follows: Board of Architectural Review April 19, 2001 Page 4 1111 PSPA OF STS. JOHN & PAUL CHURCH/Karen G. Corrigan - 280 Weaver Street - Block 217, Lot 1 - sign No one was present to represent Sts. John& Paul Church. Chairman Jacobson read the next application as follows: NEXTEL OF NEW YORK, INC. - 811D Richbell Road - 811D Richbell Road -Block 408, Lot 86 - Public Utility Facility Cara Bonomolo, an attorney with Snyder & Snyder, appeared representing Nextel of New York, Inc. Mr. Jacobson made some general comments stating the Board's roll in this is to make judgments about the aesthetics, not the technology. Ms. Bonomolo said as the Board may be aware Nextel is proposing to install a wireless communications facility on the roof of the existing building at 811D Richbell Road. The facility consists of the placement of twelve(12)small panel antennas and a 200 sq. ft. equipment shelter on the roof of the existing building. Ms. Bonomolo said that Nextel currently has an application before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a use variance and a height variance in connection with the facility. She said last month, on March 28, 2001, the Zoning Board passed a Negative Declaration in connection with the application and determined that there would be no significant environmental affect. They also directed the Town Attorney to draft an approval resolution. However, they did request some guidance from this Board, specifically with respect to the exterior finish of the equipment shelter. • Ms. Bonomolo said that Nextel has agreed to either finish the equipment shelter with a metal finish to match the existing penthouse adjacent to the proposed location,or with a brick facade to match the existing brick of the building, of which she had samples. The Board reviewed the samples Ms. Bonomolo had. Ms. Bonomolo pointed out the existing penthouse and the proposed equipment shelter, finished to match this existing penthouse. She said at the request of the Zoning Board, Nextel has added fake windows to the equipment shelter to keep with the architecture of the building and the existing penthouses on the roof. She said they also changed the location of the equipment shelter moving it away from the edge of the roof more to the center of the building, so that it's less visible. Ms. Commender asked if there is any lighting. Ms. Bonomolo said on the equipment shelter there is a 100 watt light bulb right above the entrance that operates by motion detector, for the monthly maintenance visits. That's the only lighting that's involved. Mr. Jacobson asked if the location of the equipment shelter as shown on the plan is where it was moved to. Ms. Bonomolo said that's where it was moved to by the recommendation of the Zoning Board. Mr. Immerman asked if that's what is shown in the photographs, with which Ms. Bonomolo agreed. • Mr. In-merman asked if she brought a sample. Ms. Bonomolo said she has a paint chip that matches. It's really a brown, but when it was photocopied it looks a little purplish. • Board of Architectural Review April 19, 2001 Page 5 • Mr. Jacobson asked if her intention is to match the color of the brick. Ms. Bonomolo said the penthouse that's up there now is a metal siding and it's painted brown. Ms. Commender asked if it just has the one window in it, or are there going to be windows to match this line. Ms. Bonomolo said it has the one window here to match this line of windows. The equipment shelter only extends to here, so there's no room to put these wider windows on the shelter on this side. Mr. Spagnola said if that window serves no functional purpose for your activity, then probably our recommendation would be that it is not necessary. Ms. Washington said as far as this Board is concerned, it is not needed. Ms. Bonomolo said it is something that the Zoning Board requested. She thinks when they were inclined to grant the variance, it was after they had made that change. She said if they look, the existing penthouses on the building also have windows. To match those penthouses, that's why they wanted the windows. She said on this side they went with the wider windows, to match the windows nearby. Ms. Commender said it looks more like a penthouse rather than a shed if it has a window on it, even though it's looking up. Ms. Washington said she is sure it will be fine either way. • Mr. Immerman said it's not harmful. It's a waste of money. Mr. Immerman said he would like to comment on the material. He would suggest that it ought to be like the neighboring penthouse in the metal, rather than making it brick. Mr. Spagnola said he would agree with that. Ms. Bonomolo said that is what's shown on the plans and also on the visual that the Board has before them. On a motion made by Ms. Washington, seconded by Mr. Spagnola and unanimously approved, the BAR recommended to the Zoning Board that they approve the application with the metal structure,not the brick facade as shown on the drawings. Mr. Immerman commended Ms. Bonomolo on the professional nature of her presentation. Ms. Bonomolo thanked Mr. Immerman. Mr. Immerman said it was very much easier to understand it. Ms. Bonomolo again thanked Mr. Immerman. Mr. Jacobson said that Sts. John&Paul has not arrived to present their application. He asked if there was any other new business before the Board. • Mr. Spagnola said he had a question relative to the plan on Myrtle Boulevard. He asked what is the status of new design, based on Board comments, budgets. etc. Ms. Myers said they bid out the job minus the median islands,because it was an additional$90,000.which they, the Town, don't have. f Board of Architectural Review April 19, 2001 Page 6 • Ms. Myers said the Board is still very interested in pursuing that, the Fire Department is very hesitant about it, because they are not sure they could get trucks in there. Ms. Myers said since they didn't bid that part of the job, it's not crucial that they come to a decision about that right now. Plus, the individual who purchased all of the properties around the Sports Club is now starting to take his show on the road and talk to residents in the area. He is going to be holding different sessions for people to come and talking about what he wants to do. Mr. Jacobson said this Board felt very strongly that the alternative of widening the sidewalk was much preferable to the median islands. That's one important point we ought not lose sight of. The other is, without either, what is the plan? Ms. Myers said they did discuss it two Board meetings ago, and the feeling was still that people preferred the median rather than the big wide sidewalk. 1 Mr. Jacobson asked which people she is referring to? After some discussion, Mr. Jacobson asked if it was the Board of Trustees, with which Ms. Myers agreed. Mr. Jacobson said he thinks Ms. Myers ought to advise the Board of Trustees that this Board feels very strongly that that would be preferable. They absolutely need to know that. Ms. Myers said it would answer the fire concern. Mr. Spagnola said budget wise, it's not going to cost nearly as much as the median. It's going to cost • more than not doing anything, of course. It's very interesting, because after Mr. Jacobson suggested it at the meeting,all the Board drove it. Our gut feeling, from a design point of view,was that was the right way. We have to trust our gut feelings. That's as a rule what we do for a living. It's really too wide. It's really ugly, quite honestly. The medium in the middle would help it, but if they don't do that for fire truck reasons, development reasons, you might as well leave it the way it is. Aesthetically, the thing is still going to remain ugly after doing all that work. All Board members feel really strongly that they should see a plan with the sidewalk widened. Ms. Myers said the problem is that there is also a concern that they are going to need that for parking as they widen the sidewalk and have parking in there. There is still the idea of diagonal parking, even though they've been advised that it will be very dangerous. Mr. Spagnola asked if there will still be room to park on both sides with widening the sidewalk. Mr. Jacobson said he thinks there is parking on both sides now. Ms. Myers said it certainly is not finished. There was one reason that they had to move quickly. They were going to lose the grant, if they didn't spend it this year. It was a $200,000. grant. That's paying for the new sidewalk and the new lighting, benches and trash receptacles. Mr. Jacobson said the Board has a dilemma here. The dilemma is this lack of being in sync with the Board of Trustees and the BAR in terms of what ought to happen there. He gathers since there aren't going to be medial islands, he thinks they're going to end up with new sidewalks along the shops and street lights. This is going to preclude widening the sidewalks ever. Mr. Spagnola said whoever developed that plan the Board saw with the islands, should develop a plan that • shows that same exact plan without the islands and then another plan with the sidewalk on the south side widened so the Board really can see it. You can't judge just putting your hand over that island and say it will look fine. He said they're not doing justice to what's very important. • Board of Architectural Review April 19, 2001 Page 7 • Ms. Washington said what's the point of spending money on park benches if you can't walk in front of it or behind it. Mr. Spagnola said there are drainage issues that were mentioned when they had the presentation. He assumes there are functional issues that have to be tackled. Aesthetically, if they don't do that island and don't widen the walk, it's going to look just like it does now. Mr. Immerman asked what is the window on the $200,000. Ms. Myers said it's been bid out. Ms. Washington said there's nothing that says you can't change the bid. Ms. Myers agreed. Ms. Washington said they haven't entered into a contract with anybody yet, have you. Ms. Myers said they have accepted a bid from a contractor. Ms. Washington said to do the scope of work she is describing that doesn't include widening the sidewalk. Ms. Myers said they can go back and change the specs of the job, definitely. Ms. Washington said as a taxpayer in this community, she would say Ms. Myers is not serving her well for not listening to the BAR. She appreciates that Ms. Myers is spending the money and not losing the • grant, but it doesn't seem like she's spending the money wisely. Ms. Myers said she went back to the Board with the BAR comments the night they met with the BAR and Mr. Altieri was there too. The rest of the Board members said they don't want large sidewalks. She said she told them she thought the BAR felt very strongly about it and Steve's feeling was that the BAR didn't feel that strongly about it. Mr. Jacobson said he called Mr. Altieri after Mr. Spagnola and he spoke and told him very specifically that they did feel very strongly about it. Mr. Jacobson said when using the term widening the sidewalk, it does not accurately describe what the Board is talking about. Mr. Jacobson said it's adding a place for planting the trees. Mr. Jacobson said the BAR needs to have some feedback on this. Mr. Immerman said the plan should be revised. Ms. Washington said it needs to be two weeks from now so that it gets distributed to the Board in a timely fashion, so the Board can review it. Mr. Spagnola said he would like to catch up. He said as Mr. Jacobson said he thinks the Board can react to a drawing plan at the meeting if the Board doesn't have the luxury of two weeks before, as they are familiar with the street. After further discussion, Ms. Myers said this is a Federal grant that comes through the County. It is a community development block grant through the County. They're the ones who develop what it will look like. After some discussion, Mr. Immerman said the church wasn't present this evening, but if somebody can communicate with them before they come back, and Mr. Jacobson agrees with him, that the sign is huge, it's.gigantic. It 7 ft. across and over 6 ft. high. It would be well for them to consider scaling it down. Board of Architectural Review April 19, 2001 Page 8 • Mr. Spagnola said it doesn't need to be that big. He said there's no air space between the bottom thing and the top. It's just like this flat wall. Ms. Commender said she thought it was Town property, where the sign is positioned. Mr. Jacobson said he is wondering if a sign of similar size or smaller can really be put so close to the roadway. Mr. Moore said the highway has criteria about how close it can be and can't be. Ms. Washington said the residences are going to look at it. It's not far enough down on their property to be across the street from the firehouse. All the residents are going to be staring at it every day. Mr. Jacobson asked if signs are allowed to be in the front yard setback of the building? Mr. Moore said they're supposed to be back in the front yard setback. Depending on what zone district it's in and wherever it is, it has to be back that distance and made reference to various cases. Mr. Jacobson said that this sign is a few feet from the street. Mr. Moore said he will get details on that. Ms. Commender said the Board also needs to see, a little more exactly, along this length where the sign is going to go. It can't be figured out from the information provided. • Ms. Washington said send in an accurate scaled drawing locating the sign in relationship to the property. Mr. Jacobson said he didn't think the Board needed to go further with this application, at this point. Mr. Jacobson said if there is no additional new business, on a motion made by Ms. Commender, seconded by Ms. Washington, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this matter be, and hereby is, adjourned to the May 17, 2001 meeting. Ms. Myers said she will get that information to the Board for that meeting. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the BAR will be held on May 17, 2001. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:56 p.m. 2) k 'cai -&G Marguerite Rota, Recording Secretary •