Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003_09_18 Board of Architectural Review Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK SEPTEMBER 18, 2003, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: E. Robert Wassman, Chairman Sue Ellen Commender Robert M. Immerman Anthony Spagnola Ronnie Wadler Pamela T. Washington Judith Myers, Liaison CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wassman called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Wassman said we would first attend to the approval of minutes. After some discussion, on a motion made by Ms. Washington, seconded by Ms. Wader the minutes of July 30, 2003 were unanimously approved as amended. On a motion made by Ms. Washington, seconded by Mr. Immerman, the July 2, 2003 minutes were unanimously approved as drafted. On a motion made by Ronnie Wadler, seconded by Mr. Spagnola the Minutes of June 19, 2003 were unanimously approved as drafted. Mr. Wassman read the next order of business as follows: DISCUSSION - "DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PROPERTIES IN CERTAIN NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK" LAW Mr. Wassman explained that Mr. Carpaneto was unable to attend the meeting this evening due to an emergency at home. He then stated there would be a discussion of the Design Requirements and would like everyone to offer suggestions. Mr. Wassman said Mr. Carpaneto's comments are as follows: 240-44— H —paragraph (1)(b) should read -"Demolition or razing of all or a portion of a structured exterior." 240-44H (1)(f)- Change of use- should read, "When a change of use involves any of the above listed items, (a)through (e)"that we should have review of it only when the change refers to those items preceding (d) through (c). Board of Architectural Review September 18, 2003 Page 2 240-44H(3)- (a)and (b) should be the responsibility of the Planning Board. In this document, it is listed as being the responsibility of the Board of Architectural Review. 240-44H (4)(a) - primary structures should be placed as close as practicable to the front yard line setback. This should be the responsibility of the Planning Board. 240-44H(5)(a)- should be the responsibility of the Planning Board, except where there is a sufficient reason not to do so, including but not limited to a demonstration by the applicant that it cannot coordinate internal parking lot circulation for its property with the parking area on the adjacent lot; no lot shall be allowed more than one curb cut. Internal parking lot circulation shall be encouraged between adjoining lots. Mr. Carpaneto's last comment is 240-44H(7)(a)-This is good. I presume you all spotted this one too. It states that for the signs, the following provisions shall be applied. Our response to it . . . the sign shall be mounted on a pole. Signs shall be wall signs, projecting signs or hanging signs. Mr. Carpaneto asked, what happened to monument signs? Mr. Wassman said that's page two of the letter. We juxtapose Article 7 with law, you will all see, that no design parodies were proposed for the light industrial districts. The reason for this omission is that the only land located in the L-1 District is the Town Yard. Mr. Immerman asked, what if a developer(i.e. or e.g. Forest City Daly) made an offer to buy the Town Yard and the Town Council couldn't refuse? That's the Town Council's problem. Mr. Wassman said, now the next comment; 240-44H(4)(b)-why limit the glazing to clear'? This paragraph sites clear glazing. Mr. Spagnola read 240-44H(4)(B): "At least 40% of the primary structure's front elevation at street level shall be window, with clear glazing." Mr. Wassman said 240-44H(4)(c) states, "wrapped corners should also be in harmonious relationship to both street adjacencies as in (f)." Mr. Spagnola said 2H(4)(e)- states,"applicants are encouraged to arrange multiple structures on a single lot so that structure facades are generally parallel to the frontage property lines along existing streets and proposed interior streets." The fact that they should be parallel is not necessarily the best design depending on someone's concept for a complex. Mr. Wassman said 240-44(2)H-(6)(b)2a. -'The landscaped perimeter strip shall be a minimum of five feet." Mr. Wassman said that's to be corrected to be that 6B(2)(a) shall read, "and other plantings may also be included." Mr. Wassman said 6B(3)(c)- Plantings shall be a mix of shrubs, deciduous trees, evergreens and ground cover. This should be revised to say, " Plants shall be a mixture of shrubs, deciduous trees, evergreen trees, perennials, annuals and ground cover." Mr. Wassman said 7(d) states- No internally illuminated signs ever. Are the existing signs to be grandfathered? What's the discussion on this? Mr. Spagnola said this is a total change from what the Law states. Board of Architectural Review September 18, 2003 Page 3 Mr. Wassman said they are allowed internal signs now. Mr. Spagnola stated; so now we're saying, it's probably a good thing that they can't do this. Is has to be externally illuminated. Ms. Washington asked, if this was a good thing. Ms. Myers said it currently states in 175-12 that no illuminated signs shall be permitted in any residential districts. Mr. Spagnola said this would be the question, because when they say not internally illuminated, what we've been trying to do with monument signs is not to have them light up the whole sign but only the letters on the sign. What this is saying is that you couldn't even do that, you could only externally illuminate them. Ms. Myers said the objective here for the whole thing, and this is mostly for the Boston Post Road, is to get away from the Central Avenue look of franchise, corporate design that are required by the Dunkin Donuts and Blockbuster Video to make them adhere to what we want, to have a more continuous look that is not centralized. Mr. Wassman said we generally try to do that, but that has nothing to do with internally or externally lighted signs. That comment appears elsewhere in this document and we agree with it. We generally try to enforce it. In essence the conclusion was that reference to the sign code was not the purpose of this proposed change in the Town Law, and the Sign Ordinance itself should be reviewed and amended if need be and a meeting held to approve it. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the BAR will be held on October 16, 2003. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned. 1 I 2-C (� -MO Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary A o fTown of Mamaroneck County of Westchester Town Offices: 740 West Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, NY 10543-3319 914/381-7830 Office of the Board of Architectural Review September 11, 2003 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the Board of Architectural Review of the Town of Mamaroneck will be held on SEPTEMBER 18, 2003 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. Discussion - "Design Requirements and Guidelines for the Improvement of Properties in certain Non-Residential Districts of the Town of Mamaroneck" Law 3. NEW BUSINESS ir( . . Marguerit 'Roma, Recording Secretary %it Printed on Recycled Paper