Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_09_19 Board of Architectural Review Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK SEPTEMBER 19, 1996, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Edward Z. Jacobson, Chairman ' 1144 Robert M. Immerman 4 Pamela T. Washington E. Robert Wassman Pa CEIVEQ Joan Williams OCT 21 ..M Absent: Lucian J. Leone Also Present: William Gerety Assistant Building Inspector 6 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jacobson at 8:00 p.m. Chairman Jacobson read the application as follows: 16 N. CHATSWORTH AVENUE/LAWRENCE GORDON - Block 127 Lot 108 - facade renovation Larry Gordon appeared and stated that the proposal is to upgrade two terrace enclosures which are in a state of disrepair. The windows and structure that currently exist will be replaced with custom made thermal windows and new structure. Mr. Wassman said this is an alteration to the building which was done before the purview of the Board of Architectural Review(BAR), and there is a similar one on the rear of the building. This application deals with two terraces. Mr. Immerman said that since the BAR has been involved and has made an effort to control terrace enclosures in similar installations in other apartment complexes in the neighborhood, the Board has tried to give some thought to the affect on the overall building. Mr. Immerman said he does not feel that sufficient thought was given when the work was originally done, and Mr. Gordon is choosing to simply replace what was there. Mr. Wassman said the Board might suggest that the windows be replaced with windows 6 over 6, that do justice to the rest of the building. Mr. Gordon said the unit owner would prefer to use 6 over 6, in the event the Board suggests using 6 over 6. Mr. Jacobson said he is concerned about the use of Texture 1-11 as it is rustic and its use seems to be inappropriate. A discussion ensued regarding the use of other materials, i.e. stucco, which would tie into the building more strongly. Ms. Washington asked if Mr. Gordon considered having less glazing and more brick work and/or mullions and/or wider spacing to more closely mimic the floor below. Ms. Washington asked if the owner thought about installing 3 windows across the front, possibly 2 on the side and extending with stucco. Bill Archer, managing agent, said the building wanted to maintain the sunroom type of enclosure. Board of Architectural Review September 19, 1996 Page 2 Mr. Wassman said he feels the sunroom look is more appropriate at the location, rather than closing it in with masonry piers. Mr. Wassman feels the 6 over 6 and stucco, instead of the wood texture, would be fine. On a motion made by Mr. Wassman, seconded by Mr. Immerman, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, 16 N. Chatsworth Avenue Corp./Lawrence Gordon, A.I.A. has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to replace existing windows and structure with new structure and windows to match 'existing'; 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, 16 N. Chatsworth Avenue Corp./Lawrence Gordon,A.I.A. 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 new windows be thermal windows glazed, 6 over 6. 2. The infill above the windows currently shown as Texture 1-11 be changed to stucco, painted a color commensurate with the other stucco surfaces of the building and textured to match. Mr. Gordon asked if the plans can be revised with the comments made this evening by the Board. Mr. Immerman said the procedure is that the Building Department should receive a copy of the plan showing the changes. Mr. Gerety asked Mr. Gordon to call him in the morning to check on the approvals. At this point in time the fire alarm sounded, the Board evacuated and when all was clear the meeting resumed. Chairman Jacobson read the next application as follows: KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN - 1370 Boston Post Road - Block 410 Lot 1 - sign Donald Pizzutello, a representative from Joseph Crocco Architects and also representing KFC, appeared. Mr. Pizzutello said that Pepsico is starting a new program which is called the two in one program, merging Taco Bell and KFC. Mr. Pizzutello then referred to the site renderings before the Board. The only building that will be taking place will be a new walk-in box and possibly a cupola. Mr. Pizzutello said the reason for so many signs is because the KFC wanted each entity to be publicized, KFC and Taco Bell, as many people are not familiar with the new merger. Ms. Washington asked if the signage meets the sign law for the community. Board of Architectural Review September 19, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Gerety said signage does not meet the sign law for the Town. The application has been referred to the Zoning Board for a zoning variance for the issues noted on the Notice of Disapproval, which Mr. Gerety will provide. Mr. Gerety asked the Board to review the drawings and submission,make comments and advise the Zoning Board as to the BAR's decision. Mr. Pizzutello said he has a copy of the letter sent regarding the denial, but disagrees with it. He handed the letter to Mr. Jacobson. Mr. Immerman asked Mr. Gerety if the disapproval indicates the Zoning Board denied approval. Mr. Gerety said the Building Inspector's disapproval is that the application does not meet the code. Mr. Immerman said the Zoning Board should be the Lead Agency on this application, and the BAR act as advisory to them. Ms. Williams said she would like to know where the application does not comply. Mr. Jacobson then read the letter addressed to Mr. Rushing of KFC in Louisville, KY as follows: "We are in receipt of your application to appear before our Board of Architectural Review(BAR) for the purpose of securing sign and facade change permits, and find the following items would exceed permitted sign regulations: 1. The total area for signage shall not exceed 100 sq. ft. The total signage appears to be in excess of that number on the side elevation as shown on drawing A-1. 2. The sign on the illuminated awning, 7 ft. 8 in., exceeds the 32 in. maximum sign height allowed. 3. The KFC/Taco Bell wall sign also exceeds the 32 in height allowed. 4. It appears by its absence from the application, that the existing KFC pole sign may be allowed to remain. 5. It should be noted, pursuant to Section 175-11C, that your application for the building permit required for the cupola awning and walk-in box will require immediate removal of the nonconforming pole sign. 6. The cupola tower appears to fall into the category of "pylon" sign which would not be permitted to be erected, pursuant to Section 175-11D. 7. You should be aware that the BAR, in its past deliberations, has created a policy which requires that you show extreme need for the logos of the company to be a part of the sign. You might wish to have an alternate sign proposal without the Bell or Colonel Sanders pictorial, should the BAR discussion take that route. 8. In your application your drawing, Figure 2, shows two directional signs. Neither sign square footage is permitted. The maximum area allowed for directional signs is 3 sq. ft. limited to exit,enter, etc. with no graphics or logos thereon,pursuant to Section 175-6K. Enclosed please find seven applications for appearance before the BAR, etc., etc." Mr. Immerman said with due respect to the Building Inspector's letter he does not feel the letter states clearly that this should be referred to the Zoning Board as the Lead Agency, but feels all of the issues mentioned are conditions that the BAR deals with. If there is a variance with the code, then the BAR's Board of Architectural Review September 19, 1996 Page 4 decision is to recommend that it can only be changed with zoning approval and subsequently would be referred to the Zoning Board with the recommendations and findings. A discussion ensued regarding Lead Agency,what the code is,what is permitted and what is not permitted. Mr. Jacobson said if the applicant is at variance with the code, the BAR has to deny with recommendation and refer the application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Gerety said the code states the Zoning Board may permit signs that do not comply with the regulations. The Zoning Board can only agree or disagree upon the issues of the application that do not meet the sign law. The issues that do meet the sign regulations, in addition to a recommendation of those issues that don't meet the sign law, would be made by the Board of Architectural Review. Mr. Jacobson asked the Board to structure the discussion to deal with the points in order. Mr. Pizzutello said the first point states that the signage exceeds the allowable use. All signage was calculated by measuring the actual letters, assuming the awning is an architectural element and not a sign. The applicant was assuming that the words Taco Bell and the Bell symbol were the sign. Mr. Jacobson said the Board's view is that the field upon which the letters are placed is part of the sign. Mr. Pizzutello asked if the awning, which does not have any bearing on the sign, is still viewed as part of the sign. Mr. Jacobson said in this particular case, the Board would agree that the awning face is part of the sign. Mr. Immerman said if the top of the bell and the bottom of the lettering didn't exceed 30 in. it would be the area that would be judged, not the whole awning. Mr. Pizzutello asked if it would be sufficient if the bell were deleted. Mr. Immerman said it measures the way it is stated, and it does exceed the code. There may be a way of measuring it where it might not exceed the code. • Mr. Wassman said when free-standing letters have been placed on the face of buildings, the Board would deal with the letters themselves in terms of area. Mr. Jacobson said unless a Board member has an objection, it is the sense of the Board that the field is part of the sign in this case. Mr. Immerman then discussed the drawings stating in one the awning looked like it was over a door. In another the awning looks as though it is over a window. Mr. Wassman agreed the awning is awkwardly placed. A discussion followed regarding the placement of the signs. Mr. Pizzutello said the cupola, as stated in the Building Inspectors letter, is considered in the category of a pylon sign, which Mr. Pizzutello does not understand. Mr. Pizzutello thinks the cupola is more of an architectural element itself and more crucial to have for identity purposes than the awning. If possible the awning may be eliminated, if something can be done about the cupola to make it acceptable. Ms. Williams asked how far out the cupola extends. Ms. Washington said it should not go any further out than the edge of the mansard, to avoid looking awkward. Board of Architectural Review September 19, 1996 Page 5 Ms. Williams said the applicant is proposing many signs; one on the front of building,one on the cupola, a sign on the side of the building which is big and asked if there was anything in the law that says there can be only one sign per side. Mr. Wassman said it first has to be determined where the front of the building is. Mr. Jacobson discussed the big sign on the side of the building that looks like a huge credit card. Ms. Williams said the front of the building faces the Post Road, and she does not want to see two signs saying the same thing on the same side. Therefore, Ms. Williams would prefer not to see the huge sign on the side that faces the bank. Mr. Jacobson said it exceeds the allowable sign size; the Board thinks it is redundant and would prefer not to have the sign installed. Mr. Immerman summarized the Board's conclusions: • the Board did not care for the "awning"; • the Taco Bell logo over the double doors on the short end of the building is acceptable; • the Taco Bell logo on the mansard over the single door on the parking lot side is acceptable; • KFC logo to be restudied is only identified on two faces of cupola; • the Board finds the cupola acceptable. Mr. Wassman said unless the Board recommends otherwise, the applicant can return at the next meeting complying with the suggestions made this evening. Ms. Williams said she noticed the applicant has door signs and nothing is currently on the doors. She would like to get the Board's feelings on this item. After some discussion, the Board was divided on door signs versus no door signs. Mr. Pizzutello asked if the awning and Taco Bell sign with the actual bell it were deleted, would that be acceptable. Discussions centered on: • consider duplicating the graphic on the side rather than the just imposing;the bell above the Taco; • the building fronts on two streets, which Mr. Gerety said the building inspector will clarify. Discussion centered on sign law: • so far as the purpose or intent of this section is concerned, the front of the building shall be construed as that side of the building which faces the street on which the number or numbers shall be displayed on such side of such building or premises. Where the length of the frontage is such that they are then permitted to have two (2) identifying signs. Discussion continued on the following items: • trash should be fully enclosed on all sides; Board of Architectural Review September 19, 1996 Page 6 • consider installing walk-in box in another way on the end of the building in order to keep the line of the building; • enter and exit signs may not have other text or logos on them; • site lighting; existing lighting not acceptable due to excessive brightness and orientation of fixtures; parking lot should be lighted for safety; lighting should be on a time clock to comply with permitted hours of operation. Summarized points: • the canopy will be removed; • the taco bell signage that is proposed for the Post Road facade will be duplicated on the side facade presumably over the door provided the total area meets with the regulations; • the credit card sign which exists on the far end on the side facade will be eliminated; • the cupola will be relocated so that it does not hang over edge of mansard; • the Board will entertain signage on the cupola that meets the zoning requirements; • the roof of the cupola will be red; • with respect to the signage on the doors, the Board is of mixed opinion; • question raised about the location of the walk-in masonry box at the back of the building and whether it couldn't be adjusted in size so that it does not extend beyond the face of the building; • the entire trash storage is enclosed on all sides and complies with the trash enclosure code; • site lighting be changed in a form of site lighting which is approved by the Town be installed; Mr. Jacobson asked Ms. Williams if the landscaping maintenance is adequate on the site plan. Ms. Williams said there are several bushes that have died, but KFC usually replaces the shrubs on their own. The landscaping is very nice. KFC has installed flowers as well. Mr. Pizzutello said he will return next month with all the required changes. Ms. Williams asked Mr. Pizzutello to also include pictures of the rest of the site. Mr. Gerety summarized stating Mr. Pizzutello will resubmit the application of revisions to the Building Department at which time Mr. Pizzutello will receive a revised Notice of Disapproval regarding the sign ordinance. Mr. Pizzutello will not go before the Zoning Board, but will reappear at the next BAR meeting in October. Upon a motion made by Ms. Washington the KFC/Taco Bell matter will be held over to the next BAR meeting pending resubmission of revisions discussed this evening,which was seconded by Mr. Immerman, that was unanimously approved. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Jacobson had a question on page 1, *that the ownership of the fence be resolved, and asked what the issue was. Board of Architectural Review September 19, 1996 Page 7 Ms. Washington said the issue is that neither adjacent property acknowledges ownership of the fence, the fence is in dilapidated condition and nobody will make an effort to repair it because nobody claims to own it. The Building Inspector is going to investigate same. Mr. Jacobson said on the page 5, fifth line, item #2. "Limited elevation", and asked for clarification. Ms. Washington said the Board approved the partial change to the elevation that was shown on the plans, i.e. the ice rink and zamboni room Mr. Jacobson said item#2 should read, elevation as shown was approved. Mr. Wassman asked what the caveat at the end meant. Ms. Williams said the Board wanted the leader drains to go into the drainage system, but does not believe it was shown on the drawings and the Board wanted to make sure it was going to be taken care of. Mr. Jacobson said item #3 states, "finished on the side, the massing" and asked what that meant. Ms. Washington said that means the finishes of the new construction match the finishes of the existing building. Mr. Jacobson said item#3 should read, the finishes on the side match the existing building. Upon a motion made by Ms. Washington, seconded by Mr. Immerman, the amended Minutes of the August 15, 1996 meeting were approved. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion made by Ms. Williams, seconded by Mr. Immerman, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:27 p.m. co, '(L ,� Marguerite R. ., Recording Secretary