Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999_01_21 Board of Architectural Review Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 21, 1999, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK • Present: Edward Z. Jacobson, Chairman 4 Robert M. Immerman '�'V; RECEIVED Pamela T. Washington MARu p A 26 NU Absent: Anthony Spagnola 0.81, MTh1CtA A. E. Robert Wassman MO= iTwi TOWN CLERK NI Also Present: Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building 46101 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jacobson at 8:03 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Jacobson asked if the Board members had reviewed the Minutes of the previous meeting, and if there were any additions or corrections. After review and discussion, upon a motion made by Ms. Washington, seconded by Mr. Immerman, the Amended Minutes of the December 17, 1998 meeting were unanimously approved as corrected. Mr. Jacobson informed the applicants that there is only a quorum of the Board present, and advised them that for approval to occur it would require a unanimous vote of all the members present. If anybody wishes to hold over their application to the next meeting when there will possibly be a full Board, they may do so. Chairman Jacobson read the application as follows: LARCHMONT ACRES EAST/Christopher Harris-Palmer Avenue&Richbell Road-Block 408 Lot 86 -sign (adjourned 10/15/98; 11/19/98; 12/17/98) Chris Harris, the superintendent for Larchmont Acres appeared. Mr. Carpaneto informed the Board that it is an existing sign. Mr. Immerman asked if the existing sign is being replaced or is it already up. Mr. Carpaneto said the sign is up and has been up for a while. He also said the Zoning Board will grant an area variance. Mr. Immerman stated he has no problem with the sign. Mr. Jacobson said he also did not have a problem with the sign. On a motion made by Ms. Washington, seconded by Mr. Immerman, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Samson Management has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to replace rental sign damaged beyond repair; and Board of Architectural Review January 21, 1999 Page 2 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, Samson Management 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 GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The sign is accepted as presented. Chairman Jacobson read the next application,relating to the movement of the sign on the front,as follows: COUGHLIN GROUP, INC./John M. Coughlin- 178 Myrtle Boulevard- Block 133 Lot 627.2-sign Tom Coughlin, President of The Coughlin Group, appeared and addressed the Board. He asked if those present were present the last time The Coughlin Group appeared before the BAR. The Board indicated it was present. He said the building being constructed fully blocked the original sign. He also pointed out the tremendous positive reaction received from people about the sign, and said increased lighting is a big factor where the building is located. It will look better on the building where it is, after movement of both signs. Mr. Jacobson interrupted, stating the Board has some old business to address this evening. Because Mr. Coughlin has raised the issue of the reaction to the sign,Mr.Jacobson read a letter into the record and said he is sure Mr. Coughlin is aware of some negative reaction to the lighting of his sign. Mr. Coughlin said he is only aware of one negative reaction. Mr.Jacobson said this is a second letter regarding the bright lighting of the sign that was addressed directly to him as chairperson of the Board. The previous letter from Mr. Sparkman had been sent to the Town Supervisor and copied to the Board. Mr. Jacobson read the letter of complaint from Joyce Manner and Maurice Manner for the Board of the building,which is a part of the record. Mr. Jacobson said the lighting problem was discussed among the Board members at the last meeting, and the sign was viewed at night by all members. He said the Board feels the sign is much too bright. Mr. Jacobson informed Mr. Coughlin that his father has been contacted about it. The Board feels strongly that something needs to be done about it. This is going to be a significant issue as part of this discussion. Mr. Jacobson said the Board unanimously feels that the sign is over lit,it is much too bright and something needs to be done about it. It is not an issue anymore with the residents of the apartment building,but with this Board. After conversations erupted between Mr. Coughlin and a Board member, Mr. Jacobson reminded Mr. Coughlin that discussions are always between the entire Board and the applicant. Mr. Jacobson said regarding the safety issue, which is important, the lights that illuminate the sign contribute, in his judgment, almost zero illumination to the street at that point. The building should consider other lighting for safety. Board of Architectural Review January 21, 1999 Page 3 Mr. Coughlin said there is an alleyway then a stairway that goes down below the building. Mr. Immerman asked where the stairway is. Michael A. Coughlin said the stairway is right underneath the sign. There are no safety lights on the stairway side of the building. There is a safety issue. Ms. Washington said illuminating the alley from one story versus three stories would be better and not disturb any of the neighbors. Conversation again began between Mr. Sparkman and Mr. Coughlin, whereby Mr. Jacobson again asked for order and said the Board supports the residents point of view; the light is too bright,the length of time the lights are on can be discussed, but feels something has to be done about the intensity of the light. It is totally inappropriate. Mr. Coughlin asked if Mr. Jacobson is suggesting a change in the wattage. Mr. Jacobson said the Board's feeling is that the light level should at least be cut in half or something like that. Diane Coughlin asked to address the Board. She had attended a meeting on safety of the Myrtle Boulevard area and said it is a very dangerous area. First of all because of the traffic that comes around and down the hill people are afraid people will get killed in that intersection, especially in the winter when it's dark. There is no lighting in that area at all. The police were present at the meeting, along with many individuals who said nothing can be seen in that area at night. When the sign was first installed years ago in the front of the building, there was a much brighter light on the sign. Being an interior designer, she suggested that the light be reduced to a yellow looking light. Basically there was a bright light which would have really lit up that area and made it safer for the whole community coming from the train and going further down past the Total Fitness area to illuminate that area. Mr. Jacobson thanked Ms. Coughlin for her comments. Mr. Jacobson said that the Board has stated its position. Safe lighting on the street, as important as it is, cannot be provided from a sign on the side of the building. Mr. Immerman said he feels it is the Town's responsibility. Ms. Washington said the Coughlin's can provide street lighting on the facade for safety on the sidewalk in front of their building if they want to, but it should not be on the third story of the building. Mr. Jacobson said this Board is not constituted to deal with Town safety issues. Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Coughlin to go on with the signage proposal for the front of the building,and then the Board will come back to the lighting issue. Ms. Washington asked why is it that the front sign hugs the right side of the building as opposed to the center of the building? Mr. Coughlin said with the sign on the right side of the front facade, the center of the building, is much higher from the grade than the right side of the building. It was chosen for visibility when driving on I-95, both north and south. Mr. Jacobson said that some members of the Board felt that rather than bunch up the graphics at the right corner, the sign on the front of the building would look better at the far left, and better balance the building. Board of Architectural Review January 21, 1999 Page 4 Mr. Coughlin said it was the Board's specific request that it wasn't put on the top of the building,but put in the middle. At the first presentation years ago, it was put in the middle. Mr. Jacobson said the Board does not have a problem with the signage being raised to the top, but where in the length of the building would the graphics occur on the front face. Ms. Washington said the lower band of the building is so much wider than the top band. She said in the sign in the color photographs that the sign man made up, the sign has lost the benefit of the space at the top and the bottom of it. It is all jammed together. Mr. Immerman said it is related to the sign around the corner. It makes sense where it is and he does not agree with the chairperson. Mr. Immerman said he was the one that recommended the applicant to move both signs at the last meeting, when the applicant asked, because Mr. Immerman thought it would make more sense that the two of them went around the same corner. He said that is his position. It is obvious that the applicant will not have a unanimous decision with the Board this evening. Regarding the sign lighting, Mr. Coughlin said he is very much interested in keeping the illumination on the side of the building,and will consider dimming it. He asked about the timing and going off at a certain hour. Mr. Jacobson said that should be discussed too, as it is an issue. Ms. Washington said doesn't the Sign Ordinance say that a sign's light should go off when the business is closed and asked Mr. Carpaneto. Mr. Coughlin asked if that will be a consideration for every sign on Myrtle Boulevard; the stationery store, and Gjoko's. Mr. Jacobson said it will if the Sign Ordinance mandates that the signs go out at the end of business. Mr. Carpaneto read the sections of the Sign Ordinance pertaining to this matter; §175-12A and §175-12B of the code, Illuminated signs; "No illuminated signs shall be permitted in any residential districts"; "No exterior signs on any building shall be illuminated after 12:00 midnight, except on those places of business which shall remain open after 12:00 midnight, and they shall be extinguished at the time of closing such business." Mr. Jacobson said he is sure Mr. Coughlin wants to illuminate the signage on the front of the building, but will not entertain that, until the lighting intensity issue with respect to the sign on the side is resolved. Mr. Immerman said there needs to be a consistency of how the lighting is done. If one is coming around the corner at the same level, it has to be treated in the same way. He is convinced Mr. Coughlin can find a different kind of light source, if the current one cannot work at a lower level. Mr. Coughlin said he will see what can be done, but cannot agree to anything until he knows that the light can be replaced, at which time a discussion ensued. Mr. Jacobson said Mr. Immerman made a very good point. There needs to be consistency in the lighting. He said the Board's interest is that the lighting has to be significantly reduced. Ms. Washington also wants to ask the sign man the following. The details for the drawing submitted shows the light being directly affixed to the vertical face of the building. When looking at the existing light, it sits on top of the parapet. Is the drawing exactly correct, or does he propose a fixture that is the same as the one that is already on the side of the building? Mr. Coughlin said they are planning for it now. Board of Architectural Review January 21, 1999 Page 5 Mr. Washington asked what he proposes to do to have a light that spreads less, does not illuminate so much and wasn't so bright? Mr. Coughlin said he'd prefer dimming the light, dimming florescents, and install an electronic dimmer. He will call and see if that is available. Ms. Coughlin said when given permission to put the sign up, they were never told they had to agree to a certain modification. Mr. Jacobson said the Board was never told it was going to be that bright. Mr. Jacobson said he wants to ask the Board if it would want to separate these issues and agree to relocating the sign and then have the illumination issue looked into and returned to the Board. Mr. Immerman said it is better to get it all at once. Mr. Jacobson said the level of illumination is a bigger issue. He advised the applicant to review that issue and come back to the Board. He will agree with his colleagues to hold over the issue of raising the sign. Ms. Washington said the Board is still concerned about how long the light stays on. On a motion made by Ms. Washington and seconded by, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this matter be, and hereby is, adjourned to the March 18, 1999 meeting until the lighting on the side be lowered in intensity and spread on the side of the building and that the duration of the lighting be adjusted and presented to the Board by the next meeting. Mr. Coughlin asked what happens if they don't do anything and leave everything as is,which may be done. Mr. Coughlin said he thinks he's being held hostage because of the letter received. Ms. Washington said she thought the lights were too bright, before the letter was received from Mr. Sparkman. Mr. Jacobson said the applicant has a month to find a solution. The Board, as technical people, know that he will fmd a solution in two days for the lighting situation. Mr. Coughlin said it is very unfair. Approval was received to raise the side sign. Because the Board said it is brighter than expected, the applicant is coming back a second time and now the board is saying the front sign can't be raised. He said they cannot do one without the other. Mr. Jacobson said that the Board thinks that is the best way to deal with it. He informed the applicant to come back next month and hopefully settle the matter. OTHER BUSINESS BOSTON POST ROAD DEVELOPMENT PLAN Mr. Altieri made a presentation and discussed with the Board a Federal Funds grant the Town received in 1998, in the amount$150,000, to perform street improvements on the Boston Post Road between Lexus and MacDonald's. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the BAR will be held on February 18, 1999. Board of Architectural Review January 21, 1999 Page 6 ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion duly made by Mr.Immerman, seconded by Ms.Washington,the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:12 p.m. J (4r-79 - Marguerite Roi, Recording Secretary 0