Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997_04_17 Board of Architectural Review Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF I'HE TOWN OF MAMARONECK APRIL 17, 1997, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK $1 19 � i I Present: Edward Z. Jacobson, Chairman Robert M. ImmermanOr Iv" 1VE) Anthony Spagnola NA23 1997 -, Pamela T. Washington Nnomvattialt 414444344, Absent: Lucian J. Leone E. Robert Wassman Also Present: William Gerety Assistant Building Inspector CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jacobson at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Jacobson said the Minutes will be reviewed at the end of the meeting. Chairman Jacobson read the application as follows: HIGH TECH CAR WASH -2434 Boston Post Road -Block 503 Lot 326.1 - site improvements Walter Nestler, the landscape architect for the project, appeared represent representing the applicant,High Tech Car Wash. Mr. Jacobson commended Mr. Nestler's client for such an ambitious undertaking. Mr. Nestler said Mr. Guerrerio, the owner of High Tech Car Wash, has been a client for many years, and tends to improve all of the properties that he owns. The bulk of the work is site improvements; i.e. new pavement, adding curbing, a substantial amount of landscaping, front entrance facilitating handicapped access. Mr. Nestler then proceeded to explain the plans that were presented to the Board this evening, explaining that the only difference between the original plans submitted and the plans submitted this evening is a redesign in the entrance due to the columns of the existing canopy. Mr. Nestler said the original canopy of record on the previous special permit did not conform to the originally approved canopy; i.e. the graphics on the front being the question. Mr. Nestler is requesting that existing canopy be reviewed and accepted, on behalf of High Tech. Mr. Jacobson said to clarify the points made, is Mr. Nestler informing the Board that the current canopy has not been officially sanctioned by the Board. Mr. Nestler said that is correct, the current canopy has not been officially sanctioned by the Board. A discussion then ensued regarding the current canopy logo which presently exists. Mr. Jacobson asked that the canopy issue be set aside, and the landscaping plan as presented be discussed. Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Nestler to describe the planting as it would look when it matures; i.e. height, coloration, growing characteristics, etc. Mr. Nestler said the majority of the plants proposed are evergreen plant materials. There is a graduation of height in ground coverage, 6 in., 8 in., 9 in. high;i.e. the Hedra Helix "baltica", the basic predominant Board of Architectural Review April 17, 1997 Page 2 ground coverage throughout the site. The next level of plant material would be Contoneaster, the average growth height being 12 in. to 18 in. high; i.e. a somewhat semi-evergreen, a dense, rustic plant which can be pruned and tightened up. The next level would be the Rhododenrons,basically the azaleas which would be 18 in. to 24 in.high and kept that way through pruning. Then there are several Rhododendron varieties which will be kept to a height of 4 ft. to 5 ft.; i.e. the Taxus, which would be put on the Town property, an unmapped street. Presently there is a guardrail, which the applicant will plant with an evergreen about 3 ft. high on the off-side of the guardrail which is Town property. The back of the property is heavily wooded and the applicant may not be able to install all that is shown on the landscaping plan, but would like to go as far into the wooded area as possible. Mr. Nestler described the trees proposed; i.e. Arborvitae, an upright, narrow evergreen, Carpinus "Fastigiata", which grows upright and tight, in a column fashion. Mr. Nestler then discussed the Pseudotsuga menziesii, a Douglas Fir,which will be used at several locations on the site. Mr. Jacobson said he noticed that cars park along the Post Road, adjacent to the east on the Mamaroneck side, which will obscure the sign and stated the aesthetic being presented is a residential, cozy image which seems inconsistent with the car wash. Mr.Jacobson said if the sign were a simple monument sign,without the stone base and cantilever, it might be just as effective and simpler. Mr. Spagnola agreed with Mr. Jacobson and said it seems to be a bit more elaborate then it might need to be. Mr. Spagnola asked Mr. Nestler if there was a way to simplify the sign a bit more. Mr. Nestler said the suggestions are very good, and he would like to use bold type similar to what is on the canopy perhaps on a bit of an angle. Mr. Jacobson picked up on Mr. Spagnola's comment, and suggested that the type face on the monument sign be the same as the type face on the canopy, so there is some strength of presentation. Mr. Spagnola asked Mr. Nestler if he needed to have the numbers on the side of the sign, as they are prominently displayed on the canopy. Mr. Spagnola said it would be better to have the numbers on the canopy and clean up that end of the sign. Mr. Nestler said the point is well taken. Mr. Spagnola asked if all of the lettering can be the same size. Mr. Nestler said he was trying to balance the sign, the lettering would be solid letters, the colors green and white. A discussion ensued regarding same. Mr. Nester said the fence around the dumpster would be a typical stockade fence, painted white, if so desired. Mr. Nestler said he will submit revised sketches on the items discussed. The following points made were: The length of the sign will be 90 in., the lettering will be changed to bold type to match the canopy, the base will be the same width as shown, and the length will be anywhere from 6 ft. to 6.5 ft. allowing the sign to overhang. The lettering on the informational signage attached to the guardrail will be as consistent as possible, two letter sizes. The address will not appear on the edge of the sign. On a motion made by Mr. Spagnola, seconded by Ms. Washington, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: Board of Architectural Review April 17, 1997 Page 3 WHEREAS, High Tech Car Wash has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to erect a new sign, install new asphalt pavement, plantings, fencing to enclose dumpster, signage and stone facing on existing wall; 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, High Tech Car Wash 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 out front is approved with changes as follows: a. The sign remains at 90 in. across, with a stone base set in slightly; b. The typography on the front of the sign match the lettering on the canopy; c. The numerals on the front face of the sign are removed, and the numbers are only on the front of the canopy; d. The small free-standing post signs along the guardrail remain the size that they are, but the lettering on them be simplified to two sizes if possible instead of various sizes as shown; e. The landscaping is approved as shown; f. The awning as exists is approved. Chairman Jacobson read the next application as follows: AUGIE'S RESTAURANT -2417 Boston Post Road -Block 505 Lot 446 - awnings/signage John Mittemere, the manager of the restaurant appeared, representing the applicant. Ms. Washington asked if there were samples of the product, which were provided. Ms. Washington commented that the sample is a piece of tablecloth. Mr. Jacobson said for the Board's consideration, he looked at the sign that says restaurant on the side of the building which is at an angle, and it is his recommendation that the sign be removed or some alternate be proposed. A discussion ensued. Mr. Gerety said it is a legal nonconforming sign. Mr. Mittemere said the sample is a tablecloth, but the awnings would be a 1 in. or 2 in. squared, red checkered. A discussion ensued regarding the use of a striped or checkered awning. Mr. Mittemere said originally there are three colors; i.e. pine green, white bordering on the letters itself, and a burgundy darkish red. The proposed sign will be red and white checkered. Mr. Jacobson asked if everything else was staying green. Mr. Mittemere said he believed so, the only change will be in the awnings. Mr. Jacobson suggested that the color scheme is unacceptable. A discussion ensued. Board of Architectural Review April 17, 1997 Page 4 Mr. Immerman said if green and white were used it would be acceptable, as green and white is used already. Mr. Jacobson recommended new awnings using a brighter green with a white stripe which would be attractive and work with the building. Mr. Jacobson said unfortunately Mr. Mittemere is not empowered to make a decision with respect to a different color or pattern of the awning, and he hesitates to have the Board recommend a different color. A discussion ensued. Ms. Washington said the Board would be more comfortable with a sample from the manufacturer. Mr. Jacobson said the front of the restaurant would look better if there were one awning across the facade rather than several awnings. A discussion ensued. Mr. Jacobson suggested that Mr. Mittemere inform the applicant regarding what was discussed this evening, and then appear before the Board again. Mr. Immerman said the Board had talked about the applicant cleaning up the back,and Mr. Mittemere said the applicant was probably thinking about painting. Mr. Mittemere said the applicant had stated he was possibly thinking about painting the rear entrance wall and the walk-in box. Mr. Immerman said it would be helpful to paint the entire front brick facade, which is the Board's recommendation, and painting the upper half white. Mr. Immerman said the whiskey barrels and planting containers are falling apart and need attention. On a motion made by Ms. Washington, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this matter be held over to the next meeting, and the applicant consider the following recommendations: 1. A striped pattern be used rather than checkered; 2. One awning be used in the front of the building, tying the openings together; 3. The removal of the sign on the side wall. 4. The applicant consider painting the upper part of front facade. Chairman Jacobson read the next application as follows: PIER I IMPORTS - 1329 Boston Post Road -Block 412 Lot 309 - storefront/signs Neil Carrow, architect for the project, appeared representing Mark Ellman, the owner of the building. Mr. Carrow discussed the updated drawings he presented to the Board stating there were some minor misunderstandings in the change to PIER I as it related to the signage and other information,primarily the sign on the north side, which was drawn in larger than what was agreed to. This will be reduced to the size that was agreed to, and the drawing shows it located incorrectly. Mr. Carrow spoke with the building department today and it will be pulled forward to the corner. Mr. Carrow said there is a change in tenant to PIER I Imports from the previous tenant, Kinko's. But, the scope of work is the same, with a couple of modifications. PIER I is looking to continue the existing stucco finish into the first column bay across the front of each side of the store front, which would be finished in the same material as the remainder of the building and painted the same color. PIER I is looking to replace the store front and door with a new bronze anodized store front. "PIER I Imports" is their standard sign and brought a photograph for the Board to look at in terms of the lettering of the signage and samples of the red plastic and dark bronze. A discussion ensued. Board of Architectural Review April 17, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Jacobson asked what the color of the building would be. Mr. Carnow said it would be the same cream color. Mr. Jacobson said the building has one of the most prominent exposures along the Post Road,a tremendous frontage, and being such a large facade, it is very blank. An important design opportunity is being missed. Mr. Jacobson is concerned about the side elevation facing the parking lot, because that is exceedingly visible as you come down the Post Road and is unattractive. Mr. Jacobson said that the present design of the building goes even further to make this building solid and less interesting. Mr. Jacobson said when Mr. Carnow was before the Board in regard to Kinko's, it was suggested that the building be opened up around the corner to bring the glass around. Mr. Spagnola said that PIER I sells items that are bright and appealing from a street point of view, and agrees with Mr. Jacobson that Mr. Carrow is enveloping it more by cutting down on the amount of glass on the front and asked if something else could be done. Mr. Carnow said he could not answer Mr. Spagnola's question specifically, but from looking at the plans they have obviously provided shelving in that area that is being enclosed. A discussion ensued. Mr. Jacobson said the clientele for the store parks in the parking lot, and what you are presented with is the least attractive side of the store. Ms. Washington said all the sides are the same and equally as blank, the whole building is opened up to the street. At least have a display window in it, similar to the GAP. Ms. Washington is also disappointed that even though the doors are being moved, no one has yet moved the walkway into the building so that the entrance into the building through the planting plan is not in the center. Mr. Immerman said some of the things discussed previously in terms of the junk stuff on the back and sides have not been addressed; the electric cable, the unsightly parking lot light fixtures on the wall are not shown, and stuccoing out the block on the south elevation is not indicated. Mr. Spagnola said he looked at the strip between Dunkin Donuts and the parking lot, and said it is really bad. The plan states it is to remain as landscaped area. There is no landscaping in that area. Mr. Carrow said it only states that the area is to remain as a landscaped area. A new planting plan was previously presented which the Board approved. Mr. Ellman, the owner who was also present, addressed that issue. Mr. Jacobson said he did not think that was the most significant problem. Mr. Carrow said they are looking to work with the Board and will do what they can with regard to glass area. The tenant has obviously made a serious concerted decision to close that area off for their marketing use inside the building. Mr. Carrow understands the Board's concerns about the exterior. The degree to which the Board's suggestions have an impact on the applicant's ability to merchandise the way the applicant perceives, it may need to merchandise to make this building successful, is the issue. Mr. Jacobson said the Board understands, but it is exceeding important that there is an opportunity for the building to make a contribution to the Post Road. The Board needs to state its case, and the applicant needs to deal with it however they do so. At this point in time, the Board has to reject this application. Mr. Jacobson asked for the Board's views. Ms. Washington said she would like to see if the owner of the building would approach the tenant to see if the tenant is interested in putting a window in the side, and then continue from that point. Mr. Jacobson said then this application needs to be resubmitted next month. Board of Architectural Review April 17, 1997 Page 6 41) Mr. Immerman said he doesn't feel as strongly about it,as he would like to see the tenant,PIER I Imports, take the store. Mr. Jacobson said the GAP has made a terrific contribution to the street, Pier I is a major national company, and feels someone needs to work harder on this application to make a similar contribution. Mr. Immerman asked what happened to the planting that was supposed to happen on the Hommocks Road side, as it is not shown on the drawing. Mr. Camow said it is on the site plan. Mark Ellman, the owner of the property, said frankly when he first looked at the building the idea of putting glass on the north wall was something he thought would improve the building. He feels it would be quite helpful if a poll was taken of the Board to get its position on those items. Ms. Washington asked if those involved at Pier I had seen the neighborhood. Mr. Ellman said the head real estate person for the northeast who selected the site and with whom he was negotiating was with the GAP when that store was open. The reason he is so excited about the location, is that he knows the neighborhood. Ms. Washington said then he knows the ability of the location to bring in traffic, and also knows the ability of good architecture to transform a hideous building. A discussion ensued. Mr. Ellman said early on they had talked about the glass return, but the lack of wall space for interior display was a significant issue for them. Perhaps they could deal with the possibility of a see-through return into the building. Mr. Immerman said they could also talk about a display window that has light, such as the GAP. It does not have to go through to the store. A discussion ensued. Mr. Ellman said the storefront as proposed is a higher quality and nicer look. Mr. Jacobson said the building does not take advantage of the possibility of color. Personally, the bronze anodized return on the side of the signage and bronze anodized window mullions is not a great choice. Mr. Jacobson would consider a painted mullion, not the brown and the red, and referred to the Staples building. Mr. Jacobson said his preference would be for someone to take a creative look at the building and come back to the Board with some conclusions. Mr. Jacobson said the Board has expressed a desire that the building have the side facing the parking lot be as glassy as possible however that may be achieved, as it is a plus to have the customers able to look into the store. Mr. Jacobson said something ought to be happening to enliven the building,even if done with paint; i.e. the fascia whiter than the storefront below. Mr. Ellman asked if the closed two end bays were a problem. Mr. Jacobson said the closed two end bays bother him a lot. He would like to see the glass go around. The building up against Hommocks Road has a whole different nature to it. That side can be closed. A discussion continued. Mr. Spagnola said all the surfaces are treated one way, but contrasting colors would be helpful. A discussion ensued regarding the GAP and the colors used by them. Mr. Ellman understands that the Board wants to break up the massing with color and texture, making the 1/4 parking lot side of the building more inviting. On a motion made by Ms. Washington, it was unanimously Board of Architectural Review April 17, 1997 Page 7 RESOLVED, that this matter be held over to the next meeting when the owner and architect will come back to the Board with additional information as discussed. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Jacobson said there is one more issue on the agenda this evening, that being LEXUS. The BAR is advisory to the Zoning Board on this matter, regarding signage on the parking lot side. Mr. Jacobson said there is interest to add the text Ray Catena to Lexus and fill up the sign band on the side. Mr. Gerety said the sign originally approved for the building had Ray Catena on the front,but it was never placed there. Ms. Washington said she feels that the added signage is fine. Mr. Spagnola said much more light will be projected out from the added letters. Ms. Washington said the Board can reduce the permitted wattage, as there is an overall emission they have to be under, for which an affidavit must be submitted. Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Gerety if the illumination is per letter, which Mr. Gerety will review and advise. Mr. Jacobson said the sign band is huge and said an alternative would be to make the Ray Catena part of it smaller so that Lexus is dominant. A discussion ensued, and due to the fact that this evening's discussion was only a preliminary, the matter will be continued for review at the next meeting. Mr. Gerety will get back to Lexus to clarify the questions raised by the Board, and said photographs of the building will be needed along with a full submission. Mr. Gerety said the illumination is 20 ft. candles measured 25 ft. from the building from the base of the sign, and it is up to the applicant to provide an affidavit confirming same. On a motion made by Mr. Jacobson, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this matter be held over to the next meeting, so the Board has a chance to review the matter. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A discussion ensued regarding the Minutes, and the fact that the Board members should receive the copy with the Board packets and not under separate cover. Upon a motion made by Ms. Washington, seconded by Mr. Spagnola, the Minutes of the February 20, 1997 meeting were approved as submitted. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Gerety asked the Board members if they had received a note from Mr. Jakubowski, which the Board members had not received. Mr. Jacobson read the note to the Board as follows: "The attached sign application for Laurel Manor is a permitted sign in a residential district for a subdivision pursuant to Section 175-10A(2)of the sign law. It is not subject to review by other Boards, and we ask for your decision in this matter." Due to the fact that a copy of the matter was not included in the Board packets, it will be reviewed at next month's meeting. Board of Architectural Review April 17, 1997 Page 8 ® Mr. Gerety said it will be a subdivision sign, which can be 6 ft. wide and 4 ft. high. Mr. Gerety spoke to the owner of the subdivision and does not have any documentation on the matter. Mr. Gerety informed the Board that Laurel Manor is at 1001 Fenimore Road,just above Fenbrook on the right where six houses will be built. Opposite Laurel Manor is another preliminary approval for four houses at 1006 Fenimore Road called Coventry Court. A discussion ensued. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the BAR will be held on May 15, 1997. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Marguerit R , Recording Secretary !1' C