Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997_07_24 Board of Architectural Review Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JULY 24, 1997, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK cx r Present: Edward Z. Jacobson, Chairman Robert M. Immerman RECF VFI Lucian J. Leone DEC 23 1997 Anthony Spagnola PATRICIA A.OiCIOCCI0 TOWN CLERK Absent: E. Robert Wassman NMARONECK N.Y. Pamela T. Washington Also Present: William E. Jakubowski Building Inspector CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jacobson at 8:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Immerman made a comment regarding the memo received from the recording secretary, Marguerite Roma, prior to the last meeting. Ms. Roma commented that she does not know the voices of the individuals speaking and suggested it would be helpful if the individuals speaking could identify themselves when making comments. Mr. Immerman said in the last Minutes the attributions of those recognized were not accurate. Upon a motion made by Mr. Leone, and seconded, the Minutes of the June 19, 1997 meeting were unanimously approved, 4-0. Chairman Jacobson read the application as follows: JOHN J. McINTYRE - 176 Myrtle Boulevard - Block 133 Lot 642 - front facade & sign band (adjourned 6/19/97) Mr. Jacobson said the applicant is not present. A letter was received from Mr. Victor Carosi, P.E., to the recording secretary, Marguerite Roma, indicating a request for a postponement of the front facade and sign band application for the above-referenced location currently before the Board of Architectural Review. No subsequent submission has been received from the applicant, prior to this meeting. Chairman Jacobson read the next application as follows: NATURE'S WAREHOUSE - 2444 Boston Post Road - Block 503 Lot 137 -signs Bob Lewis of White Plains Sign appeared. Mr. Lewis said the owner of Nature's Warehouse was also going to appear, but was not present at this time. Mr. Jakubowski informed Mr. Lewis that the application has been denied and will be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Jakubowski read the letter of denial into record. Mr. Jakubowski said the BAR Board would be acting as advisory to the Zoning Board. Board of Architectural Review July 24, 1997 Page 2 Mr. Lewis said the applicant would like to add an additional sign underneath the two existing signs facing the Boston Post Road, which currently represent Staples and CVS. The colors would be the same, red and white, as the CVS sign; i.e. Natures Warehouse in red, on a white background, a red band stating Super Healthy Values as indicated on the sample before the Board. The dimensions would also remain the same as the existing Staples and CVS signs. Mr. Jacobson asked if the construction of the sign will be the same; i.e. a box set into the frame work. Mr. Lewis said that is correct, it will be the same dimension, the same height and the same thickness; a white box, red lettering applied. Mr. Leone asked if the proposal is for another illumination box. Mr. Lewis said that is correct. Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Immerman, who was present at the time the original designs were approved, to give the Board some background on the pole sign issue. Mr. Immerman said he was surprised to hear what Mr. Jakubowski said about the application requiring a variance. Mr. Jakubowski said all pole signs must be removed in March of next year. This pole sign was installed with the understanding that in March of 1998 the applicant will have to remove the sign or apply for a variance to keep the sign. Mr. Immerman said this sign system was well designed and appropriate for this situation, and he feels it be would be unfortunate not to grant it. Mr. Jacobson said the purpose in asking was that he feels the Board would agree it is a good sign solution for the particular site and wanted to bring out the background to include same in the recommendation to the Zoning Board. Mr. Jacobson then discussed the issue of type face stating each of the other signs, CVS and Staples, is done in a corporate type face. Mr. Immerman said the pole signs also match the signage on the building,and it would not make any sense to suggest something different. Mr. Leone agrees the signage should be consistent with what is presently on the building;i.e. different but unified because they are red and white. Mr. Immerman said the only difference is that Nature's Warehouse has a green band on the building. Mr. Leone asked if the type face is matched, which was verified. A discussion ensued regarding the concern about the stores not represented on the sign. Mr. Jakubowski said a point to be aware of is that a pole sign or ground sign can be 30 sq. ft. The total area, if the red supporting structure is excluded, will be still be 30 sq. ft. for all three signs. Mr. Jacobson said it will only exceed the height of the allowable monument sign. Mr. Jakubowski said generically it is still a pole sign. The intent of the Sign Law should also be looked into which encourages directory signs using an anchor store in the shopping center. One of the arguments with the current situation is which store is the anchor. Both CVS and Staples are approximately the same size and approximately equal stature to be anchor stores and both are entitled to the somewhat larger area. Board of Architectural Review July 24, 1997 Page 3 similar to that used at the Village Square. This must be dealt with in the determination for the recommendation to the Zoning Board. Mr. Leone said the system of the design called for 2 ft. by 5 ft. inserts, and it would be nonsensical not to follow a harmonious motif. Currently there are two existing signs in red and white that are 10 ft. square. It would look worse to make the proposed sign an 8 ft. square and have a gap. Mr. Leone would use a visual calculation in this matter and does not have a problem with the application. Mr. Jacobson said he would like to poll the Board as to the issue of the type face. Mr. Jacobson said the Board feels it is appropriate. It is consistent with the other signs in that they represent the corporate type faces of the companies they represent. The Board feels it is important to continue to system of the sign; i.e. the size and shape needs to be consistent with the other signs. Mr. Immerman said it should be specified that the sign relates to the signage on the building as opposed to the corporate aspect of it. Mr. Jakubowski said in the Food Related Uses Law there is a section that specifically deals with sign language, that consideration of a corporate logo has no value in determination by the Boards. Mr. Lewis said since a variance must be applied for in regard to the sign, can the applicant apply for a variance to be approved past the deadline of March next year. Mr. Jakubowski said it would be appropriate to do so. On a motion made by Mr. Immerman, seconded by Mr. Leone, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED, 4-0: WHEREAS, Nature's Warehouse has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to install a ground sign on the existing two(2) directory signs at the entrances to the center; 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, Nature's Warehouse 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 application, dated June 24, 1997, is accepted as presented. Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Jakubowski if the BAR would have any input in March of'98 when the sign must be removed. Mr. Jakubowski said the applicant needs a variance at the current time to have the sign. Mr. Lewis said the applicant does not intend to manufacture the sign unless the applicant knows after March, '98 there will be a variance extension. Mr. Jacobson said when writing the recommendation to the Zoning Board, he will address the issue of variance for allowing the system to exist. Board of Architectural Review July 24, 1997 Page 4 OMr. Jakubowski said the Board can also have a finding of fact that were it to be considered a directory sign, it is not entirely dissimilar from what is allowed as a directory sign. Mr. Lewis said in the event the applicant is not able to get a variance for the sign, would the applicant be able to install a temporary sign on the structure until March in keeping with the same colors and look of the sign and at that time deal with the new sign code. Mr. Jakubowski said a temporary sign is only good for two weeks to one month, depending upon the circumstances. Mr.Jakubowski suggests that the other businesses get together with Mr. Lewis and the sign person and develop an alternate for a directory sign so between now and March the applicant can come back to the BAR and get approval for a legal directory sign. Other than that, Mr. Jakubowski would have to look at the code to see if there was some way an 8 sq. ft. sign can be considered. Mr. Jakubowski said in March, 1998, everyone that has a pole sign will get a Notice of Violation, a certain amount of time for removal, or a summons will be issued. Chairman Jacobson read the next application as follows: GULF/Main Elmsford Corp. - 2517 Boston Post Road - Block 504 Lot 101 - signs Peter DiGrazia of Main Elmsford Construction Co. appeared. Mr. Jacobson asked whom Mr. DiGrazia represents. Mr. DiGrazia said he represents the owner of the property and the dealer. Mr. DiGrazia explained the signs for which the application was made; two 2 ft. by 2 ft. canopy signs on the corners of the canopy. As a clarification, Mr. Jakubowski said there are three signs involved; two 2 ft. square canopy signs and one application for the 5 ft. square pole sign. A discussion ensued regarding the height of the canopy and size of the signs; i.e. 14 ft. high, 3 ft. fascia on the canopy. Mr. Jakubowski said the drawing for the size of the sign states 2 ft. x 2 ft., but the general specs states 3 ft. x 3 ft. internally illuminated. Mr. Jacobson asked if the applicant is proposing a 2 ft. by 2 ft. sign on a fascia that is much larger than that, 3 ft. high. If so, it won't look like what is being presented. After some discussion, Mr. Jakubowski referred the applicant to the letter from the building department dated July 16, 1997, in which the details of signage were stated and confirmed. Mr. Jakubowski said the internally illuminated Gulf logo on the canopy is supposed to be 2 ft. x 2 ft., which means there will be a 6 in. band across the top and the bottom, above and below that sign. The Board is asking if the picture presented is a clear representation, and the answer is no. Mr. Jacobson summarized the Board's concern. The Board does not have an accurate drawing of what the Gulf sign is going to look like on the fascia because the dimensions have changed from 3 ft. by 3 ft., which would be visually appropriate, but larger than acceptable. It has been changed to 2 ft. by 2 ft. and the applicant does not have an accurate drawing of a 2 ft. x 2 ft. Gulf sign on the existing canopy. Mr. Jacobson asked if it is to be a box applied to the face of the canopy. Mr. DiGrazia said it is a box that will protrude approximately 6 in. Mr. Jacobson said that will be totally unacceptable. A discussion ensued about recessing the sign,changing the structure of the canopy and the non-illumination of the sign. Board of Architectural Review July 24, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Jacobson said in this particular situation the Board does not have an objection to an illuminated sign, but the Board does object to a box applied to the fascia which would interrupt the surface of the fascia. The Board feels a smooth continuous fascia is necessary. Mr. Jacobson said if the applicant wishes to make the sign non-illuminated and applied to the fascia so the face is smooth, the Board would not object to that. Mr. DiGrazia said it can be done, but the sign will still protrude a little. Mr. Jacobson said the Board is giving Mr. DiGrazia a sense of what they would like to see. Mr. DiGrazia was asked to explain where the signs will be located, which he proceeded to do. Mr. Jacobson said the signs would be on the east face, which is the Dillon Road face, and on the Post Road face. Mr. Jakubowski asked if the signs would be on the right side of the canopy as you face both, or the left side of the Boston Post Road. Mr. DiGrazia said the signs would both be on the same corner. Mr. Jacobson read into the record a letter received from Phyllis Wittner, Councilwoman in the Town of Mamaroneck, regarding the sign request for the Gasoline Station at 2517 Boston Post Road. Mr. Jacobson said he attempted to contact Ms. Wittner to better understand her concerns, but was unable to do so. Mr. Jacobson then addressed Mr. DiGrazia in regard to the application for a 13 ft. high pole sign; i.e. 8 ft. of pole, 5 ft. of sign. Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Jakubowski if a variance would have to be requested for same. Mr. Jakubowski referred to the letter of denial sent, dated July 16, 1997, regarding same, pursuant to pertinent sections of the Town law. Mr. Jakubowski said one of the conditions that should go on the record, is the discussion regarding visibility at intersection's portion of the Zoning Law. Basically, that uses a triangle created by measuring from the intersecting points of the road edges back 30 ft. and casting a line across the corner of the property from those 30 ft. points. In doing so, the monument sign location is outside of the triangle for visibility; therefore, it does not affect road traffic. However, it can affect ingress and egress traffic, because the driveway is next to it. Mr. Jacobson said due to the fact that a pole sign requires a zoning variance, the BAR is acting as advisory to the Zoning Board. Mr. Spagnola said the corners of the canopy are very well labeled with the illuminated signs, and asked if there was a need for another sign. Mr. DiGrazia said the sign is necessary for identification purposes. Mr. Spagnola said in viewing the property, he had no problem with visibility of the canopy signage. Mr. Spagnola further said the Board is trying to avoid pole signs on the Post Road, but he is addressing the fact that if a sign is needed in front and the canopy is not enough a reasonably scaled monument sign might be a solution. Mr. Immerman said that given the direction the Town is pursuing regarding pole signs, it would be highly questionable for the BAR to recommend a pole sign to the Zoning Board at this time. Mr. Jacobson said it is the sense of the Board that the BAR would not be inclined to recommend a pole sign to the Zoning Board. Board of Architectural Review July 24, 1997 Page 6 oMr. Spagnola recommended that the owner give a presentation of what a monument sign would look like in that location; the size of the sign, the size of the logo, and also a clearer, accurate representation of what the canopy sign will look like with the Gulf logo on the corners. Mr. Leone asked why the owner would want a pole sign, when the Board has stated that technically next March the pole signs can no longer be installed. Mr. DiGrazia said he knows the owner very well, over 45 years, and he will abide by whatever the Town suggests, including the removal of the pole sign. Mr. Immerman asked if the applicant would consider a monument sign at the southwest end, which will avoid the issue of the corner. It was determined that this would not be easily visible. Mr. Jacobson summarized the sign issues for Mr. DiGrazia as follows: (1)The Board believes the canopy face height is 3 ft.; a 3 ft. by 3 ft. sign would be appropriate from a design point of view, but exceeds the allowable height. The applicant will have to get a zoning variance for such sign. (2) The 2 ft. by 2 ft. sign complies. The Board would want to see how it will be placed on the canopy and what the canopy will look like with the sign, as the Board knows it will require a white band around it or some other way of integrating it into the canopy. (3) The Board has said that if the sign is to be illuminated internally, the Board would want the sign to be flush with the canopy. It would be the applicant's choice whether it be illuminated or not. (4) With regard to the pole sign, the Board could not support the proposal for a pole sign and will make that recommendation to the Zoning Board. The Board can only consider a monument sign, and if proposed, the applicant will need to consider the comment by Ms. Wittner regarding whether or not the monument sign does obstruct the view. The Board has already established where the sign would sit on the property is outside the zone where it would effect traffic. Mr. DiGrazia said he understands the concerns stated by Ms. Wittner. He would prefer a pole sign, but will consider a monument sign if the Board suggests same. Mr. Leone asked what the square foot maximum dimensions are for a monument sign per face. Mr. Jakubowski said 30 sq. ft. is the maximum dimension per sign. Mr. Leone asked what was the existing Gulf sign size. Mr. DiGrazia said the existing Gulf sign is 5 ft. by 5 ft. A discussion ensued regarding the size and height of sign. Mr. Jacobson said in reference to what the building inspector has said, the Board could readily support a request for a variance to make the sign 3 ft. by 3 ft. on a base because visually it fits in very well. Mr. DiGrazia asked if the applicant will be allowed to have any signage for the Grand Opening. Mr. Jakubowski asked the owner's name. Mr. DiGrazia said the owner's name is Dillon Sing, the individual that leases the station. Mr. Jakubowski said the colors, orange and white, are a little bright. In terms of a monument sign, the sign might advertise whose station it is, as well as the fact that it is Gulf; i.e. like a postcard, the name on a regular monument with the smaller Gulf logo in one corner. Mr. Jakubowski said there are a lot of alternatives. Mr. DiGrazia said he will inform the applicant, and stated Gulf has several signs with name, prices, etc. Board of Architectural Review July 24, 1997 Page 7 Mr. Jakubowski said that 25 sq. ft. of an orange circle with big Gulf lettering on it is just a little much right on a corner, especially across the street from an apartment house. Mr. Leone asked if the station is currently open for business and if there is any identification on the station. Mr. DiGrazia said the station is open approximately two months, and there is identification at the station as the pumps have the Gulf logo. Mr. Leone said he would support a variance for the canopy with a 3 ft. by 3 ft. illuminated Gulf logo, as the Gulf corporate standards show very clearly in the spec, as it is not obtrusive, it is a disk. A discussion ensued regarding the size of the sign and the time involved regarding installation of same. Mr. Jakubowski said the applicant can install a 2 ft. x 2 ft. sign immediately, if approved by the BAR this evening and return to the building department with an application tomorrow for a 3 ft. by 3 ft. illuminated sign. A discussion ensued regarding application for the larger sign. Mr. Jacobson then discussed the landscaping situation on the premises, which does not look good. It is a very important concern of the Board. The landscaping must be attended to. Mr. Immerman suggested the owner propose a landscaping plan to the Board. On a motion made by Mr. Leone, seconded by Mr. Spagnola, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Main Elmsford Corp. for Gulf has submitted applications to the Building Inspector, together with plans to install two (2) canopy signs on the corners of the canopy and furnish and install an 8 ft. steel pole on an existing base and placing a 5 ft. x ft. sign on top; 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, Main Elmsford Corp. for Gulf 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 Board accepts the 2 ft. by 2 ft. canopy sign as proposed that is within the code. 2. The Board recommends that the sign can be 3 ft. by 3 ft. as per the Gulf Corporate standards, which would need a variance. 3. The corner sign be of a monument type only. 4. The Board would like a planting plan submitted for the existing planters. Board of Architectural Review July 24, 1997 Page 8 011111 MATTERS Mr. Immerman said at Staples, CVS, and Nature's Warehouse, the landscaping needs to be rejuvenated also. The triangles around the entrance/exit which were supposed to be planted are not planted. Mr. Jakubowski said the Property Maintenance Law requires anybody who has plantings approved by the a site plan to maintain them according to the site plan. If there are dead or dying shrubs, they are supposed to replace them. Mr. Immerman said he and Mr. Leone will be away on the regularly scheduled date for the next BAR meeting. A discussion ensued regarding a change of date for the next meeting. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the BAR will be held on August 28, 1997. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion made and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned. 0.,1 71"--'.' Marguerite, ma, Recording Secretary