Architectural Review Board Minutes - January 25, 2006

Minutes

Architectural Review Board

Village/Town of Mount Kisco

January 25, 2006

Members in Attendance: Nancy Abramson

Steve Marrano

Anne Houck

Frank Tortorello

Members Absent:

Staff Attending: Karen Schleimer

Staff Absent: Austin Cassidy

Meeting Called to order at 7:30 p.m.

Returning Cases:

Case #05-55 Signage, Paul Kelly Applicant

Nancy Abramson: Please walk us through what you want to o tonight.

Paul Kelly: We are putting lettering on the side of the building, which we wanted to put a banner type thing, which is located here and was existing. You told me that we could not do that. You had suggested maybe you would review some type of pin mounted lettering. This is the exact type of lettering, we would like to use. It is a gray façade and bolted right on to it. You can see in the photographs the old signs that were there. We did reduce the size of the lettering. That is it.

This is located on the side of the entrance. The front of the building has assigned that we already received a permit for. The sign is on the side is what we are here to talk about tonight.

Nancy Abramson: You have signs up there?

Paul Kelly: Not on the sides.

Anne Houck: There are temporary signs there.

Paul Kelly: There is a permanent sign there. The side signs were taken off and we have our permanent signs up. We took the side signs down when we put the permanent signs up.

Nancy Abramson: I understand, and there are some violations that are outstanding right now.

Paul Kelly: There are no violations right now.

Karen Schleimer: There are building violations.

Paul Kelly: There were two $75.00 fees, and they have been paid.

Karen Schleimer: Ok.

Paul Kelly: They had nothing to do at the signs on the side; it had to do with the front and the back of signs. We had put a temporary sign up.

Karen Schleimer: As far as I know as of last week. They were still showing open.

Paul Kelly: they were paid. I have a cashed check.

Karen Schleimer: That would be great. Could I ask you to produce the receipt?

Paul Kelly: I might have the receipt with me for the hunter and $150. I personally paid them myself.

Karen Schleimer: How long ago was that?

Paul Kelly: At least one month ago. It had nothing to do with the signs on the side.

Karen Schleimer: It did have something to do with signage.

Paul Kelly: Yes, and we paid that. I can go and look to see if I have the receipt.

Karen Schleimer: You can get it to me after the meeting. All I'm saying is as all of last week it was still showing open on the court docket.

Paul Kelly: Something is wrong then.

Karen Schleimer: We will need to check that out.

Nancy Abramson: We need to clear that up before we can't approve this officially.

Paul Kelly: I just want to go and see if I have the receipt so we do not hold this up. This will take me one minute to go to my briefcase.

Frank Tortorello: This was rejected the last time. Can we recall the minutes from his last appearance?

Paul Kelly: I do not have the receipt. I did pay them.

Karen Schleimer: I will give you my information and you can fax it over to me tomorrow morning.

Paul Kelly: Not a problem. My last appearance you approved the front sign that now have my name on the signs. We used the existing signs that were there. We painted them and re-lettered them. At that time you said we couldn't put the two banners on the sides that were existing. We super imposed what it would look like with the banner. You suggested that we do some type of lettering to go with the building. I was told this is what we should do.

Nancy Abramson: I think and we will check with the minutes that it was one side.

Paul Kelly: It would be silly to do it on the one side. The building jets out and if you do it on one side it would be silly.

Anne Houck: Let's check the minutes and see what we come up with.

Paul Kelly: Regardless of what the minutes say, if we put it on one side it would still look a little different than what is existing there now.

Frank Tortorello: The preference would be to have it on no side. I think putting the sign on one side was a concession, because there was some concern that traffic in the northbound would pass the building before they were aware the building was there. I think the discussion was along those lines that we would consider putting the one on the east side of the building. Technically, you are supposed to have one sign. I think it was a concession to a business need. I believe that is the discussion that we had.

Paul Kelly: I am just trying to say cosmetically it would look better.

Anne Houck: cosmetically from our point of view, it would look better if there were no signs on the side.

Paul Kelly: That would not be beneficial to us that option. This is the sign that we had the approval on.

Nancy Abramson: We need to access the minutes from his last appearance.

Paul Kelly: You wrote that we could not install the signs on the side until we got approval.

Frank Tortorello: What we said was this was approved under the condition that there were to be no signs on the side. That is my handwriting. I can tell you what the intent was. This was approved as noted. The note is no sign on the side.

Nancy Abramson: I believe that is correct and we need to refresh once we see the minutes.

Paul Kelly: I got a letter telling me. The existing signs that were there for several years are sort of your way of telling me that I can't put a sign on even though there was an existing sign there?

Frank Tortorello: We are not telling you anything. Other than the fact there was a sign there doesn't really effect what you do here now. You are coming in and you are a new business and you want to put up a new sign. The fact that there may have been a sign before that may have been put up without the approval of this board initially. I really couldn't tell you.

Paul Kelly: I have pictures going back for many years with the signs up there.

Nancy Abramson: The point is they were probably not approved. They shouldn't have had the signs on the side.

Paul Kelly: That is not our opinion.

Nancy Abramson: We know and we hear it quite a bit.

Paul Kelly: This is not what I was instructed at all.

Anne Houck: There might have been some misunderstanding. We have the minutes and we are going to review them. Please wait and we will review what was decided then.

Paul Kelly: And then?

Anne Houck: And nothing please wait.

Too Many People Speaking In Audible

Paul Kelly: I think it would be detrimental to our business not having the sign on the side. I don't know what you people do for a living but it is very important that we have a sign on that side. If you feel it shouldn't be there that is one thing. I have a lot of money invested in this store and we need to get people coming into that store. We know that sign they are going into the other stores will generate them coming in. That is why that sign is important to us. Even if it is on the one side, we have to get something to put up there.

Nancy Abramson: Here is what we said. If you want to put a sign on the building there would be a lot of discussion. If you want to get an approval for the front and persist on the signs on the side you would have to come back another time. In the meantime you could put the sign on the front. You can come back I don't think our opinions will change. I am trying to make it as simple as possible. That is what was in the minutes. No. We voted for the two signs front and back. So hence the confusion is.

Paul Kelly: What do I do about the sides?

Frank Tortorello: We rejected it the last time. You were told the opinion would probably be the same. You always have the right to come and ask for something again.

Paul Kelly: Is there any other recourse besides the Architectural Review Board? Legally?

Frank Tortorello: We are not attorneys.

Karen Schleimer: You can appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Paul Kelly: I do not understand this at all. Your reason why it shouldn't be there?

Frank Tortorello: If you want to get a copy of the minutes of the meeting. It is spelled out.

Paul Kelly: I am sitting here with you Frank. You tell me why I can't put signs on my own building? I am not asking for the minutes, I am asking someone on the board to answer that question.

Nancy Abramson: You just can't put up what you want.

Paul Kelly: I understand that you can't but if you are trying to run a business and the business is on the second floor and you are trying to get as much...

Nancy Abramson: It doesn't say anything about a second floor.

Paul Kelly: That is a second floor.

Nancy Abramson: Basically you are putting up two signs in a very small space.

Paul Kelly: That is not a very small space, it is 13,000 square feet.

Nancy Abramson: It is about this particular front entrance.

Paul Kelly: We pay tax on 13,000 square feet and we pay everything else that comes along with 13,000 square feet.

Nancy Abramson: Our job is to look at this particular façade.

Paul Kelly: I think you are wrong and I disagree with you. I hope you sleep well tonight. You did the wrong job. (Paul Kelly walked out of the meeting)

Case #05-66 Signage Rona Chowenhill Applicant

Rona Chowenhill: At our last meeting you want us to remove 12 inches off the height of the sign. WE have revised that, we still were not able to come up with on singular name. We have reduced from 51 inches down to 36. Probody originally was 19 and now it is 18. So the total sign went from 71 inches to 54. The street address 59 was also removed. We had discussion about double sided we would like to propose a double sided sign. It will benefit the businesses.

Nancy Abramson: Does anyone have any comments?

Anne Houck: I have no objection.

Steve Marrano: You have done everything we have asked for.

Nancy Abramson: You did a good job.

Steve Marrano: I make a motion to accept.

Anne Houck: Second.

Board All Ayes

Case #05-73 Signage

Applicant did not appear

New Cases:

Case #06-02 - Signage - Scott Fisher

Scott Fisher: We are proposing to put a sign on the front of the building. Approximately the same size as the previous tenant. Photos being shown.

Nancy Abramson: Is this a photo of the sign already up?

Scott Fisher: Yes. I was unaware of what had to be done. I am doing what I was instructed to do.

Frank Tortorello: Is this just mounted on the wall.

Scott Fisher: Yes.

Steve Marrano: This is the only sign on the building?

Scott Fisher: That is it. Nothing else. No lighting.

Nancy Abramson: Any Comments:

Steve Marrano: I have no objections.

Anne Houck: I have no objection.

Steve Marrano: I make a motion to approve as presented.

Frank Tortorello: Second.

Board All Ayes

Case #06-01 - Alterations - Marrcos Lozano Applicant

Marrcos Lozano: I am proposing to change the siding and changing to this color. The existing is shingles. The trim will be painted. The windows will be wood trim.

Nancy Abramson: On the porch are you taking away this detail:

Marrcos: Lozano: It will be the same as this (referring to photo).

Nancy Abramson: This is not showing on your plans.

Marrcos Lozano: We need to add it.

Frank Tortorello: The columns are staying?

Marrcos Lozano: The porch will stay the same.

Frank Tortorello: It will be the same except for the new stone base and the new stairs. Everything else is just the siding?

Marrcos Lozano: I am also going to put in this molding. The porch will be all white.

Steve Marrano: Are the porch railings wood?

Marrcos Lozano: Yes. The stone will be around the foundation.

Frank Tortorello: Is the foundation stucco?

Marrcos Lozano: Right now it is concrete block painted.

Nancy Abramson: Is this a two family house?

Marrcos Lozano: I have a permit for a two family house, but I requested that it be a one family house. We would like to put stone in the front of the house.

Nancy Abramson: Do you have a sample of the stone for color?

Marrcos Lozano: No. It comes in a yellow.

Frank Tortorello: This is a two inch stone? This house would have never had stone on it when it was built. This is a nice house and has a period look. This stone always tends to look like fake stone even if it is a natural stone it looks like fake stone. I would prefer you to stucco the block and do something simple.

Marrcos Lozano: But I am doing the stairs stone.

Frank Tortorello: The stone steps are fine. This never looks the way it is suppose to look. I would put a nice textured stucco and very simple and do the steps in stone. It would look lovely and you would not have to worry about the sides. This thin stone has a tendency to look like wallpaper. This is a veneer and it looks that way. If you are going to do this stone wall in the front it is going to have to look natural. I understand there are houses on that street that have this type of stonewall and they have not come before this board.

Nancy Abramson: Are there other kinds of stone?

Frank Tortorello: I just would prefer the cement stucco. It would look nicer.

Nancy Abramson: I understand that you prefer the stone but maybe there is something better than can be used.

Steve Marrano: You will change the whole character of the house.

Anne Houck: To have it appear as a rubble field stone foundation, you would have to lay the stone completely differently. I think it would be a lot more expensive and I don't think it would add to the value of the property. This has the appearance of something substantial. It doesn't fir with the style of the house when it was built. It feels like a mish mass. We are trying to avoid that in the older houses in the town that is our problem. You could do a simple foundation with just the stucco like Mr. Tortorello had suggested. Just avoid that whole issue the house improvements will be very much upgraded and look terrific we think.

Frank Tortorello: Is this a new foundation, because that is not what it says here. It says new concrete footing.

Marrcos Lozano: I have to do the concrete footing.

Frank Tortorello: The cinder blocks are coming down with 6 inch stone? This says the footing is 6 inches by 2 foot deep. This stone will be 6 inch stone.

Marrcos Lozano: Yes.

Frank Tortorello: This is 6 inch stone not 2 inch stone.

Marrcos Lozano: I am using the same stone as in the wall.

Frank Tortorello You are bringing the mortar right to the face. It is real stone. Why do you say the stone is yellow?

Nancy Abramson: Why don't you bring the stone in? I think we are spending a lot of time on the stone. I think we would all be more comfortable looking at it. We are unclear on the stone. We also have the front fence. That portion is going to be made out of vinyl with a blue stone cap.

Steve Marrano: This is like a slate.

Nancy Abramson: There is a gate.

Marrcos Lozano: Yes.

Nancy Abramson: This is two feet?

Frank Tortorello: I have two concerns. One is that we want to see the stone. You normally don't want to divide something in half. I think if you want a 4 or 6 foot high fence the stone should be low. The fence itself should be higher. Proportionately it never looks good if they are almost the same.

Marrcos Lozano: We put in two feet high the stone because the ground goes this way now. We are going to make it even.

Frank Tortorello: The first rule of design is you don't cut it in half. This doesn't say the height of the stone varies.

Nancy Abramson: The columns go on top of this?

Marrcos Lozano: Yes, the columns will be on top of the wall.

Frank Tortorello: That doesn't have columns there. What you are saying is that the top of the wall is level and the ground slopes. That is not this. Which is it, one with columns?

Nancy Abramson: This is it but you did not put the columns on. It would be helpful to see them in one place.

Frank Tortorello: The drawings are contradictory. You have to decide which it is that you want to do. It is not the same. You don't put the columns on top of the wall after. The column is part of the wall. This shows 2 feet. Is it 2 feet at the high point and then falls off to nothing? Right now it looks like it is 2 feet and the fence maybe another 18 - 20 inches. You are 3 foot 6 inches here according to this. Where the stone goes to zero your fence is only going to be 2 foot high. Which is it?

Marrcos Lozano. If you look here we have a foot and a half.

Frank Tortorello: If it is 1 1/2 foot there then it is 4 foot on the side.

Steve Marrano: This goes around the corner?

Anne Houck: They show it turning the corner here.

Frank Tortorello: This is the side we are looking at?

Marrcos Lozano: Yes.

Frank Tortorello: This is the street side that means at this end its 2 feet. The grade goes up at this end? This is drawn wrong. This is the property line which means this is the front. Which means this is the high point. If that is the high point and you are telling me that the grade goes up this way that means at this end this wall might be 5 feet high, not 2 feet. I am just telling you what the drawing shows. This is this corner right here. At this corner it looks like and this doesn't have a dimension, but it looks like it is about 2 feet. If this 2 feet you are telling me the grade is running up towards Maple Ave at this end then this wall is going to be something like this. This is two feet now. So this is going to be 3-4 feet.

Nancy Abramson: Does anyone have any other issues besides the stone and the fence?

Anne Houck: I don't have any other objections.

Frank Tortorello: I don't have any objections to the vinyl as to the proportions and to know what it is we are really going to be looking at.

Anne Houck: The proportions of the fence and the stone.

Steve Marrano: You state new stone veneer.

Frank Tortorello: I think it is how you interpret the description. This I would call a stone facing.

Anne Houck: Let's look at the stone.

Nancy Abramson: Let's look at the stone and talk with the architect. Do you understand our issues with the fence?

Anne Houck: We need a better rendering of what the fence actually looks like.

Steve Marrano: Are you going to change the roof?

Marrcos Lozano: No.

Nancy Abramson: Is there anything else?

Frank Tortorello: We can look at everything and maybe we can give an approval on the siding and the trims on the windows.

Nancy Abramson: We are suggesting maybe we can work something out so you can get started.

Frank Tortorello: We can start with the re-siding and the trim on the windows and then you can come back and would not have to file a separate application. This would be a partial so you could get started. Then come back with the base of the house and the fence.

Marrcos Lozano: Would I get your approval for this color? The porch would be the same white.

Anne Houck: I move for a partial acceptance of the named items and a return for the stone facing the various details of the wall.

Frank Tortorello: Second.

Board All Ayes.

Case #06-03 - Alterations to the Façade - Michael Gallin Architect, Jim Diamond Owner.

Michael Gallin: There is a lot going on here. We have been before the Planning Board for sometime now. The project (viewing of the site plans) is this existing 575,000 square foot historic distribution center Grand Union. On the southern half of the site there is a 6,500 square foot truck maintenance garage that was also part of the Grand Union. There is a ground mounted 300,000 gallon water tank with an associated pump house. Currently there is a water tower that is not being shown here. That is being proposed for removal and that is 100 feet plus tall. Route 117 is along here. The site is actually down in a valley. Below 117 there is a 30 foot plus or minus grade change from elevation of 117. The parking lot is in front of the building. The parking lot in front of the building is basically flat. There is an existing large ramp hill here and here that gets traffic from the parking lot up to the northern entry. There are a series of potential entry points that access 117. Currently the property has approximately 100 foot frontage on 117 on the northern exit point, which is what we call easement 3. This is 50 feet wide. Easement 2 is also 50 feet wide and easement 1 is 60 feet wide. The northern and easement 2 have been historically utilized. There is a significant grade change between easement 3 and the access drive that prevents vehicular access at that location. Easement 1 doesn't have access currently. The previous site plan approvals for these two properties have utilized this area for parking. These buildings also encroach into the easement. Right here is the Ford dealership and to the south this is the patio store. To be clear at what we are here for tonight. We are not here to talk about signage. We will be back in front of for the signage when we know who is actually going in the building. We are also not here to talk about the equipment encloses, because until we have specific tenants put in the building we are not sure exactly what equipment is going on the building. We will be back to talk about that. The plan that is in front of the Planning Board currently and now also in front of you is to revitalize the site recycle all the existing structures as opposed to demolishing them. Reuse the existing large building for multi tenant warehouse. Similar to the historic use but with smaller tenants and there are a variety of advantages to that verses a single tenant. The maximum number of tenants on the site will be 15. We are actually anticipating that there be fewer. It seems like a reasonable point in terms of the Planning Board. Associated with the revitalizing the building and turning it into multi tenant there are a variety of improvements that are proposed. The most significant improvements are the site work. Currently this is a sea of asphalt. No interruptions no islands, no plantings. We are proposing significant numbers of islands planted throughout the parking lot. Planted with trees and shrubbery. All of that will be concrete curb. Currently this road as I said comes down and ties into the parking lot. We are proposing to continue that road and connect it to Ice House Rd. This is the common name for easement 2. So that there is potential by pass to portions of Rt. 117 from Ice House road to its historical point of entry.

Frank Tortorello: Does that access road make up the grade differential?

Michael Gallin: There is a slight grade. The parking lot is probably 60 feet. This road will drop down and then pick back up.

Frank Tortorello: You said that there is a 30 foot differential.

Michael Gallin: Correct. This is an existing portion of that.

Frank Tortorello: The roof of the building is at what height?

Michael Gallin: It is level with 117.

Frank Tortorello: So it is approximately a 30 foot bay?

Michael Gallin: I believe it is 27 foot clear.

Jim Diamond: From the outside of the building it is about 30-31 feet.

Frank Tortorello: So what you see from 117 if you lay with your head on the road you would see a line.

Michael Gallin: You would see the horizon.

Frank Tortorello: That has a lot to do with what you put on the roof ultimately.

Michael Gallin: Absolutely. The other thing to note is. From here to here this whole band of commercial space is also basically level with the grade of 117. You have a significant sort of plateau and then it drops off and all these structures and trees along that edge screen this building significantly. There is always going to be something there providing a buffer between this. It is set down from the major though fare. We spoke briefly about landscaping improvements, new parking lay out, code compliant. WE are going to do a façade upgrade. One of the major things we are doing as I mentioned is to remove the water tower. At the southern portion there is currently a large field that we are going to be turning into a municipal soccer field. That would be of the oversight of the Village. This portion of the parking lot although is part of the overall parking lot has a planted screen between that portion and the remainder of the parking lot. The access to the field is from this parking lot. It is anticipated that users of the field will be parking at the southern edge of the property. It is also configured in a way so that if these properties ever get redeveloped there is the opportunity to bring a road directly to that parking lot.

Frank Tortorello: Is that soccer field the result of some discussion with the boards?

Michael Gallin: The Mayor had asked for it specifically in correlation with the Recreation Department. The other thing that we are providing as part of this development is municipal storage space. 10,000 square feet in the building itself. That was also a request by the trustees and the Mayor. I understand that it is a requirement in the town especially in relation to the renovation of the library.

Anne Houck: Can you speak a little bit about the landscaping renovations that you are proposing.

Nancy Abramson: Basically what you are here tonight to go over the landscaping, façade.