Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997_05_15 Board of Architectural Review Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MAY 15 , 1997, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Edward Z. Jacobson, Chairman Robert M. Immerman Anthony Spagnola Pamela T. Washington E. Robert Wassman Absent: Lucian J. Leone Also Present: William Gerety Assistant Building Inspector CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jacobson at 8:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Upon a motion made by Ms. Washington, seconded by Mr. Spagnola, the Minutes of the April 17, 1997 meeting were unanimously approved. Chairman Jacobson read the application as follows: AUGIE'S RESTAURANT -2417 Boston Post Road - Block 505 Lot 446 - awnings/signage Augie Vitieiro appeared, representing Augie's Restaurant. Mr. Vitieiro referred to photographs submitted showing the front of the restaurant, the striped awnings and a sample of the proposed colors to be used for the awnings. Mr. Vitieiro said the size of the awnings will not change, the number of awnings will not change and the wording will not increase nor decrease. Ms. Washington asked if the same aluminum frames will be used. Mr. Vitieiro said the aluminum frames will not change, but will be recovered. Mr. Vitieiro chose the red and white checkered material because of the decor inside the restaurant and he wants to be consistent throughout. Mr. Jacobson said the resolution from the Board at the last meeting was the following: A striped pattern be used rather than checkered; one awning be used in the front of the building,tying the openings together; the removal of the sign on the side wall; the applicant consider painting the upper part of front facade. A discussion ensued regarding Mr. Vitieiro's preference to using the checkered pattern rather than the striped pattern and the use of separate awnings rather than one awning due to the expense involved to make changes. Mr. Jacobson asked about the removal of the sign on the side wall. Mr. Vitieiro said the side wall sign only became an issue at the last meeting, and does not understand the objection to it. Board of Architectural Review May 15, 1997 Page 2 Mr. Jacobson said when an applicant comes before the Board, the Board looks at the project as a whole and makes recommendations that would improve the look of the building. Mr. Jacobson said the Board's feeling is that the sign on the side, with the wording "restaurant" which is on an angle, was jarring and detracted from the building. Mr. Vitieiro said the sign on the side wall was in place when he took ownership of the restaurant several years ago, and has been in that location for years. The sign provides exposure to the restaurant, especially for the traffic from the north heading south on the Boston Post Road. A discussion ensued. Mr. Vitieiro said with respect to painting the top of the building,he will have to converse with the landlord regarding that matter. Mr. Wassman informed the chairman that he recalled at the original hearing on this location that the pole sign at that time was permitted, but subsequently the law states it is not grandfathered and any future changes with the building and/or application should address the subject of the removal of the pole sign. Mr. Immerman also pointed out that the pole sign as executed was never executed correctly. Mr. Jacobson said the pole sign does not appear in the photographs, and was not noted when driving by it. Mr. Vitieiro said the pole sign is on the extreme north end of the property. Mr. Gerety said the pole sign has become nonconforming. In 1998 the pole signs have to be removed. As far as the nonconformity of the side wall sign, that grandfathering would have expired two years after the law was enacted as stated in the Sign Ordinance. Technically that sign will have to be removed, regardless of the decision of the Board. Mr. Jacobson said the side wall "restaurant" sign is presently in violation, and needs to be removed. Mr. Jacobson said the Board must decide whether the pole sign is removed now or wait until 1998 when it must come down and asked for a sense of feeling of the Board. After some discussion it was recommended that since there is an issue of identification coming down the Boston Post Road, if the side wall sign is removed the Board will allow the pole sign to remain until it is a violation in 1998. Mr. Jacobson said the Board feels that painting the front facade would improve the look of the building, and requested Mr. Vitieiro speak to the building owners so it can be effectively accomplished. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the checkered color of the awnings. Mr. Vitieiro said the only solid part of the awning will be where the wording is located. Mr. Spagnola asked if Mr. Vitieiro would accept a red and white striped awning rather than a checker board awning, which would keep the red as a consistent theme. Mr. Jacobson's concern is that awnings usually work better with striping because of the way the awnings come off the building and have a definite direction to the pattern. Mr. Vitieiro said he has been in business seven years, and has focused on a theme in the past two or three years and would like to carry that theme throughout. A discussion ensued using the color red for the awnings with stripes or checkered. Mr. Spagnola feels that the checkered material is the wrong pattern for an awning. Mr. Spagnola said the red is acceptable as a color to be used for the awnings, if the shutters are kept black as shown on the r - Board of Architectural Review May 15, 1997 Page 3 pictures. If the upper part of the building is painted white, the only color would be the red used as a theme inside and out. On a motion made by Mr. Spagnola,seconded by Mr.Wassman, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Augie Vitieiro for Augie's Restaurant, has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to recover present awnings with new fabric, red and white checkered, and keep existing wording on awnings; 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, Augie Vitieiro for Augie's Restaurant 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 DENIED, subject to the following conditions: 1. Supply the Board at its next meeting with alternatives to the red checker board fabric for ® the awning. 2. The color of the fabric for the awnings may be red. 2. Arrange with the landlord to paint the top part of the street facade of the building. 3. Remove the side wall sign as soon as possible. 4. The pole sign may remain in place until March 7, 1998, when it is no longer permitted. 5. Maintain the planting in the barrels. Chairman Jacobson read the next application as follows: PIER I IMPORTS - 1329 Boston Post Road -Block 412 Lot 309 -storefront/signs Neil Carnow, architect for the project appeared. Mr. Carnow said at last month's meeting the Board reviewed the signage on the building,and the Board asked Mr. Carnow to speak with the proposed tenant, Pier I Imports, about alternatives to the facade and aesthetics of the building. Mr. Carnow explained the current plans before the Board, which are in response to the questions raised by the Board. Ms. Washington asked if the metal on the sign was going to be cut out with light shining through. Mr. Carnow said the letters are individual channel letters mounted on the face of the metal panels. The blue is simply the background on the building fascia. The letter is a white face with dark bronze sides. Ms. Washington asked about the windows. Mr. Carnow said the windows have metal frames of dark bronze and clear glass. Board of Architectural Review May 15, 1997 Page 4 Mr. Jacobson asked about the depth of the display window. Mr. Carnow said the depth of the display window is about 8 in. Jim Nowak, a representative of Pier I Imports from Forth Worth, Texas appeared and asked about the Board's concern regarding the display window. Mr. Jacobson said the Board is concerned about the shallow depth of the display window and whether or not Pier I can effectively advertise in a display case of this size. Mr. Nowak said graphics and other flat type items can be placed in an area that size, which will be a changeable display. Mr. Spagnola asked if Mr. Nowak had considered actual see-through windows rather than display windows. Mr. Nowak said Pier I Imports is more interested in the wall space of the store, and guarantees doing an excellent job on the display window because the window faces the parking area and is the first image of the store customers will see. Mr. Spagnola asked if it were totally out of the question to have a window that a customer can look into the store, rather than the proposed display window, and spoke about being in the city on Fifth Avenue and looking into the Pier I Import store, the corner of which is all glass. There is open shelving that can be seen as you look through the glass, an individual can still see inside of the store, and asked why a setup like that would not work in the Town. Mr. Nowak said there are formulas for shelving that are dealt with, and for this particular site there is not sufficient space for the shelving needed for merchandise. Mr. Jacobson said the Board wants the building to make a contribution to the visual environment of the community, and the Board is not convinced this will happen. Mr. Nowak said if the back of the display units were removed to be able to look into the store, it would be less visually aesthetic than a designed display area that has graphics, merchandise for sale on the inside and a much more controlled situation. A detailed discussion ensued regarding the depth of the window and contents. Mr. Carrow feels the applicant has demonstrated being responsive both in spirit and particulars regarding the window displays. Mr.Jacobson said the Board does not feel that such a shallow display window is going to create the vitality necessary. Mr. Nowak said the merchandizing people are very creative and will handle the problem. A discussion ensued regarding lighting the display window, extending the window 2 ft. and cutting into the masonry wall. On the matter of signage, Mr. Spagnola said from the drawing mailed to him and seeing the improvement on the header and the use of the colors he does not have a problem with the sign, given what the applicant is battling with inside. Mr. Spagnola does have a problem with the anodized coloring of the window mullions and around the letters and asked if there was an alternative that can be discussed regarding that issue. Mr. Nowak suggested the use of silver anodized. Board of Architectural Review May 15, 1997 Page 5 A discussion ensued regarding the coloring of the sides of the lettering and the mullions. Mr. Nowak showed the Board a picture of a prototype new store pointing out the dark bronze on the glass and the colors which are similar to what is being proposed on the new building. The square footage of signage was discussed, as the Building Department considers the background as part of the sign, per memo dated May 13, 1997. Mr. Jacobson said from the information received the applicant was issued a zoning variance for signage in a particular location. Mr. Carrow said the variance was granted to have the sign on the north facade. It happens to be located in the language of the resolution in the particular location where Kinko's had located it. Based on that, the applicant is asking to provide an alternate showing the beginning of the letter in that prescribed location. Mr. Nowak said if some conclusion can be determined with this Board, then the Board can make a positive recommendation to the Zoning Board that the variance allows the applicant to move the signage to center over the display window on the north wall. It is the sense of the Board that the signage is accepted. On a motion made by Mr. Wassman, and seconded, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Pier I Imports has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to replace storefront and place signs on the north and west fascias; 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, Pier I Imports 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 placement of the sign on the north facade will be above the center line of the display window in the dimensions shown on the drawings. On a motion made by Ms. Washington and seconded, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Pier I Imports has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to replace storefront and place signs on the north and west fascias; 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, Pier I Imports submitted an application for approval to the Board; and Board of Architectural Review May 15, 1997 Page 6 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 colors as submitted are approved. 2. The revised site plan as submitted is approved, with the side window box being 2 ft. deep, preferably moving into the building as opposed to extending. Mr. Gerety said in reference to the memorandum from the Building Department regarding the portion of the sign that projects above the parapet has been lowered. Mr. Gerety said the head height of the display window on the north elevation has been changed. The only variance that will be needed is the portion of the sign exceeding 100 sq. ft. Mr. Jacobson said the variance will refer to the particular location of the signage on the north facade. Ms. Washington said the applicant should reappear next month with a proposal for the 2 ft. deep display window. Mr. Nowak asked if it would be acceptable to the Board to approve size, depth, and placement of the window, so the applicant will only have to resolve with the Building Department how the applicant will physically implement the construction, which will save the applicant from reappearing. The Board agreed that the display window should project out from the building no further than now shown on the drawing Mr. Carrow then addressed the issues changed, the landscaping and the walkway. Mr. Carrow said in a conversation with the Building Department regarding the fence issue, due to the fact that cars from Dunkin Donuts are hitting the fence causing the problem, then Dunkin Donuts should install something to alleviate that problem. Mr. Jacobson said the Board's primary interest is in the looks of the environment, and asked Mr. Carrow if he could deal with Dunkin Donuts regarding this situation. Mr. Carrow said most of that area will be covered with the plantings,and asked for a positive referral for the zoning variance to move the side wall sign and increase the signage to allow the applicant to be able to apply for the zoning variance at its next meeting. Mr. Wassman said the variance has already been granted, it is just a correction of the language used. Chairman Jacobson read the next application as follows: LAUREL MANOR - 1001 Fenimore Road - Blocks 301/302 Lot 1 - signage John Epstein appeared for the applicant. Mr. Jacobson asked what colors the signage will be. Mr. Epstein said the colors of the signage will be black and blue, color samples were provided, and the background is white. Board of Architectural Review May 15, 1997 Page 7 A discussion ensued regarding the signage, placement of the sign, and the height. Mr. Gerety said the regulation pertaining to this signage is found under subdivision signs in the Sign Law. Mr. Epstein explained the reasons for the height of the sign, stating the sign can not be seen from the road because of the topography. A discussion ensued regarding the elevations. Mr. Epstein said he did not know how long the sign would be posted, because it will not be a permanent sign. Mr. Wassman asked if a definition of length of time would be needed, as it is a temporary sign. Mr. Gerety said the length of time for a temporary signs for a subdivision is not regulated, but as long as there is a lot for sale the applicant should be entitled to have a sign. Mr. Gerety then referred to Fenbrook, and said Mr. Wassman's point is a good one because if this rule applied to Fenbrook, which still has lots available, they could still by right have a sign on Fenimore advertising same which was developed in 1980. A discussion ensued regarding the accuracy of the Sign Ordinance with respect to the length of time allowed for a sign and the fees involved. On a motion made by Mr. Wassman, seconded by Mr. Immerman, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, John Epstein has submitted an application for Laurel Manor to the Building Inspector, together with plans to install a new marketing sign for the Laurel Manor subdivision; 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, John Epstein has submitted an application for the Laurel Manor subdivision 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 be permitted in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance with a restriction that the applicant be limited to a period of three (3) years. If he wishes to continue the signage beyond that point, the applicant will reapply. Chairman Jacobson read the next application as follows: CHASE MANHATTAN BANK- 1350 Boston Post Road - Block 410 Lot 130 -signage Marvin Smith appeared, representing Chase Manhattan Bank. Mr. Smith said the name is being changed from Chemical to Chase in the same location, the same sizes. Mr. Spagnola asked if the existing sign inside the doorway is a permanent sign and will it change. Mr. Smith said he did not think so. The applicant is applying for three (3) signs, one(1) on each corner and the 24-hour banking sign and referred to the before and after pictures. Board of Architectural Review May 15, 1997 Page 8 Ms. Washington commented about the repeated use of the name Chase on the entrance doors. A discussion ensued regarding the samples before the Board and the contents of the signs on the doors. Mr. Jacobson said Ms. Washington is concerned about the name Chase appearing everywhere, and in addition above the sign which indicates the hours of operation on the doors, and feels that is a good point. After review, on a motion made by Ms. Washington and seconded, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Marvin Smith has submitted an application for Chase Manhattan Bank to the Building Inspector, together with plans to reface parking lot signs, signs above entry door, and 24-hour window 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, Marvin Smith has submitted an application for Chase Manhattan Bank 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 name of the bank and the bank logo and colors not appear on either of the operating doors. It may appear on the stationery transom window above the two operating doors. Ms. Washington asked if there is a dead dogwood tree on the side of the building. Mr. Smith said he did not knoW, is not in the landscaping field, but will relay the message to the bank. Mr. Jacobson said the Board would like the dogwood tree replaced, a tree planted in the corner that was never replaced, and that the landscaping be well maintained. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Jacobson said the last order of business to be discussed is the Special Use Permit for Tedesco Auto Body, Inc., 2430 Boston Post Road, Block 503 Lot 421 which Mr. Gerety presented to the Board this evening. Mr. Jacobson read the attached memo, dated May 15, 1997, which asked for additional conditions or comments from the Board. Mr. Jacobson then read a memo, dated May 7, 1997, from Mr. Jakubowski to the Planning Board pertaining to the same matter. A discussion ensued, with Mr. Jacobson stating there is not sufficient material available to the Board to render a judgment. On a motion made by Ms. Washington and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Tedesco Auto Body matter be, and hereby is, adjourned to the June 19, 1997 meeting and that the applicant provide appropriate materials to the Board for consideration. Board of Architectural Review May 15, 1997 Page 9 NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the BAR will be held on June 19, 1997. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:30 p.m. 2 .u��,c& (Circ Marguerite Rca, Recording Secretary