Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001_01_18 Board of Architectural Review Minutes • AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 18, 2001, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK - 1 Chairman Present: Edward Z. Jacobson, Sue Ellen Commender Pamela T. Washington RECEIVED E. Robert Wassman HAY 21 2001 Absent: Robert M. Immerman MTRICIAA DiC10CG0 Anthony Spagnola • TOWN CLERK MAMARONECK N. Also Present: Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building & Judith Myers, Liaison CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jacobson at 8:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Jacobson asked if the Board had reviewed the November 16, 2000 draft Minutes and if there were any • amendments. There being none, on a motion made by Mr. Wassman, seconded by Ms. Commender, the Minutes of the November 16, 2000 meeting were unanimously approved as submitted. Chairman Jacobson read the application as follows: MAMARONECK GARDENS/Yannuzzi - Palmer Avenue - Block 408, Lot 290 -sign (adjourned 9/21/00 to 11/16/00;11/16/00;12/21/00) Ms. Raffa, appeared to represent Mamaroneck Gardens. Mr. Jacobson asked Ms. Raffa to bring the Board up-to-date on this matter, because she was before the Board some time ago, October 2000. At that time, the sign was a little large. Ms. Raffa said the sign was a little large and they didn't have colors. She said now the designer has made changes. Mr. Jacobson asked the size of the new sign, compared with the size of the old one. Ms. Raffa said it is a tad higher than the man standing, so the dimensions there are 84, right to left. Mr. Jacobson said the Board couldn't make out the height. There was nothing that helped them do so. Mr. Carpaneto said it is about 6 ft. Ms. Raffa said they have up to 431/2, but that is actually three-quarters of the sign. Mr. Jacobson said the last time the Board talked about this, there was a limit to the size of the sign that • had to do with zoning requirements. • Board of Architectural Review January 18, 2001 Page 2 • Mr. Carpaneto said they will need to go to the Zoning Board for a variance for this application. Mr. Jacobson said he thinks they are only allowed something like 3 sq. ft. and asked if that was correct. Mr. Carpaneto said yes. Mr. Jacobson informed Ms. Raffa that she has to go for a zoning variance to have a sign as large as proposed, and asked if Ms. Raffa is aware of that. Ms. Raffa said she didn't think so. She thinks what they were trying to do was appease the BAR, get accepted and go on from there. She thinks somewhere along the line they misunderstood one another. Mr. Jacobson said the sign code requirements set a limit of 3 sq. ft. and said it has to be verified,because they haven't double checked it. He said it is a limit of 3 sq. ft. for Ms. Raffa's kind of property. After some discussion, Mr. Jacobson said he wants Ms. Raffa to understand what the legal requirements are before we discuss the design. Ms. Raffa asked if they got the variance. Mr. Carpaneto said no, they got the Notice of Disapproval for the size of the sign. He said after the BAR, she has to proceed to the Zoning Board. Ms. Raffa asked if that is also here. • Mr. Carpaneto said it may be here or upstairs. He said he will let her know after this evening, how to proceed with the application. Mr. Jacobson said the Board has the sign application and they would then make a recommendation to the Zoning Board, since the Zoning Board has the primary responsibility and power to approve this in terms of the size. The BAR's area of responsibility is also size, but more about what it looks like. Ms. Raffa said they couldn't paint wood for her, but had samples of the closest they could get of the burgundy and gold. The gold would be between the letters. She said the Board had asked that they change the letters, which they did. Mr. Wassman asked if there is still a hedge in front of this. Ms. Raffa said no. Mr. Jacobson said the Board still has a difficult task in a way to imagine what this sign is going to look like in scale in that area. Ms. Commender said she went over, looked at it and measured it. She said if the Board looks at the picture. the bottom of the sign would probably be above the fence. It's almost like a billboard. She said it fills up the entire corner. After some discussion, Mr. Jacobson said the Board is obviously uncomfortable with something this large sitting on that corner. Mr. Jacobson said the sense of this Board is that this sign is still much too large. It would be much too • imposing on that corner. • Board of Architectural Review January 18, 2001 Page 3 • Mr. Carpaneto asked if there was some type of direction possibly or size that the Board could advise. Ms. Commender said she would prefer to see it much lower. Mr. Jacobson said he is trying to give Ms. Raffa a recommendation that would be helpful. He said a monument sign is a maximum height of 6 ft. and a maximum area of 30 sq. ft. Mr. Carpaneto said it is 6 ft. above the ground. Mr. Jacobson said with that in mind,wouldn't they think that perhaps those are reasonable guidelines that should be looked into. Mr. Wassman said there are a lot of commercial properties around which have monument signs and they are limited to those dimensions. It saves them going to the Zoning Board. He thinks they should try to conform to these size limitations. Mr. Carpaneto said it is 30 sq.ft. Mr. Jacobson said it is 6 ft. high and a maximum of 30 sq. ft. He said in Ms. Raffa's case, he'd want to say that the 30 sq. ft. would include the area under the sign. Mr. Jacobson said the Board is accepting the design concept as presented. He said he thinks it looks quite nice with the posts on the side, but he wouldn't want to think that the sign itself would end up being 30 sq. ft. • Ms. Washington said if it was only 6 ft. wide and 5 ft. high, this would be better. Ms. Raffa said that would be no problem. Ms. Commender said she thinks it would look better at that size. Mr. Jacobson asked if the Board feels that 5 ft. high and 6 ft. wide, as an envelope, would be acceptable. Ms. Commender said yes. Mr. Carpaneto asked Ms. Raffa to have the sign company call him for any clarification. Ms. Washington said as long as Mr. Carpaneto received a scaled drawing and thought it matched the criteria the Board was after, she doesn't see why Ms. Raffa has to come back before the Board as long as Mr. Carpaneto thinks that the Board's ideas are being met. Mr. Jacobson asked one of the Board to put this in the form of a motion. Regarding the approved sign, Ms. Commender said she thinks it would look better if it just said managing agent with a phone number under it. Then if there's a problem, the phone number can be changed. Mr. Wassman asked why they have to go to the expense of repeating their identity, Prime Locations, Inc. All a person needs to know is the managing agent's telephone number. Ms. Raffa said part of it was so that the 300 families that are there will know who they must call when they have to call. • Ms. Commender said it says Managing Agent, with the phone number. Ms. Raffa said this was not a problem before, so they didn't address it. • Board of Architectural Review January 18, 2001 Page 4 . Mr. Jacobson said that is a small point. His concern is largely with the scale of the sign. Mr. Wassman said they do not want it cluttered up more than necessary. Mr. Wassman suggested including the Managing Agent's telephone number 4 inches by 24 inches which would be in scale with the rest of the sign. Mr. Jacobson asked that this be included in a motion, which covers the required change in dimensions and that matter of the managing agent, etc. On a motion made by Mr. Wassman, seconded by Ms. Washington, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Louise F. Yannuzzi/Mamaroneck Gardens, Inc. has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to erect a standing sign by exterior lamps; 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, Louise F. Yannuzzi/Mamaroneck Gardens, Inc. 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. Subject to the following dimensional requirements and the approval of the colors as submitted. a: The dimensions to be 6 ft. 0 inches wide, by 5 ft. 0 inches high,with a separate tag line below, identifying the managing agent's, Woods, telephone number on one line. Chairman Jacobson read the next application as follows: DUNIflN DONUTS/Patsis- 1311 Boston Post Road-Block 12,Lot 288-facade(adjourned 11/16/00;12/21/00) Hecham(Al)Elnaial from Design Group Architectura appeared to address the Board. Mr. Jacobson said some of the Board members had a very difficult time reading the elevations, because they're flat. Also, the new set of plans doesn't include a site plan. Mr. Elnaial said he thinks his client has an updated survey, but he doesn't have it. He does have an old survey. Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Elnaial to proceed. Ms. Washington asked if Mr. Elnaial had any samples of materials and colors. • Mr. Elnaial said they lost communication with this client. About two or three months ago his client called asking for finishing material samples and they were provided. He said he thought Mr. Carpaneto had them. • Board of Architectural Review January 18, 2001 Page 5 III Mr. Elnaial said basically the client will be removing the mansard roof and building a parapet with the new painted metal siding wrapped all around the building. Mr. Jacobson said the base the existing building is largely brick facing out to the street, with which Mr. Elnaial agreed. Mr. Jacobson asked about the new color scheme, the colors of these new roof fascia panels are plum and orange and white, and asked Mr. Elnaial to help the Board understand this. Ms. Washington asked about the color in the photograph, which Mr. Elnaial described as grayish. Mr. Washington asked what is the color "Paris" that is below. Mr. Elnaial said that is a magenta. Mr. Elnaial said they intend to clean up the existing brick outside and then paint with the Paris color. Mr. Jacobson said one of the problems he has with this proposal for the Dunkin Donuts sign is that we don't have any information on it. The Board doesn't know whether it is back lit or what it is. He said there's an awning here over nothing and asked if he is right about that. The awning that projects below the Dunkin Donuts sign doesn't extend out over an entrance or anything. Mr. Elnaial said it is part of their image to have an awning attached to this fascia panel, which has a sign on top of it. Mr. Jacobson said the fascia panel that the sign is set on and the awning, etc., don't make sense to him. • Mr. Elnaial asked if he is talking about the shroud, with which Mr. Jacobson agreed. Ms. Washington said in this case the shroud is larger and extends above the fascia, the top of the roof line he is creating. Ms. Commender said it doesn't really meet the code. After further discussion, Mr. Jacobson said the question is whether or not the shroud behind the sign is really part of the sign or not. It has been argued that it isn't part of the sign, and the sign is simply the Dunkin Donuts. Mr. Elnaial said the shroud is not part of the sign. He said that the sign can also be mounted on the new parapet. Basically they like to do this over the vestibule area, to give it concentration on the main entrance. Mr. Jacobson said he wished the whole thing were toned down. Having a simpler fascia as opposed to this imitation roof would be an improvement. Ms. Commender said it is still a fake material. Ms. Washington said it is now more garish. This shroud has a kind of a garish shape and this fascia has a lot of garish colors in it. After some discussion, Mr. Jacobson said this design must be toned down. • Ms. Commender said there is a Dunkin Donuts in Scarsdale. It's brick, it's painted, it has an entrance and a good deal of plants indicating that Dunkin Donuts does vary their design. • Board of Architectural Review January 18, 2001 Page 6 • Mr. Jacobson said he is trying to find a way to summarize this. He thinks it is clear to the Board that the new look of the building is not acceptable. The Board is looking for something significantly more subdued, if not maintaining the respective aspects of the existing building. Mr. Wassman said he can sympathize with the corporation wanting to change their image and if they can't change it, they keep it as it is. When they have to make a change, this is what they have chosen. Mr. Wassman asked if this is a standard color scheme for Dunkin Donuts. Mr. Elnaial said yes. Mr. Elnaial said if he asked the Board for suggestions, what would they be. Ms. Washington said keep what's there. Mr. Elnaial said the mansard has to be removed, because it's too old. Mr. Jacobson agreed. Ms. Washington said to consider doing something that is more like what's there. Mr. Elnaial asked if the Board thinks the parapet is an issue here. Is the major concern the colors. He asked if there is any objection over the parapet. The Board indicated yes. • After some discussion, Ms. Commender asked if the mansard roof could be reshingled and use real shingles. Mr. Elnaial said he would have to put that in writing to them for approval. Basically the Board just asked a technical question. If there are any questions regarding design or color, he will address it to them. Ms. Commender said the Dunkin Donuts in Scarsdale has real shingles. Ms. Washington said they were going to paint everything beige and turn the red brick building into a beige building. Mr. Jacobson said the existing brick is attractive. It has somewhat of a residential quality to it as opposed to a commercial quality. Mr. Wassman said this parapet isn't as busy as it's drawn here. According to what Ms. Washington explained to him, this parapet is a combination of ribbed panels. Mr. Jacobson said and that panel is ribbed and there are no joints. Mr. Jacobson asked the Board to try to focus on what this building looks like. He said from his point of view, he can't find a way to say more than the present building has a residential quality to it that makes it fit comfortably in its setting. Mr.Jacobson's preference would be for them to come back with something that reflects that. Mr. Jacobson can't tell them specifically how to do that. He said he knows that the existing roof parapet probably needs replacing, because it is beaten up in places. He can only give a general guideline as to the qualities he would like to see them come back with. • Ms. Washington said she would also like to see the elevation reflect every door, because the doors are the markers and their elevations don't show them. Board of Architectural Review January 18, 2001 Page 7 • Ms. Washington said it would be helpful if there was a plan that said elevation "A", elevation "B", elevation "C", elevation "D", elevation "E" and they were each called out. A discussion followed regarding the clarity of the drawings. Mr. Jacobson said he didn't think this discussion was particularly productive. It is his recommendation that the Board give the applicant some basic direction in terms of the quality of the visual aspects of the building that the Board would like to see retained and have them come back and do that. Beyond what he has said, he thinks the Board tends to like the look of the brick, would like to see the brick retained as is without painting it, and beyond that would like to see what they come back with. Mr. Elnaial said the Board has to give him suggestions. It appears there are two points of concern to the Board; the finishing material, or the colors, or both. Ms. Washington said both. It is the shape that Mr. Elnaial is trying to make the building into and it is the colors that Mr. Elnaial is applying to the shape. Ms. Washington said she is just saying what's of interest to the Board is the minimal number of colors that will get the point across in the most low-keyed way. Everybody in Town knows where this Dunkin Donuts is and all love it dearly. It's not like they don't know how to get there. Mr. Jacobson asked if there were any more recommendations from the Board. He said what Ms. Washington stated was really well said. He asked if the Board wants to mention planting or somebody doing something about that chain link fence that is falling apart. 1111 Mr. Carpaneto said the main focus is the building lot now. Mr.Jacobson said what he would recommend to Mr. Elnaial now, is that when he comes back to the Board to give these other things some thought, because he may in fact be able to get approval on a whole host of things. Mr. Jacobson said if he does come back and they do approve the building and Mr. Elnaial hasn't dealt with some of these other things, the Board will ask Mr. Elnaial to come for that; lighting-if Mr. Elnaial is going to change the way the building is illuminated. That's a very important issue to the Board. What does the building look like at night. Mr. Elnaial must also come back with something about the sign construction. Mr. Elnaial asked if the Board means sign construction in terms of mounting the sign. Mr. Jacobson said to show how the sign is lit, what material it is, what is it going to look like at night, is it internally illuminated, etc. After some discussion, Mr. Jacobson said the Board wants to understand what it's going to look like and sometimes knowing how it's put together helps the Board to understand that. Mr. Elnaial asked if the Town would have any objection over the shape of the characters on the sign. He said the new focus of Dunkin Donuts now is they changed the shape of the angled things since it's going toward the new theory of design. He asked if Mr. Jacobson thinks that the Town will have an objection over having the parapet around. They probably now will deal with possibly stucco materials applied to that parapet. Does he tell them the Town wants to have the mansard or can we do this. It has happened to him in different Towns, where they said the colors were too much, let's go sort of stucco materials. 1111 Ms. Commender said she personally would prefer to see shingles. Mr. Elnaial said shingles don't say I'm meant to be a vertical material. Shingles say I'm an angle material. Board of Architectural Review January 18, 2001 Page 8 • Mr. Jacobson said if it is going to say roof, then it has to have a slope to it. He was thinking about Mr. Elnaial's comment on stucco. If the brick was kept, he doesn't quite see how the stucco on the fascia works with that. He thinks they have to apply some material that says roof. Mr. Jacobson said on the Post Road they have a lot of stucco and he is thinking more of the image and stability. If there is a brick base to this thing, stucco being above it doesn't seem to make any sense at all. Mr. Jacobson said the image of what's above the brick needs to appear as though it's a roof. Therefore, if it is simply a vertical plain with something applied to it, it will just appear to be awkward. Mr. Wassman asked what it should be then. Mr. Jacobson said he doesn't know if Mr. Elnaial has any alternatives, but to make this slope like a mansard. Mr. Wassman said and the material will be what. Mr. Jacobson said it has to be something that says roof. He said there are artificial materials in those particular shapes that hold up. He said they have to do something in a modern material. Mr. Wassman said these on the existing mansard roof are not real, but thinks they still can be successful. Mr. Jacobson said he doesn't think we can offer anymore. Mr. Jacobson said the application is rejected. The Board would like them to come back with some alternatives. Mr. Elnaial asked if they can get anything in writing in terms of a recommendation. Mr. Carpaneto said he can get a copy of the Minutes after they are approved. Mr. Elnaial said they probably will propose something with the shape of mansard and will do prospective drawings to help visualize the design. Mr. Jacobson said that will be extremely helpful. Mr. Elnaial said they will probably do something with the surroundings and how this thing's going to blend with it. Ms. Commender said also a sample of the material. Mr. Jacobson asked if there was any other new business before the Board. Mr. Wassman said he has some old business. Mr. Wassman asked if anything has developed on Augie's. Mr. Carpaneto said nothing has developed on Augie's, but there are some developments on Castro Convertible. He said the sign has been taken down on the side of the parking lot,and said there is a letter that will be put in the file. He said they're going to landscape in the Spring. There was some landscaping around the sign, but not quite what the Board had asked for. As soon as the weather breaks, they are going to do that. Ms. Washington said Mr. Novack's parking lot is a big success. • Mr. Carpaneto said Mr. Novack had to make a little change on the island that the Board was very concerned with, only because when a vehicle/truck tries to back in it couldn't make the turn. So he had to reduce the little tail on the end. r Board of Architectural Review January 18, 2001 Page 9 • NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the BAR will be held on February 15, 2001. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned 9:05 p.m. 2/1 aro /fir Marguerite Roma"'ecording Secretary • 4111