Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_02_15 Board of Architectural Review Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK FEBRUARY 15, 1996, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK ,foinrAp% Present: Edward Z. Jacobson, Acting Chairman E. Robert Wassman Pamela T. Washington 6' ihktib` Absent: Joan Williams • Robert M. ImmermanIlir �y Also Present: William Gerety 40/ Assistant Building Inspector CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Jacobson at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Jacobson said there were three members present creating a quorum, but advised the applicants that under the circumstances it requires a unanimous decision to approve an application. If any applicants are concerned about the number of Board members present,the applicant may postpone appearance until the next meeting without prejudice. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Upon a motion made by Ms. Washington, seconded by Mr. Wassman, the amended Minutes of the December 21, 1995 meeting were unanimously approved. Some corrections were made to the Minutes of the January 10, 1996 meeting, and upon a motion duly made by Mr. Wassman and seconded by Ms. Washington, the amended January 18, 1996 Minutes as corrected were unanimously approved. Acting Chairman Jacobson read the application as follows: DINO OIL INC. - 2517 Boston Post Road - Block 504 Lot 101 - Signs Joseph Cassese appeared for Dino Oil stating that one of two applications is for a Coastal monument sign, the primary I.D. sign, and referred to the package presented to the Board for the meeting. The second application, as per Coastal's design package, illustrates their name on the canopy. Canopy signs are wanted on the Boston Post Road and the Saturn side as you travel north on the Boston Post Road. The canopy sign was discussed first. Mr. Gerety explained to Mr. Cassese that the canopy can only be identified on the Boston Post Road and the side facing south, because the north side of the canopy faces an apartment building and residential area on Dillon Road. Mr. Cassese said the grid design adjacent to the Coastal logo can be a vinyl overlay or illuminated, and Dino Oil has decided to use the vinyl overlay. For clarification,Ms. Washington said each of the lettering areas is 6 ft. long and the balance of the space is the grid. The illustration of the two faces of the canopy was misleading. Mr. Cassese said on the Dillon Road side it would be the vinyl overlay grid, and is not illuminated. Board of Architectural Review February 15, 1996 Page 2 Mr. Jacobson said the application for the canopy states that the sign is to be illuminated, and asked how this was to be accomplished. Mr. Cassese said the firm that was going to do the installation can make an illuminated sign that would go against the canopy, i.e. a box in front of the canopy. Ms. Washington said Mr. Cassese was requesting an illuminated box with the grid next to it. Mr. Cassese said he would like the illuminated box with the grid next to it if possible, if not, the Coastal logo against the flat non-illuminated grid would be fine. Mr. Jacobson said that he would like Mr. Cassese to clearly state that he is requesting that the sign be illuminated as the application states, then indicate how the illuminated sign was to be mounted to the fascia. Mr. Cassese did not have that information. Mr. Jacobson said it would probably have to be 41/2 in. minimum to 6 in. thick. A discussion ensued regarding the unsightly appearance of the surface mounted box on the fascia. Mr. Cassese asked if the box could be inside the canopy, the sign would then be flush with the fascia and the electrical components would be inside the canopy. Mr. Jacobson said the Board would then approve the application under the condition that the sign not project beyond the fascia of the canopy. He asked how the illuminated sign would appear at night. Mr. Cassese said the illumination would be very similar to the monument I.D. sign, the entire background a light gray almost white. The letters, the background and text will be illuminated. Mr. Gerety asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Cassese said Dino had applied for twenty-four hour operation on the application and it was denied. Dino will go within the limits of what was done prior, i.e. 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. closing. Ms. Washington said Mr. Gerety could provide the sign ordinance requirements, and the sign can be illuminated. Mr. Gerety said it would be noted on the Special Use Permit. Mr.Wassman read the from the sign ordinance requirements,Illuminated Signs, "12-B.- "No exterior signs on any building or premises 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 that if the hours of operation only permit them to stay open until 10:00 p.m. the sign ordinance cannot supersede or extend that period. Ms. Washington made a motion that the canopy signs be accepted with the conditions made: a. The illuminated part will be flush with the fascia; b. The electrical part will be behind the fascia; c. The two sides will be decorated with the Coastal logo as indicated; d. The remaining two sides will be decorated with the grid only, i.e. white and red line. Board of Architectural Review February 15, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Wassman seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved. Mr. Jacobson said there was one thing that was not clear on the monument presentation. The application indicates that the lower edge of the sign is 12 in. above grade. On the illustration, it appears that the graphic area comes down to grade. Mr. Cassese said they had to mount the monument sign on a pedestal or base that had been there from two previous signs, when poles signs were allowed. Because of the foliage, the bushes and trees the Board requested be installed,by putting the monument sign flush to the ground the plants were hiding the bottom part of the sign. Therefore the applicant asked if the sign could be set on the base. For clarification, Mr. Jacobson said the base is about 12 in. high, and the monument sign will sit above that. Mr. Cassese said that was correct. The sign itself is still 5' ft., but that means it is 6' ft. above ground and asked if there was a limit as to how high a sign can be from the ground. Mr. Gerety said no part of any directory or monument sign shall be more than 6 ft. above the ground. Mr. Cassese said that with 1 ft. of base and a 5' ft. sign, it makes the sign ' ft. over. Mr. Cassese would ask that a custom sign be made, shrinking the height of the Coastal sign by 'h ft. Mr. Gerety said subject to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance relating to visibility at intersections, when plotted out the sign is behind any visibility restrictions, and 6' ft. would be fine. Only when the sign falls within the site distance does the above apply, and in this instance it does not. Mr. Jacobson asked if there was an objection to the extra 6 in. Ms. Washington said she thought given the graphics of the sign it would be hard to shrink it in one dimension without shrinking it in the other dimension. Mr. Wassman said someone could object to the sign being 6' ft. where the limitation is 6 ft., and asked the applicant if it would be difficult to make the sign 5 ft. rather than 51 ft. Mr. Cassese said he did not know, basically the specifications were taken from the prior signs, the Texaco logo and Star, which were in this frame and approved. The Coastal people were asked if they could conform with what had preexisted. The Texaco sign was a monument sign on the base and the frame as presented. Ms. Washington said Mr. Cassese is trying to use what existed previously, and said it seems like a hardship if a new sign box has to be made. Mr. Wassman said the Board does not have the power to rule on hardship, it is not our province. Mr.Wassman said the Texaco people went ahead without knowing the ordinances and being invisible being set back from the corner. Mr. Cassese said Texaco had a terrible problem with visibility,because in addition to being set back and traveling north, the parked cars of Saturn on the street obscure the curb cut in addition to the visibility of the monument sign. Mr. Wassman asked Mr. Cassese to discuss the orientation of the sign. Mr. Cassese said the sign would be perpendicular to the Boston Post Road, a two-sided illuminated sign. Board of Architectural Review February 15, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Gerety said he did not recall a discussion as far as the orientation of the direction of the illuminated sign facing Dillon Road. Normally, illuminated signs are not permitted to face residential property. Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Gerety if the building department would want to look into this matter further. Mr. Gerety said he feels the building department could remedy the matter of the direction of the sign,but the height question would be more complicated. Mr. Gerety will discuss the direction of the sign with Mr. Jakubowski, because it was assumed that the sign would be at an angle and not directed towards the residential area. Mr. Wassman asked that the applicant return regarding the monument sign. Mr. Jacobson said the orientation of the sign facing a residential area is the problem. If the building department were to determine that it faced residential area and that were the problem, then the applicant would have to do something else. Therefore, Mr. Jacobson would like the building department to advise the applicant as to whether or not it is a problem. Then if the applicant can find a way to deal with the grade issue at the base, reapply and present it to the Board. If you have another solution,please advise. Ms. Washington said Coastal might be able to rearrange the graphic event in the existing box or maybe smaller. On a motion made by Ms. Washington, seconded by Mr. Wassman, it was unanimously agreed that the monument sign be postponed until a future meeting. Mr. Gerety said that because there were two separate applications, one approved and one not approved, he asked if Mr. Cassese wanted to commence with the one granted or do both at the same time. Mr. Cassese said he hoped to get started as soon as possible. Acting Chairman Jacobson read the application as follows: LUCKY WOK - 2423 Boston Post Road - Block 505 Lot 463 - Sign Mr. Jacobson said he hoped the new applicant is luckier than the previous tenant. Mr. Poline, the owner of the building appeared and spoke for Mr. Lin, the new tenant whose command of English was poor. Mr. Poline said the new sign is a modification of the present sign put up approximately one year before. The coloring will remain the same and applicant is removing the lettering, Little Kitchen, and replacing same with Lucky Wok. The sign will remain and the bottom part will be painted in. Mr. Jacobson said at the present time there is a surface applied box, and does that box now extend down to the top of the window frame. Mr. Poline said it sits down on the top of the window frame. Ms. Washington said part of the plastic in the box will be painted, so there is not as much illuminated as before. Mr. Poline said that is because of the maximum area allowed for the sign. Mr. Jacobson said the painted portion should be brown, so that it somehow is related to the rest of the facade. The lettering is red. • , Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Poline to describe in layman's terms what is the color pumpkin. Board of Architectural Review February 15, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Poline said it is coral. The letters are orange/red and the background is yellow (coral). For clarification, Mr. Jacobson said the background will be yellowish and the letters will be reddish. For clarification, Ms. Washington said the sign will say Lucky Wok at the top in Helvetica and it will say Chinese Food Takeout. Mr. Poline said he will make sure all the letters are the same color. Ms. Washington made a motion to approve the sign as indicated, Mr. Wassman seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. Mr. Gerety asked Mr. Poline to call next week to come in for the building permit application for the sign. Mr. Poline asked the fee, and Mr. Gerety said it is $100.00. NEW MATTER Mr. Gerety asked if the Board members had received the memorandum regarding the CVS 24 Hour Sign. The Board members said yes. NEW MATTER Mr. Wassman asked what it meant by back from the street lines. Mr. Gerety said that if you want to get technical, you take the two roads intersecting and continue that line until it comes to a point(intersect) the curb is radius, you continue the straight line where they intersect, go back each leg 30 ft., connect that the bottom leg of the triangle and if it is on the street side, it is in the site line, if it is behind that, it is on the property side of the base of that triangle, it is in the clear. Mr. Jacobson said that is a separate issue from the double-sided illumination. I just assumed that illuminated signs are not supposed to face residential buildings. Mr. Gerety said that was not particularly discussed, the canopy sign was discussed and ruled out. Mr. Jacobson said he did specifically drive by CVS in anticipation of the discussion, and understands the problem. The CVS letters in red plastic are illuminated with a pink bulb behind it. Mr. Gerety said a red neon bulb. That is what gives it the color it is. If one were to use the red neon bulb in this particular situation with the 24 Hours, that would in effect discolor and make the white part pinkish, which makes a technical problem. Mr. Jacobson's personal feeling after having driven by looking carefully at it this evening, is that the difference in color red between the two is not that problematic. Mr. Gerety said in the 24 Hour sign they have a white neon bulb behind a white plastic and the red looks lighter than the other red which is being lit by a red bulb. Ms. Washington said the problem is the red bulb that lights the CVS sign. If CVS made that white, then the Board would say it is not red, it's pink. Mr. Gerety said the other alternative would be for them to build a sign identical to the one presented, saying 24 Hours, but the minimum size would be 12 in. high by 7 ft. long because that is the minimum size according to the sign company. Mr. Wassman said he thinks the 24 is effective. Board of Architectural Review February 15, 1996 Page 6 Mr. Wassman said CVS is pretty conscious of the fact that they are identified with the CVS red. CVS is interested in making it uniform, but can understand the technical problem and he wouldn't want to drive the issue. Ms. Washington said it seems to be an insoluble issue. Ms. Washington made a motion to accept the CVS sign as it is installed, Mr. Wassman seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Washington asked the Board if they have pursued Sam's Deli about removing the large white sign in the middle of their peaked roof. The Board approved their double awning signage, told Sam's to take the large white sign down, and it has not yet been removed. Mr. Gerety said he will go through their file and the Minutes to determine what should have been done and enforce it. Mr. Wassman asked Mr. Gerety that on a few instances it was brought up that people are putting up too many pasted signs on windows above the limitation of 25% on the window. It seems that again it is becoming a problem in a couple of places. The Chinese Restaurant on Myrtle Boulevard, the uncle running the place for the man who has the lease and he wanted to get out of it because it is a failing thing and has a five year lease. He has another place in Queens which is doing very well. They put up a menu sign, half the size of the board table in the window. Mr. Wassman explained to them the problem with the sign, which was taken down. Up the street at the drug store, they have half the glass door with a Kodak film for developing sign. The building department should do something. Mr. Wassman asked if Mr. Gerety had approved the building with the awnings on it. Mr. Gerety might look to see if they have exceeded the signage, and the overall good taste of the community. Even the drug store which has merged with Hughes, is just packed and Mr. Wassman told the owners to clean up the hazard. The stationery store was asked to take some signs down, but now there is another lottery sign up. Overall, signage must be checked. Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Gerety for a complete set of sign laws be made available to him. Mr. Gerety said when the Minutes are sent the recording secretary will include a copy of the signs laws. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion duly made by Ms. Washington and seconded by Mr. Wassman, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:30 p.m. ( /cam Marguerite a, Recording Secretary