Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_07_18 Board of Architectural Review Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JULY 18, 1996, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Robert M. Immerman, Acting Chairman E. Robert Wassman Joan Williams Absent: Edward Z. Jacobson, Chairman Lucian J. Leone Pamela T. Washington Also Present: William Gerety Assistant Building Inspector CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by acting Acting Chairman Immerman at 8:25 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Immerman said in the absence of a quorum of those member who attended the last meeting, the approval of the June 20, 1996 Minutes will be dispensed with. Mr. Immerman also stated that due to the fact that there are only three members of the Board present this evening, any decision made by the Board will have to be unanimous. Any applicant who wishes to opt to appear at the next meeting, has the right to do that. Acting Chairman Immerman read the application as follows: LARCHMONT CHRYSLER JEEP - 2533-43 Boston Post Road - Block 504 Lot 1 -signs Michael Colamussi from North Shore Neon Sign Company, the sign installer appeared along with Vinny Dameano, the General Manager of Larchmont Chrysler Jeep which is currently Larchmont Hyundai at 2533-2543 Boston Post Road in Larchmont. Basically, the Hyundai franchise is leaving and the Chrysler, Plymouth, Jeep Eagle franchise is coming in. The franchise was purchased by another facility in New Rochelle, and the signs have already been removed. The existing facility in Larchmont is now servicing all of the Chrysler Jeep franchises. The applicant would like to replace existing signs, the first sign being the sign in the front of the building which currently reads Larchmont Hyundai made of 2 ft. letters that read Larchmont and 3 ft. letters that read Hyundai. The entire signs spreads out approximately 43 ft. The sign is made up of 2 ft. upper/lowercase letters, is the same type of fabrication and the color is a little lighter blue. Mr. Colamussi presented a sample of the face which is blue with a white outline around the letters, which is the typical sign used in all Chrysler Jeep Eagle facilities. The actual new sign will be smaller in square footage than the existing sign. The present signs will be removed, the holes patched and the new signs will be installed which are 8 in. deep and internally illuminated. Mr. Immerman asked if the applicant anticipates any problem in the fact that the Hyundai letters are taller and asked if there will be any shadowing of what is left. Mr. Colamussi said after the removal of the letters, a patching and power washing will take place. Mr. Wassman asked if the building is painted block. Board of Architectural Review July 18, 1996 Page 2 Mr. Colamussi said yes, it is a rigid, rugged white block with a lot of texture to it. Mr. Immerman said since there were two separate applications before the Board does the applicant want the Board to handle each application separately or all together. Mr. Colamussi said considering the previous discussions, separately would be fine. Mr. Immerman asked if there were any comments on this particular application. Ms. Williams said she thinks the sign is appropriate. Ms. Williams agrees that the two applications should be treated separately because they are two different items and there will be different questions about each one. Ms. Williams said her overall concern is the landscaping. Mr. Colamussi said both of the signs are owned by Chrysler, not by the dealer, who pays for them on a monthly basis. The signs are annually maintained and he is on-call for service. If the dealer moves, the sign goes also. As far as maintenance/landscaping, both of the signs are Chrysler signs and will always be maintained. Ms. Williams said her only concern is that when someone appears before the Architectural Board of Review for any reason whatsoever, the Board has the right to suggest landscaping improvement. On a motion made by Mr. Wassman, seconded by Ms. Williams, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, North Shore Neon Sign Co. has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to remove existing Larchmont Hyundai wall sign and replace it with one 2 ft. x 43 ft. illuminated Larchmont Chrysler Jeep wall sign; 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, North Shore Neon Sign Co. 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 wall sign is approved as presented. Mr. Colamussi said the second item is a monument sign. The idea is to replace the existing Hyundai monument sign. Mr. Colamussi presented a photograph to the Board so the Board can understand the fabrication method and style of what the sign will look like which are called brand signs. The smallest size brand sign Chrysler issues is larger than what the code allows in Mamaroneck. Chrysler has made a special model sign which has been utilized only twice in the country and he does not have a photograph of the special model sign. The monument signed being proposed is 5 ft. across, 6 ft. up and down and has the same aluminum cladding around the edge. Mr. Wassman said it is only 30 sq. ft. and complies with the code. Mr. Colamussi agreed it is only 30 sq. ft. The code says the sign can only be 6 ft. tall. The applicant's sign is 6 ft. from the top of the existing base. There will be a steel plate inside that afterwards will be Board of Architectural Review July 18, 1996 Page 3 covered with another piece of aluminum which will make the sign about 7 ft. Mr. Colamussi had some pictures and discussed them with the Board. Mr. Immerman said if the drawing is correct, the present sign is 6 ft. 1 in. on top of the base. Mr. Colamussi said it is actually more than that, it is 6 ft. 1 in. plus a 6 in. clearance in between making the sign 6 ft. 7 in. There is a landscaped area where the sign is installed. Mr. Wassman said the applicant is using the pedestal as a support, and seeks to improve the appearance by putting a skirting around it. In lieu of the skirting,why not boxwood greenery rather than the aluminum skirting. Mr. Colamussi said the applicant is using the pedestal as a support, it is presently in a landscaped area and using boxwood greenery rather than the aluminum skirting might be an opportunity for the dealer to upgrade the area. Vinny Dameano said he wanted to make sure the approval of the monument sign is treated as a separate issue. Mr. Dameano said he will keep up the landscaping and that Mr. Colamussi's rendering is a little different than what the code is. Mr. Dameano said rather than the aluminum skirting, the Board would like it landscaped with boxwood that would cover the base. Mr. Colamussi said, referring to the rendering before the Board, that the sign is made up of four components, the box, the two sides, and the shroud. The shroud is just something to cover any sort of mounting mechanism, a pyramid look. Ms. Williams asked why the Board did not have a picture of the shroud. Mr. Colamussi said it came after the submission,and the dealer did not have the renderings for the shroud. Ms. Williams said Chrysler does this all over the country, and it doesn't mean the Board has to approve the monument sign if it is not according to the Board's specifications and laws. Mr. Colamussi said he made the rendering based on what he thought it would be, and was actually happy to see that more effort was put into it rather than have the single prismatic on one side but on both sides and gave a base cover on the bottom. The actual signage itself is identical. Ms. Williams said the rendering submitted does not have the skirt and there are no dimensions on it. Ms. Williams asked how tall the sign was. Mr. Colamussi said one was submitted with dimensions. The sign itself is 5 ft. across 6 ft. up and down. The shroud is about 12 in. Ms. Williams asked Mr. Gerety if the application conforms to the monument sign code. After some discussion, Mr. Wassman said the height of the base does not conform. The existing Hyundai sign which was approved was nonconforming. Mr. Dameano said the sign itself is conforming. Mr. Immerman said the pedestal pushes it up. The applicant is proposing to cover the pedestal. If the side pieces just go straight down it would be better. Mr. Dameano said he has no problem with that, but will have to insist on the shrubs. Mr. Wassman said the applicant should forget about the shroud but just let the sign be mounted on the base and the suggestions the Board has for landscaping. Board of Architectural Review July 18, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Gerety said there is another issue. The total mount of signage allowed for business is 100 sq. ft. With the two added together there is 116 sq. ft. A discussion followed regarding previous signage. Ms. Williams said the monument sign is a separate issue. Mr. Dameano said at this point the application can be revised, eliminating the bottom shroud and provide low-lying evergreens or whatever type of shrubbery the Board suggests to cover the pedestal that would be acceptable by the dealer and Chrysler. Ms. Williams said Mr. Dameano's comment that he will give his word is appreciated. However, the Board will make sure it is on a site plan denoting details should a problem arise. Mr. Dameano said if the Board can make a recommendation regarding the type of shrub, it will be more than adequate. Ms. Williams said Taxus, because it has been growing for six years across the street and both sides must be surrounded. Mr. Dameano said the applicant is looking at 6 ft. from the existing base to the top of the sign. Mr. Wassman said there is a problem presented to the Board by the assistant building inspector, the total area of signage on the building that must be resolved before a judgment can be made. Mr. Gerety said he will confer with the Building Inspector, William E. Jakubowski and the Town attorney, Judith M. Gallent for an interpretation. Mr. Immerman said he does not see anything that says the two applications go together. Mr. Gerety said they are all under signs. Mr. Immerman said that in the sign ordinance, one paragraph states the maximum size you can put on a wall sign, 11.B and the other states the maximum size of a monument sign, 11.C. Except for the base issue, the applications are separate. Since the Hyundai signs were approved within two years, Mr. Jakubowski obviously went through the process and there was not an issue. Mr. Immerman feels Mr. Gerety is raising an issue that is nonexistent. Ms. Williams said when you peruse the chain link fence that exists between Hyundai and Saturn it is not in good condition and needs some evergreen landscaping. Mr. Dameano said as far as the approval and the footprint of the sign, as long as the applicant maintains proper landscaping around the base it will be O.K. Ms. Williams said she would like to make this a condition, which means the applicant does not get approval unless the condition is adhered to. Mr. Dameano said Ms. Williams is asking a question about the fence that he does not have the answer to. Mr. Immerman said the fence was part of the last approval, and the Building Department needs to enforce it. Mr. Dameano said to maintain shrubbery surrounding monument will be a condition of approval. As far as maintaining the other shrubbery, Mr. Dameano will get someone to look into that tomorrow. Ms. Williams said there are 4 rhododendrons, 4 azalea. It needs weeding and you have to prune off the dead limbs, and stated azaleas will not grow. Board of Architectural Review July 18, 1996 Page 5 On a motion made by Ms. Williams, the following resolution was made: WHEREAS, North Shore Neon Sign Co. has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to remove existing Hyundai monument sign and replace with one 6 ft. x 5 ft. illuminated Chrysler Plymouth Keep Eagle monument sign; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such pet-mit on the grounds that the review by the Board of Architectural Review is required; and WHEREAS, North Shore Neon Sign Co. 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 shroud will be eliminated; 2. Substitute evergreen shrubs, specifically Taxus, completely surrounding the base. Mr. Immerman said he has to amend the motion, because the Board does not have a drawing that represents what is going to be done. The drawings as submitted are of a different support. It shows what looks like a post, it is aluminum and there will be two (2) of them, one on either side. Mr. Colamussi said they are not actually supports, they are decorative architectural pieces. Mr. Immerman said revise drawing A-7 to show the two (2) verticals plus the base plantings. Mr. Colamussi said he can provide complete renderings again. Mr. Immerman said the Board does not need complete renderings, but the Building Department has to have an accurate record of what is actually approved. The Board does not have the final drawing that is being approved. The Board is ending up with#3 and the Board is not asking the applicant to come back to have #3 stamped approved. On a motion made by Mr. Immerman, seconded by Mr. Wassman, the following amended resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, North Shore Neon Sign Co. has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to remove existing Hyundai monument sign and replace with one 6 ft. x 5 ft. illuminated Chrysler Plymouth Keep Eagle monument sign; 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, North Shore Neon Sign Co. 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 Board of Architectural Review July 18, 1996 Page 6 RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. Landscape base foundation planting; 2. Drawing A-7 to be revised and submitted to the Building Department to show the actual construction of the sign. 3. Other landscaping as suggested. Acting Chairman Immerman read the next application as follows: NEW NO. 1 CHINESE RESTAURANT - 176 Myrtle Boulevard - Block 133 Lot 642 - sign Ms. Qi Yong, a representative for New No. 1 Chinese Restaurant appeared. Mr. Immerman asked if the applicant had a picture of the sign as built. Ms. Qi Yong said she did not have a picture. The sign was made before, but the applicant will only have new letters. Mr. Immerman then proceeded to discuss the sign rendering presented stating it has a new front and proceeded to read what was printed including 176 Chinese Restaurant and the telephone number. Mr. Wassman said what does 176 Chinese Restaurant mean. Mr. Immerman said it should read 176 Myrtle Boulevard. Ms. Williams said it has too many things on it. Mr. Wassman said when the sign was originally approved there were too many things on it, but that was a different owner. That sign has been adapted by the new owner with new lettering. Mr. Immerman said the applicant has put a new face on it. A discussion followed. Mr. Immerman asked if the applicant knew how the letters were applied. Mr. Qi Yong said the letters are made of paper. Mr. Inunerman suggested taking the 176 off and move the Chinese over so it lines up with the end of New. Ms. Williams said it does not have to say telephone and one number can be removed. Mr. Wassman said the Board cannot tell the applicant to take one number off. Ms. Williams said it is her opinion, and asked who prepared the drawing. Mr. Immerman said that since the sign is up already, the applicant should submit a new drawing at the next meeting that the Board can correct appropriately. The sign can remain pending submission of the new drawing removing the 176 and lining up at both ends. Mr. Immerman gave Ms. Qi Yong a sketch of what the Board was requesting. Mr. Gerety informed Ms. Qi Yong to take some pictures to submit to the Board at the next meeting. Board of Architectural Review July 18, 1996 Page 7 Mr. Wassman said the sign is an illuminated sign. On a motion made by Mr. Wassman, seconded by Ms. Williams, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Chen Qi Yong has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to change letters in present sign to New No. 1 Chinese Food; 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, Chen Qi Yong 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. New wall sign with Chinese character and wording New No. 1 underscored with Chinese Restaurant, 833-2967-61; and 2. Applicant will resubmit at the next meeting a picture and drawing for the record of such sign for review before changing the existing sign. Acting Chairman Immerman read the next application as follows: SITE PLAN APPROVAL - Frank and Ann Auricchio - 5 Fifth Avenue - Block 132 Lot 609 - landscaping Robert Stanziale, the architect, appeared representing Frank and Ann Auricchio, and said the application is before the Planning Board for Site Plan. Mr. Wassman said the BAR is only an advisory to the Planning Board. Mr. Stanziale said the Planning Board is almost ready to vote on the Site Plan application. The applicants are before the this Board for landscaping. Mr. Stanziale informed the Board about the tenants of the site, the limousine service not being a tenant and said there are no alterations to the building or signage. The applicant is proposing low street landscaping between the existing curb cuts and referred to the plans before the Board stating he is open for any suggestions the Board may have. Ms. Williams said she noticed there are several areas of landscaping already, because when it was the Fire Department's temporary headquarters the Town installed a planting bed which is not depicted on the plan. Ms. Williams would like to keep that planting bed because it is attractive. There is no existing planter beyond the door, which can be started so it is symmetrical. Ms. Williams asked how many parking spaces are needed, referring to the plan. Mr. Stanziale said at this point there are 22 parking spaces. Collins Bros. is not being counted, as it is a separate lot altogether. Ms. Williams asked where the dumpsters will be as there are some in the corner up against the fence, and said they have to be enclosed according to code. Board of Architectural Review July 18, 1996 Page 8 Mr. Stanziale said the plan was amended and the dumpster enclosure could be placed where the Towing Service was supposed to go and needs to be screened with a solid fence. Ms. Williams said there is a code to follow. There are wood chips from the corner of the building and asked what is going to be done with the wood chips. Mr. Stanziale said the applicant is keeping the wood chips. It is a berm that overflowed and will be removed. Mr. Immerman said some of the neighbors sent letters regarding the problem with planting and asked if there was space to plant. Mr. Stanziale said there was 5 ft. of space, and planting could be done. Ms. William said White Pine would be a nice plant, and asked who owns the berm. Mr. Stanziale said SAVATREE owns the berm. Mr. Immerman said SAVATREE was going to use the wood chip berm, sell if off and then landscape after it was sold. Mr. Stanziale stated the Board would like to see White Pine up to the building edge of the property line. The Board agreed. Ms. Williams asked what is behind the building. Mr. Stanziale said nothing much,just a chain link fence. Ms. Williams asked if the back of the building is going to be painted. Mr. Stanziale said the entire building will be painted. Ms. Williams said there is also a planting area on another side of the building,existing Taxus with a round planter with an evergreen and another round planter and asked what is going to be done with that. Mr. Stanziale said it can be maintained. Ms. Williams then discussed the area where the two (2) benches are and said the Town Beautification Committee did some planting. There are three trees in that area. There is a stockade fence that is falling down and should be replaced. The area in question is a favorite beautification spot, and the Garden Club wants to do something nice with it. The good side of the fence must face towards the park. It can be a 5 ft. fence, and will suggest that be a condition. All the shrubs were installed along the front where there are no curb cuts and would like to suggest installing approximately three (3) trees and shrubs around it. There is a chain link fence between part of Collins Bros. and the new parking lot. There is one (1) tree back there already, and was wondering what can be done in that area. Mr. Stanziale said there was no landscaping indicated for the parking area. Mr. Stanziale asked if the applicant can come back to the Board at another time regarding further landscaping as the applicant will be back with the building at some point in time. Ms. Williams said all the landscaping does not have to be done all at once, but it can be put on the drawings to be done in stages. Mr. Stanziale said why commit the applicant to the landscaping when other work might need to be done. Board of Architectural Review July 18, 1996 Page 9 Ms. Williams said the Board has the right to suggest the landscaping this evening. Mr. Stanziale said the applicant shall plant the White Pines in the back, pointed out the area for the dumpster, maintain the existing planting beds in front of the building, maintain the appropriate parking, plant three (3) Pin Oaks amongst the evergreens and maintain the trees in the northwest corner. Mr. Gerety said the applicant must submit a new plan incorporating the changes and a paragraph will be written to be attached to the submitted plan to the Planning Board. Ms. Williams said there are three (3) windows on the side pointing same out on the plan, and said what is planted now is minimal. Ms. Williams suggested installing evergreens, tall evergreens filled in with lower ones. Mr. Stanziale said there is a tree in the corner. Ms. Williams said she knew that, but said the plantings would finish the project perfectly. Mr. Immerman thanked Ms. Williams for all the work she has done on this application. On a motion made by Ms. Williams,seconded by Mr. Wassman, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Ann and Frank Auricchio have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans for approval of site improvements, i.e. landscaping; 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, 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 applicant will submit a revised plan to the Board that reflect the Board's wishes. Mr. Gerety said before the BAR sends the advisory to the Planning Board the chair person needs to approve the plan. Mr. Immerman said Ms. Williams can approve the revised plan for him. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Marguerite R7/hcerta,&, ecording Secretary