HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_05_16 Board of Architectural Review Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
MAY 16, 1996, IN CONFERENCE ROOM A, TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD,
MAMARONECK, NEW YORK , ,
Present: Edward Z. Jacobson, Chairman
Lucian J. Leone 41;
eit
Pamela T. Washington
E. Robert Wassmanet
Joan Williams
Absent: Robert M. Immerman
Also Present: William Gerety
Assistant Building Inspector
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jacobson at 8:15 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Upon a motion made by Bob Wassman, seconded by Ms. Washington, the Minutes of the February 15,
1996 meeting were unanimously approved.
Upon a motion made by Ms. Washington, seconded by Mr. Leone, the Minutes of the April 18, 1996
meeting were unanimously approved.
Mr. Jacobson read the application as follows:
TOWN OF MAMARONECK RECREATION DEPARTMENT - 140 Hommocks Road - Block 411
Lot 1 & 16 - Signs/Site Improvement
Mr. Jacobson welcomed Bill Zimmerman, Superintendent of Recreation, who said the Board should have
received a series of two alternate tree planting schematics along with the original schematic design
discussed last month on the tree location issue to be considered or any recommendation thereof. Mr.
Ward of Ward Associates could not be present at the meeting this evening.
Mr. Jacobson said he was glad more members of the Board were present this evening, and welcomed back
Joan Williams and Bob Wassman, the former chairman.
Mr. Wassman said that he was not present at the meeting when the tree location issues were discussed, and
asked if the alternate schemes one and two address the concerns of the Board.
Mr. Jacobson said he would summarize what had transpired at the last meeting. At the last meeting there
was a complete presentation of the project which includes a new wading pool and a new training pool to
be constructed in the open space adjacent to the existing pool facility. The paving materials, the roofing
material and the brick cladding for the filter building, the low planting and the curvilinear fencing were
discussed and approved. The low planting was particularly well-handled,there was a nice mixture of plants
in terms of massing, i.e. high and low. The fencing was well-handled. The tree configuration was
discussed in detail. Mr.Jacobson's feeling was that the configuration presented was not as good as it could
be. The designers agreed to provide the Town with some alternatives for this meeting, which have been
presented.
Board of Architectural Review
May 16, 1996
Page 2
Mr. Wassman said he feels that the new arrangements are better because they open up the area, and asked
about the tree specifications.
Mr. Zimmerman said the specifications were Honey Locust and were defined in the schedule. Recently,
CZMC thought the original presentation should be changed, but have since approved the original
presentation.
Ms. Washington said that alternate scheme one and two are good improvements on the original formal
scheme.
Ms. Williams agreed with Ms. Washington, stating as long as the trees are Honey Locust.
Mr. Jacobson said he favors scheme one over scheme two.
Ms. Williams made a motion to accept alternate scheme one, which was seconded by Ms. Washington,
and was unanimously approved.
Ms. Williams asked if all the trees were new trees to be planted.
Mr. Zimmerman said all the trees are new trees to be planted, which will greatly enhance the aesthetics
of the barren area. He stated that a cross section was prepared for the Planning Board, so the Board could
actually see the elevations which will be given to Bill Gerety for the BAR to review at a later date. Ward
Associates is concerned about flooding, and the cross section will show how the planting has been raised
out of the flood plain.
Ms. Williams asked if flooding does occur in the area.
Mr. Zimmerman said there is a small amount of flooding towards the path, because that is where
everything drains coming off of Flint Park which floods terribly.
Mr. Zimmerman said one of the nice things is it is the Town working with Town.
Mr. Wassman asked if anyone has been contracted with to do the work.
Mr. Zimmerman said no one has been contracted with as of yet. Design specifications and plans are going
to begin and then will go out to bid. Hopefully,the project should begin the day after Labor Day, opening
the summer of'97.
Mr. Gerety asked if the project had received all the approvals.
Mr. Zimmerman said all approvals had been received, except the approval from the BAR.' Mr.
Zimmerman thanked the Board.
Mr. Jacobson read the application as follows:
NAUTILUS DINER OF MAMARONECK - 1240 Boston Post Road - Block 408 Lot 110 -
additions/alterations
In order to bring Mr. Wassman and Ms. Williams up-to-date, Mr. Jacobson said the last meeting was a
constructive one where the materials to be used were discussed at great length and generally approved.
The purpose of this evening's meeting is to confirm what was discussed at the last meeting. The drawings
in the Board's possession, confirm what was discussed.
Ms. Washington said tying in the base of the new structure with stone was discussed, and the street trees
as requested by the Board are a welcomed addition.
Board of Architectural Review
May 16, 1996
Page 3
Mr. Wassman said his only concern is that the project is expanding almost up to the property line. In this
community, the majority of the buildings are set back from the sidewalk line. At present, the Board has
the application for the Nautilus Diner and also the Donut Shop, which is crowding in on the side yard.
The Nautilus has a planting bed which is only 20 inches, and he is disturbed by the trend.
Ms. Williams said she agrees with Mr. Wassman that in this community more and more concrete is being
used, taking away more and more green space.
Mr. Jacobson said the two trees referred to in discussion do not appear on any document other than the
rendering. The spacing of the trees, one to the other, is very important. If the trees are too far apart, they
will lose something. The trees ought to be closer together.
Ms. Williams said the trees must be shown on the site plan, because if they are not shown, there is no
recourse by the Town if something should happen and the trees are not installed.
Mr. Leone said the Board should recommend where the trees would be on the site plan.
Ms. Williams asked what kind of tree Mr. Estathiou would plant.
Mr. Estathiou said a Bradford Pear is proposed to be planted.
Mr. Wassman said an Zelcova is a more uplifting tree and less blocking of the view of the restaurant, but
agreed that the Bradford Pear was a good choice.
After a discussion amongst the Board members regarding the distance between the trees, it was decided
the trees should be installed 10 ft. to 12 ft. in from the corners of the new extension and thus will not
interfere with the driveway.
Ms. Williams asked what kind of evergreen will be installed on the 20 in. strip.
The representative from DeRaffele said Taxus will be installed on the 20 in. strip., which will cover the
foundation.
Ms. Williams said in reviewing the March Minutes Mr. Gerety said there might be an opportunity to do
something with the parking lot, and asked if DeRaffele can get two trees in the parking lot because it is
so barren.
Mr. Estathiou said trees cannot live in the parking lot, but he would put them by the back wall of the
parking lot.
Mr. Gerety said the Building Department has requested an accurate, revised site plan. At that point,
determinations will be made as to the adequacy of the parking. If trees can be installed and not diminish
the parking area or cause the loss of more parking spaces, then perhaps it would be a good idea to install
trees. From a preliminary review, the Building Department does not seem to find that this will be the case.
Mr. Leone said he is quite satisfied with the changes made to the facade, but he would rather see four(4)
trees in the front. Route 1 is not a garden area, and a certain amount of increase in tree density would be
beneficial.
Mr. Estathiou then discussed the renderings with the Board, and asked the Board to state what they desire
and he will produce same on the plans with respect to the trees.
Mr. Jacobson recommended four(4) trees, 20 ft. on center for a total length of 60 ft. This would be very
effective. A discussion then followed.
Board of Architectural Review
May 16, 1996
Page 4
The Board asked about the planting bed at the entrance, stating evergreens should be used as they stay
green all winter.
Mr. Estathiou said when he landscapes the addition, he will landscape the front planting bed also.
Ms. Williams suggested that there be three(3) trees in the front spaced evenly along the street, one(1) to
the side of the driveway with appropriate evergreens underneath.
Ms. Washington made a motion to accept the plan as presented as far as the facade of the building with
the planting recommendations made by Ms. Williams added to the scheme, specifically three (3) trees in
front of the addition and one (1) on the right-hand side. The applicant will present a plan at the next
meeting showing what is requested. The motion was seconded by Ms. Williams and was unanimously
approved.
Mr. Gerety said that due to the parking situation, the matter will most likely be sent to the Planning Board
for Site Plan approval.
Mr. Jacobson said he wanted to ask about the lights along the facade, because at the last meeting there
was some question as to whether or not they were allowed under the sign ordinance.
Mr. Gerety said the sign ordinance, under Section 12. Illuminated Sign may be a misapplying,as it is not
a sign that is in question. It states, "No ornamental lighting device attached to or used in connection with
exterior parts of a building shall be permitted."
Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Gerety to check this as part of the further review process, and could ask attorney
Silverberg if it applies.
Mr. Jacobson read the next application as follows:
DUNKIN DONUTS - 1311 Boston Post Road - Block 412 Lot 288 - addition
Richard Hein, architect, appeared and said the drawing submitted shows an as-of-right addition which
extends into the side yard. The intent is to mask the brick facade with a maximum amount of plants
possible. In his discussions with the Building Department, the opportunity to create a pedestrian way was
discussed as being beneficial.
Mr. Wassman said he thought some consideration should be given to creating a sidewalk in that area.
Mr. Hein said the area is heavily used by Hommocks School students.
Ms. Williams said that this area is unsafe and said there are so many places in Town where there are no
sidewalks for the children.
Mr. Gerety asked if Dunkin Donuts should be required to construct a handicap ramp at the street curb.
Mr. Hein said he didn't know how the jurisdiction falls regarding Town property, but it is his purpose to
suggest what the design effort would be inside the property line. He said his client would pay for any
landscaping on either side of the sidewalk, but not the sidewalk itself because of the liability.
Mr. Gerety said the sidewalk matter is up to the Highway Department and the Traffic Commission.
Ms. Williams asked if the Highway Department and the Traffic Commission had been notified.
Mr. Gerety said he did not have an answer, but it has been spoken of. It was discussed at a PEER meeting
that this was an opportunity to have a sidewalk where there is none.
Board of Architectural Review
May 16, 1996
Page 5
Mr. Hein said his client would not be able to pay for the entire sidewalk, but may be able to pay for a
portion of the sidewalk.
Mr. Gerety said it was the first he has heard regarding the fact that Dunkin Donuts would not be able to
pay for the sidewalk, and that would have to be discussed further.
Ms. Williams asked what sidewalk Mr. Hein and Mr. Gerety were referring to.
Mr. Gerety said the strip of sidewalk along the side street.
Ms. Williams said the sidewalk in question serves no purpose because it goes nowhere.
Mr. Wassman agreed with Ms. Williams, but said he would like to know how the Town Highway
Department views the sidewalk in question. i.e. is it a circulation path?
Mr. Gerety said a critical element is enforcing the sidewalk cleaning law. This is a dead-end, the sidewalk
doesn't continue into the street, the snow gets plowed and piled in that area and the children have to walk
in the Post Road to get around. It has been mentioned to the owner of the property and surrounding
properties, that the snow cannot be banked in that area because of the children. Any improvement in the
sidewalk in that area is important.
Mr. Wassman said the applicant is cooperative in saying that he will appropriately landscape the surrounds
of the sidewalk to make it attractive, and feel it is the Town's responsibility to address the situation which
is a very hazardous condition.
Mr. Hein said the area is a very unattractive, undeveloped parking area and his design specifically is
curving. landscaping and planting the entire quadrant.
Mr. Gerety and the Board asked where the dumpster was going to be placed.
Mr. Hein pointed out the placement of the dumpster on the rendering, and said it will be screened as much
as possible. The applicant is willing to do whatever the BAR recommends.
Ms. Williams said photographs should be submitted with the plans as well.
Mr. Jacobson said it is difficult to visualize what the addition will look like from only the elevation as
presented.
Mr. Jacobson said the elevation drawing is not an accurate drawing. A discussion followed.
Mr. Hein said the applicant is removing a wall, bumping out, matching the brick, the facade and the
mansard roof only because Dunkin Donuts has its signature and will show at the next submission an
axonometric. The intent is to screen the entire facade. Dunkin Donuts is eliminating their hydrocarbon
refrigeration and installing a C of C system, which is a Dunkin Donuts Corporate decision.
Mr. Gerety said Dunkin Donuts is also improving the bathrooms, bringing them into compliance.
Ms. Williams said then the next plan will have a planting list, an axonometric drawing and some
photographs of the existing site.
Mr. Hein agreed.
Ms. Williams said she wasn't aware that there was a problem with the snow and the children having to
walk around, but the drawing doesn't depict a handicap ramp and the sidewalk as depicted is not going to
help the pileup of the snow. The Board has not resolved among themselves whether they really want a
sidewalk on that side or not.
Board of Architectural Review
May 16, 1996
Page 6
Mr. Hein said there should be a handicapped ramp at the intersection of the side street with the Post Road.
Mr. Gerety wanted to know who was responsible for the ramp.
Mr. Wassman said the Board should recommend the ramp, and let the Town review it.
Mr.Jacobson said it has to be decided whether it is a useful circulation path. It would be beneficial to hear
from the Town as to what the facts are.
Ms. Williams asked what was between the sidewalk and the street.
Mr. Hein said grass and two street trees.
Ms. Williams said she would ask for more trees, as it is a blank wall.
Mr. Hein said the greenery would be evergreens as tall as possible; i.e. Taxus. He said repeating the
Bradford Pear, which is on the opposite side with the Edward's parking lot, would probably be the most
consistent.
Ms. Williams said she would like to see more than two (2) trees.
Mr. Hein said he has shown four(4)trees, and can add as many as the Board recommends. He will show
them on the facade of the plans at the next meeting.
Mr. Leone said he is concerned about the children, and said there should be some place for them to walk.
Ms. Washington said that any neighborhood that has children, should have sidewalks along the street.
Mr. Jacobson said the Board recommends to the Town that it call to the Highway Department's attention
the need to resolve the pedestrian circulation and sidewalk issues.
Mr. Jacobson read the next application as follows:
LARCHMONT STATION LUNCHEONETTE - 176 Myrtle Boulevard - Block 133 Lot 642 - sign
Michael Santoliquido, from Sands Signs, the contractor for the sign appeared.
The Board reviewed the photographs and drawings submitted with the application.
Mr. Santoliquido said the applicant is refacing the existing light box.
Mr. Wassman said the Chinese Restaurant sign which appears in the photographs was not approved to be
illuminated, which should be checked.
Mr. Jacobson asked how will the sign appear during the daytime.
Mr. Santoliquido said the blue lettering will be seen during the daytime,as provided on the color rendering
submitted. The existing plexiglass will be removed and two new pieces of plexiglass will be installed.
Mr. Jacobson asked if the sign was going to have a black border as indicated on the drawing.
Mr. Santoliquido said the border would not be black. It will be opaque, as it was Mr. Gerety's concern
that no light would show through. The border can be made any color the Board would like, but the color
of the box is an odd gold color. It could be masked and sprayed gold.
Board of Architectural Review
May 16, 1996
Page 7
Mr. Jacobson said there are two problems. The Board does not like the gold color, and if it was painted
white that would be fine. The Board also wants to understand what the sign will look like when it is
masked out.
Mr.Jacobson said if for technical reasons the sign has to appear smaller, mask it out with something white.
Mr. Jacobson said the letters are of such a size that the sign would benefit if the field were larger. At
night you would see less white, and in the daytime it would still appear white. Painting the metal shell of
the sign white would be a plus.
Mr. Santoliquido said the box is unsightly as it is, and agrees with the Board.
Ms. Williams asked about the "eat in, take out" text on the sign and asked if it has to be.
Ms. Williams would prefer not to see "eat in, take out" permanently on the sign, but just Larchmont
Station Luncheonette. Also, the Board had asked Dr. McIntyre to take the lights down above the beauty
parlor shown on the photographs, and it has not been done as of yet.
Mr. Santoliquido said he has no objection to removing the "eat in or take out" text.
Ms.Williams made a motion that the Board of Architectural Review proposes that the existing box be used,
the "eat in and take out" text on the sign be removed leaving only Larchmont Station Luncheonette, the
metal shell of the box be painted white and the lettering be in blue per the sample provided. Ms.
Washington seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
Ms. Williams said Mr. Gerety will ask Dr. McIntyre to remove the light above the beauty parlor
previously discussed.
Mr. Jacobson said he saw a closed sign on the door and asked if the restaurant was in fact open for
business.
Mr. Santoliquido said the business is open, but under the Gold Lake sign because the applicant had to redo
some applications.
Mr. Gerety said the applicant has to go before the Planning Board for a Special Use Permit.
New Matter
Mr. Jacobson asked if there was to be any discussion on the Auricchio matter which was in the folder, as
it was not on the agenda. At this point in time, Mr. Jacobson asked for a motion for adjournment, and
asked Bill to give him a call advising him of the status of the Auricchio matter.
Mr. Gerety said the Auricchio matter was given to the Board to give them a chance to preview the matter.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Marguerite , Recording Secretary