ARB Minutes 6-28-06

Minutes

Architectural Review Board

Village/Town of Mount Kisco

June 28, 2006

Members in Attendance: Nancy Abramson

Anne Houck

Kevin Kelly

Frank Tortorello

Members Absent: Steve Marrano

Staff Attending: Karen Schleimer

Austin Cassidy

Staff Absent: None

The Chairwoman Abramson called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.

Minutes:

Kevin Kelly: Motion to approve the minutes from 5/24/06

Anne Houck: Second

Board All Ayes to approve minutes from 5/24/06

Chairperson Abramson: We are unable to approve the minutes from 4/26/06 due to a lack of a quorum from that evening. This will be placed on the next agenda

Returning Cases:

Since the applicants last appearance before the ARB, they have returned with the revisions that were suggested by the board. The materials were reviewed. The windows on the second floor are now in compliance with the code.

Frank Tortorello: For a better architectural appearance it is suggested that corner boards be placed on all elevations, along with casings around all windows.

Nancy Abramson: Referenced that all shutters and suggested a more natural looking shutter rather than the vinyl looking shutters.

After careful review and discussion the board agreed that the plans that were presented represented the revisions the board was looking for.

Nancy Abramson: Motion for approval with the conditions that they are to complete their process with the Planning Board.

Anne Houck: Second.

Kevin Kelly: Aye

Anne Houck: Aye

Nancy Abramson: Aye

Frank Tortorello: Abstained.

Demolition and new construction, Anthony Pieragostini, Adam Pieragostini applicants, Anthony Rizzo contactor

Presentation was made with the revisions of the board's suggestions. After careful review the board recommended an approval with the following notations. There is to be a window added to the west elevation #3. The window on the west elevation #3 is to be moved over in order to be aligned with the window below. Paneled shutters will be added and formatted to approximately � the width of the windows. The materials will be vinyl siding, color tan with white trim. The roof material is to be asphalt shingles, color driftwood.

Anne Houck: Motion to approve as amended.

Kevin Kelly: Second.

Board all ayes to approve as noted

This is the second appearance for this applicant. He has returned with the revisions that the board had discussed. After review of the revisions the board voted to approve this application with the following amendments. There will be a total of seven (7) signs being applied for on the sign permit. The projection of the channel letters and symbol must not be more than 6 � inches in depth. The materials for the channel letters is to be aluminum, colors are white, blue, and brushed nickel. There is to be no lighting. The channel letters that will be placed on the front and top of the building shall follow the contour of the building and letters are not to be any larger than the allowed space.

Kevin Kelly: Motion to approve this application as noted.

Anne Houck: Second.

Board all ayes to approve as noted.

Gary Gianfranseco: We are here tonight to present signage for the Lexus dealership located on 275 Kisco Ave; Presentation was made for a pylon sign that is to be 16 feet in height.

Kevin Kelly: Traffic in that corridor is not of high speed and of long distance. Why a pylon sign? Why can't you bring it down and put it on a nice base? Made out of the same material as the building. Keeping your square footage of your sign. Keeping the logo the way it is. Putting it way up there is a little excessive. I don't think we need to change the graphics. 16 feet is very massive. You do get a lot of foot traffic there. You could use a stucco or stone base and give it some elevation. Have you done a view study of a 1,000 feet away?

Sam Scatterday: It doesn't go with the look of Lexus. What you are seeing there is a standard sign in height.

Kevin Kelly: I think the building is very nice looking. The colors and scale are nice. Lexus is a cut above to do something better.

Sam Scatterday: What height would you want?

Gary Gianfranseco: We have been out in the field and looked at other locations. We decided the sign in Greenwich was too large and this is smaller.

Frank Tortorello: I have mixed feelings about it. I think you could keep the size but much lower or even set back. If we approve this and the next thing you know others will be before us requesting pylon signs. There is a general sense that pylon signs belong on a highway or main drag.

Gary Gianfranseco: Our building is set back quite a bit.

Sam Scatterday: If the size of the sign was on a monument, would that be better?

Frank Tortorello: Your identification sign is 2foot 6 by 4 feet.

Sam Scatterday: My question is that you are not happy with a pylon sign?

Nancy Abramson: Yes.

Frank Tortorello: If you bring it down to grade it will need to be 6 or 7 foot high and maybe 4 foot wide. If the overall height is 7 feet and the sign face 4 by 5 which would be ok.

Gary Gianfranseco: Does the board have any other requirements regarding the ground sign and the height of it?

Austin Cassidy: In audible. You could make it more esthetically pleasing if you used the stone for a base and your logo on top and it would be right at eye level.

Gary Gianfranseco: What Austin was describing is the base would be higher than a car.

Anne Houck: Yes so it could be viewed.

Gary Gianfranseco: The issue is how visible is that?

Nancy Abramson: You will need to come back.

Sam Scatterday: You want us to come back with about 27 � square feet there.

Anne Houck: I would not have a problem with that.

Kevin Kelly: Come back with a couple of different variations. Then maybe we can put this to bed.

Gary Gianfranseco: Thank you.

It was agreed that this applicant would return with variations of a ground sign for the next agenda.

5. Cr�me De La Cr�me - Lot 2 Morgan Drive - Case #05-14 Brad Schwartz, attorney for the applicant, James Alberts, John Ginocchio, architects

Brad Schwartz: On behalf of the applicant. We were here before the board last month, and received a number of comments that I hopefully have addressed in our recent submission.

James Alberts: thank you for allowing us to come before your board this evening. As you know you've seen this project before. It was previously before the board in 2005. In 2006 my client rethought their program, and modified their prototype. Hence we came back to you, in May of 2006 with a modified building. At that time the sport had several comments and suggestions. For we are here to do tonight is to address each of those concerns that the board has expressed, and hopefully to show that we have accommodated you. I would like to go through briefly cr�me to la cr�me's process and what they do and who they are. I know that you're all aware of them. They are a high-end provider of our early childhood learning experience. They have been around since 1982. They accommodate infants through kindergarten primarily. They do provide some after school programs for older children. They teach and expose the children math, science, art music and physical education and languages at a very early age. I apologize for the smaller scale drawings that you were provided with. And they did not give us the color match that we would like. There is a slight shade difference between the colors that you have on your presentation drawing, and the one that is on this presentation board. The first concern of this board, in the original prototype that was presented included a deep red. And it was thought to be too harsh for this community, and this environment. We agree with you. We have modified the fa�ade. To accommodate warmer earth tones. Specifically, we have a split face, beige concrete material. This is actually are used as the Wayne's coat. The material is a stucco, sand base. The color is mocha. The cornice is also in stucco, but it is a cream color. The aluminum for the windows, frames and doors, is powder coated aluminum in white. The glass is slightly tinted bronze. We have gone entirely with earth tones. In the new presentation. An additional item that the board was concerned about was the architectural enhancement of the entire building. The original presentation, the features were focused primarily on the fa�ade. We took many of those features and ran them around the building. We took the cornice, which was originally only on the front of the building and continued that around the entire building. We took the pilaster features, which were only originally on the front corners of the building and applied the same philosophy. All external corners have those same pilasters. We took the mid-wall band, which was only on the front of the building and carried it around all four sides. Intending to give the building a little more human scale. The third concern that this board had was the monument sign character, materials and location. This is a stone base, and the same colors that are used in the building. We've created a pilaster at each end of the monument to frame the sign. It is our intent to locate the sign at the left side of the southerly most entry. The next concern the board brought forward at the last meeting was the question of the fence character and color. For we chose to do was to pick a color that was compatible with one of the building colors. We chose the color that was used least. We picked a fence that matched the cream. As closely as we could. It is actually called tan by at the fence manufacturer. We intend to use the cream colored fence that would go a round the rear of the building. The purpose of this fence is to enclose and separate the age groups and their play areas. We have age specific play areas. We would like to keep the older children segregated from the younger children. And generally likewise, we would like to keep the general public. Completely away from everyone. There will be a fence that goes around the entire play yard. And there will be separation offenses within the play yard between the age groups. The fence that we intend to use is called Galveston. It is a vinyl fence. We did not present a specific product and you had asked us to do that. This is a solid fence. We don't want places where children can get their fingers caught. We don't want to give outsiders the ability to watch the children at play. Your code allows us to do 6 1/2 feet in the rear of the building. My client customarily does 8 feet on the perimeter of the play area for security reasons. We have not decided yet whether we are going to simply acquiesced to the six and half feet, the code allows or whether we would ask for a variance.

Frank Tortorello: this is a 22 foot high building?

James Alberts: It is about 25 feet. It is 29 at the front and 25 on the side.

Frank Tortorello: What is above open space?

James Alberts: the reason that there is not more glass is that the building is used for small children, and they all nap during a certain part of the day. We have to shut the lights down. Controlling the amount of light that comes in is very difficult.

Frank Tortorello: are these normal height ceilings, in this space? Or are they eight-foot high ceilings?

James Alberts: Very high ceilings. These are some photos of the center of the building. When the children are in that space it feels like they are in a little village with the skylight.

Frank Tortorello: Why is in some of this reflected on the exterior? If you look at the Mount Kisco day care they were able to capture some of the playfulness that should be reflected in this type of facility. It is totally absent in this presentation. You have a big box and you speak of earth tones, but I have serious concerns of the whole exterior design presentation. In my opinion, it is a very unattractive building. It is a major building, and I think given the fact with the previous architect, there was a lightness of spirit and playfulness. That was reflected in the design. I just don't see that here. It looks more like a packaging facility than a building that is going to be occupied by children. The sign is wonderful. There has to be some thing in this presentation that jumps out and speaks of it being special. This is a place the kids come to have fun.

James Alberts: my response is that number one the exterior of the building is speaking to the parents and not to the children. My clients intend is to provide an upscale facility. As an architect, I agree with everything that you are saying. My client has a national program, and this is the building that they wanted to do. They wanted to look substantial and safe and high end. When you get into the building than those areas speak to the children.

Kevin Kelly: Our discussion last month, was that the structure was more is more like a box truck. It had no identity. And it did reflect the look of a Costco. He did address the harshness of the color. We are working towards the right direction. I look to your catalog and the canopy inside has more things going on than we are seeing here. As an architect, you could use some fake windows here. You can have a very fun elevation here. You can bring the theme from the inside and follow it through to the outside.

James Alberts: Can you make any suggestions as to the kind of features that you would like to see on the outside?

Kevin Kelly: I am just one member of this board. If we took off your graphics. Nobody in this room would know what this building was. I am not going to design your building for you, and that is not our job.

Nancy Abramson: We are happy to add some elements. We cannot redesign the whole building for you. You did what we had asked you to do. We offered some suggestions, but it is still basically the same box. We had hoped that in the enhancement process, that it would come alive.

Kevin Kelly: That is a very playful environment. When you walk in.

Frank Tortorello: You can do all sorts of things with the roofline. Try to break a few planes. You could definitely improve on the color. You say that the building speaks to the children on the inside and the parents on the outside, but this building is also going to be speaking to the community. I don't think this is speaking as if you it is a good neighbor.

James Alberts: I will speak to my clients.

Frank Tortorello: I understand that you are trying to serve your clients needs. They need to consider changing the concept.

Nancy Abramson: Thank you.

After careful review the board, revisited this application with the presentation of two options. This is the applicants' third visit to the board. It was decided that the approval would be given with the name of the business only and no phone number on the sign. Liza's pizzeria shall be centered with 3 inch black border lettering for Liza's will be no bigger than 9 inches and the pizzeria lettering shall not be any larger than 12 inches. The color shall be blue and burgundy lettering with a white background. The sign shall be placed in the existing internally lit sign box.

Anne Houck: Motion to approve as noted.

Frank Tortorello: Second.

Board all ayes to approve as noted.

New Cases:

Thomas Walsh: existing on the property is this freestanding sign. The client would like to make it more uniformed with this proposed sign. The dimensions of the sign are 64 to 6 inches wide by 10 foot. 6 inches tall. This is larger than the proposed sign. The location of that sign has been superimposed of where the existing sign is. On this drawing it shows that it is 14 feet to the edge of the curb. This is not proposed a problem for any of the traffic. We are assuming that that same location will be fine, with a smaller sign. The base would be brick which would aesthetically matched the building. The sign is internally illuminated. We are going to use the existing power that is there, to connect into the new sign. The background is bronze, which is opaque. The letters will light up, and the background will not light up. Each tenant panel will be Plexiglas, with a vinyl overlay. The background is not illuminated only the letters.

Nancy Abramson: Everyone that comes into that building will have to have the same sign.

Thomas Walsh: If that is a condition from this board. I'll pass them along to my client. We also want to make sure that the contrast is readable.

Nancy Abramson: We let the day spa for a sign on their building. Because there was no place for them on the original sign (directories sign). There are going to be new tenants in that building. Are we going to allow them all to put signs on the building? Does everyone that comes in gifts for the sign on the building in addition to the directory sign.

Austin Cassidy: There is no preclusion for them. In the ordinance to have signage on the building.

Nancy Abramson: We did spend a lot of time on that day spa sign.

Nancy Placona: The Soundview School will be coming before you for signage on the building.

Austin Cassidy: Are you only handling the ground sign?

Thomas Walsh: Yes.

Austin Cassidy: There has been no discussion of you doing any signage for the building?

Thomas Walsh: Correct. The only tenant that is larger on this directory sign is the Richmond group. Because the number 272 is encroaching upon that space. All of the rest will be equally divided.

Anne Houck; If there are large entities such as Soundview, they may be more inclined under current regulations seek a large sign on the building. My point is that they will have a large sign on the building in addition to the monuments sign. As Austin said they are permitted that.

Nancy Abramson: We gave the day spa special permission. And we have never done that before.

Frank Tortorello: Can we review this with the condition that the landlord has to come back here, with the intent to put signs on the building, with an integrated plan for a sign package. This might include the removal of the existing signage for the day spa. You probably need to get this approved for the identification of the building. The next time that goes on the building is going to require an entire sign package. For my perspective, this is not a retail establishment. This building does not lend itself to multiple signs. There is one main entrance there. I am suggesting that if we approve this, that no additional signage is to be placed on the building without a complete master sign package.

Austin Cassidy: I believe that we need to have that conversation with the building owner. You probably should do this as an overall comprehensive plan. Are we sure that the signage that is shown in the photographs is on the property.

Thomas Walsh: I am sure that this ground sign is in the same location. I have not seen a site plan, but I will be happy to get one for you.

Austin Cassidy: Let's find out where the property line is. The sign that you're proposing is larger than what is required by code. It is my understanding that the future holds a remix of this building.

Kevin Kelly: We need to really check to make sure that the sign is being located on the property. You need to come back with the survey showing where it is located.

Anne Houck: I think that the font on the Richmond group is a little large.

Nancy Abramson: I do not have a problem with the sign. Aesthetically, the sign is very nice.

Anne Houck: You need to go back to the client and asked them if they could live a smaller format.

Thomas Walsh: Can we bring it down in size, a little bit less than 28 ft.�. That is allowed?

Karen Schleimer: You would need a variance.

Frank Tortorello: If you made it 6 x 5, it would be 30 ft.�. If you made it a three panel sign. You might be able to meet the code. I think that is the only option that you would have unless you went for a variance. I think this board would be more comfortable if we knew what was happening with the rest of the building. I think you should convey to the landlord that the next Senate that comes in, we are going to want to see the entire package.

Nancy Abramson: I think that you should suggest to the landlord that we are looking for a sign package for this entire building. We don't want to just look at one of them. We cannot vote on this because at this time, we don't know the location of the sign.

Thomas Walsh: Can we make this contingent upon me bringing in. The site plan for the location of the sign?

Austin Cassidy: I think this board would like to see you return.

Kevin Kelly: I would like to see this sign comply with the code. You need to check the survey and see image building area, you have placed the sign. And then determine how you can get to 28 ft.�, and then come back to us.

Thomas Walsh: The box would be the 28 ft.�.

Nancy Abramson: Thank you for coming.

After careful review, the board voted to approve this application as it was presented this approval is for the removal of the signage on the building and a panel on the monuments sign. The building sign will be replaced with neon channel lettering materials of an acrylic face and aluminum returns. The lighting for the wall sign is to be neon behind the acrylic face and colors are to be white with black trim. The monument replacement panel is to be stencil cut aluminum anterior fluorescent lighting and colors to be matte black background with white lettering

Frank Tortorello: Motion to approve as presented.

Anne Houck; Second.

Board approved as presented.

Presentation was made for this applicant to replace existing signage with the new vendor's name. After discussion, the board voted to approve this application with the following amendments. The wall sign and monuments sign fonts are to be channel letters with the materials as follows. Acrylic aluminum interior neon lighting with white face and black trim and logo. The ground sign is to be fluorescent illumination aluminum stencil cut faces matte black background and white lettering.

Anne Houck: Motion to approve with the above amendments.

Kevin Kelly: Second.

Board all ayes for the approval as amended.

Kevin Kelly: Motion to adjourn

Anne Houck: Second.

Respectfully Submitted By,

Nancy Placona

Board Secretary

1 ARB 6/28/06

Created by nplacona. Last modified 2006-10-12 13:06:09.