Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991_02_07 Board of Architectural Review Minutes MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SPECIAL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1991 IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: E. Robert Wassman, Chairman Robert M. Immerman, member Pam Washington, member Ralph Heisel, member W.E. Jakubowski, Building Inspector Steven Silverberg, Counsel Elaine Price, Councilwoman Bonnie Burdick, Recording Secretary Christa Diels, Recording Secretary Absent: Joan Williams, member CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 8: 10 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS • Approval of Minutes - The minutes of the January 16, 1991 organiza- tional meeting of the B.A.R. were approved. Next meeting - The next meeting of the B.A.R. will be held at 8:00 P.M. on Febrary 21, 1991 in the Senior Center of the Town Center. APPLICATIONS PRESENTED 1. FRESH 'N FIT (N. El-hag) 1262 Boston Post Road Block 407, Lot 192 Sign application Dr. N. El-hag and the store manager, Ms. Rachel Tanowitz, have applied for a permit to reface a sign. Ms. Tanowitz briefly described the sign and Dr. N. El-hag presented his business card as an example of how the sign will appear. Mr. Wassman stated that the B.A.R. members have visited the site and that all support this project. Mr. Immerman pointed out that the drawing is incorrect and that, if the sign were to be placed where the drawing indicates, it would be over Don Emilio's Restaurant. Despite the inaccuracy of the location plan, the real intent is understood. Ms. Washington asked about that section of the sign ordinance that states the time at which the sign lights must be turned off. Citing section 14-35-B of the sign ordinance, Mr. Wassman stated that no exterior signs may be illuminated after 12:00 midnight unless the business remains open after midnight. Mr. Wassman questioned whether a timer should be a precondition for approval, but no decision was reached on that matter. Mr. Wassman motioned for the applicants to resubmit the plan with the correct drawing. All board members voted in favor and the application was approved. Mr. Jakubowski stated that three drawings will be required: one for the main file, one for the sign file and one for the permit file. Therefore, three drawings with the above-mentioned corrections and changes in dimensions and three business cards must be supplied by the applicants. Mr. Silverberg noted that this application does not require approval by the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Once again, all board members voted in favor of the application. 2. ALL TUNE AND LUBE (L. Vitiello) 2430 Boston Post Road Block 503, Lot 421 Sign applications for refacing signs. Mr. Louis Vitiello and his contractor, Nick from Neptune Sign Co. , presented sketches of the two signs, both of which were to involve changes of preexisting signs. They also presented photographs of the signs as they appear at present. Mr. Vitiello stated that a third sign, above the yellow garage door at the right side of the building, is going to be removed entirely. The board members spent a considerable amount of time attempting to persuade Mr. Vitiello to change the yellow roof and to limit the number of colors in the signs. Mr. Wassman said that the tri-colored sign was "kind of jazzy" and wondered whether he couldn't "prevail upon Mr. Vitiello to change the yellow roof. " Mr. Vitiello objected, saying that yellow is the franchise color. Ms. Washington said that the franchise color does not have to be the color of the entire building. At this point, Mr. Vitiello stated, "That was already approved by the board. . .It's in the minutes. The yellow color was approved. " Mr. Wassman was rather skeptical about this, whereupon Mr. Jakubowski clarified the matter by saying, "the fact that the Planning Board discussed it and didn't tell Mr. Vitiello not to paint it yellow does not constitute approval. " Mt. Heisel felt that the signs were too chaotic, that there were too many colors and that, if the building were a more neutral color like gray, then the Board could allow for more colors in the signs. Mr. Heisel added that the yellow color is just too distracting; the sign would attract much more attention if the building were neutralized by changing the color of the roof and doors. Moreover, Mr. Heisel felt that the appearance of the building and signs as proposed by Mr. Vitiello would be "visually unpleasant" for the nearby apartment dwellers. Mr. Immerman felt that, when viewed against the bright yellow background of the roof and doors, the three colors of the signs (especially the red) create too much tension. Mr. Jakubowski responded to Mr. Immerman's concern by citing section 14-30-D-5 of the Sign Ordinance : "The number of colors used should be the minimum consistent with the design" ; however, the building inspector added that the board may disapprove of any application for a permit if the applicant does not comply with the suggestions regarding the facade, including the color recommendations. Despite Mr. Heisel's advice (i.e. , that the signs would attract more attention -- and business -- if they were yndistracted by the bright yellow background) , Mr. Vitiello insisted that retaining the yellow was imperative, not only because it is the franchise color, but because he thought that it would be more, not less, conspicuous. Mr. Vitiello defended his position further by stating that there are many other brightly colored signs in the neighborhood of his business. Mr. Jakubowski noted that all the others existed under a prior condition of law and that the B.A.R. was created because there was a proliferation of signs such as the ones we are discussing. At this point, Mr. Immerman questioned whether the B.A.R. has the jurisdiction to judge the roof. Mr. Silverberg's response was that one looks at the sign in conjunction with the rest of the building, so one sees the rest of the building when looking at the signs. Mr. Vitiello maintained his position throughout the discussion, claiming that he had already made a compromise by eliminating one of the three signs. He claimed to be suffering from extreme financial hardship and that he needed to get his business started. Mr. Wassman responded by pointing out that the Town was indeed acting in Mr. Vitiello's interest; the Board felt that the signs do not do justice to his business and that, although the graphics were acceptable, the roof and door detracted from the effectiveness of the sign. Mr. Wassman recommended approval of the application with the following conditions: a)The existing signs above the yellow door, on the right face of the building will be removed in their entirety. b)The roof will be properly patched and painted. c)The proposed name-change sign will have all black lettering on a yellow background on the right side and all yellow lettering on a black background on the left side. There will be no red letters. d)The color of the building will be reviewed by this board as part of the renewal of the Special Permit in two years with the understanding that consideration will be given to a color change of the doors and rc,..f. Mr. Silverberg added that, if the roof is painted prior to that time, Mr. Vitiello must seek approval. Mr. Vitiello said that he accepted the above conditions. All board members voted in favor. 3. CLOCK TOWER ASSOCIATES (F. Kathwari) 3-5 Byron Place Block 503, Lot 421 Site Plan application Mr. Wassman introduced the applicant, Mr. Kathwari, and the architect, Mr. Larry Gordon. Mr. Wassman stated that, although the Board of Architectural Review would not vote on the Site Plan, the Board would make a recommendation to the Planning Board. Mr. Kathwari proposes to take down the existing building and create a parking lot with seventeen new parking spaces. There is an existing parking lot adjacent to the site in question which is owned by Mr. Kathwari. Mr. Jakubowski noted that there is an oil separator proposed for this site and that, as part of the demolition process, any buried oil tank must be properly removed according to EPA standards. The building inspector noted that Mr. Kathwari does not have an application for demolition and that a demolition permit does not require Site Plan approval. In addition, Mr. Gordon stated that Mr. Kathwari doesn' t want to legally tie his new lot to the adjacent lot. The lights in the preexisting parking lot will not be considered to illuminate the new parking lot; therefore, a light pole will be needed in the proposed lot. Mr. Jakubowski suggested an easement agreement if Mr. Kathwari wants to run electricity from the older lot into the new one. All board members agreed that Mr. Kathwari should save as many trees as possible. Any tree removal will have to be referred to the Planning Board. Mr. Wassman suggested not only saving the existing trees, but planting new ones as well. The species recommended were Honey Locust, Bradford Pear and Linden. Mr. Jakubowski reminded the board that the Tree Commission suggests varying the species in case of blight. Mr. Kathwari told the board that he had invested an emormous amount of time and money in the Town and, in so doing, had helped to beautify it. He claimed that he has taken dilapidated buildings and transformed them. He said that he too likes trees; if the town had managed its property as it should have over the past ten years, then he would have much preferred a park to a parking lot. Alas, the Town, Mr. Kathwari stated, has neglected its own land and buildings and has allowed "eyesores" to persist and deteriorate into utter disrepair; therefore, he now proposes to do what the Town should have done years ago. Mr. Wassman recommended the following: 1. The applicant will submit a revised plot plan showing additional trees and possibly retaining some existing trees. 2. The applicant will indicate that the illumination will meet the requirements of the Building Code. All board members voted in favor of this recommendation which will now be submitted to the Planning Board. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Christa Diels