ARB Minutes 7-18-07

Minutes

Architectural Review Board

Village/Town of Mount Kisco

Wednesday July 18, 2007

Meeting called to order at 7:30 pm, Wednesday July 18, 2007, at the Municipal Building Mount Kisco, New York.

Members Present: Chairwoman Nancy Abramson

Anne Houck

Kevin Kelly

Frank Tortorello

Bruce Hartleben

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: None

Staff Absent: Austin Cassidy

Chairwoman Abramson: Architectural Review Board of Mt. Kisco now comes to order 7:30 Pm April 18, 2007

Returning Cases:

77 S. Moger Ave

Mount Kisco, New York 10549

Richard Alexander, representing the applicant

Richard Alexander: I am here representing Eduardo's. Tonight we would like to take a look at the roof top screening and signage for the front. I have one addition to what you have regarding the roof top screening. This would be a third option. I have photo as of today.

Nancy Placona: These photos here are before any signage or work was done to the building.

Chairwoman Abramson: Let's start with the signage.

Richard Alexander: This is what last month's looked like if you would like me to refresh your memory. This is the distance top of the awning however the sign will be above the parfait and it looks like it will. It is a 2 foot distance. There was a concern that the façade was angled like the rest of the building but it is not. This is shown here. (Viewing of the plans) It would be vertical. I just want to show you that this is a vertical surface.

Anne Houck: In contrast to this side where there is pitch?

Richard Alexander: Yes.

Chairwoman Abramson: So it is going in this space and that is 2 feet up there?

Richard Alexander: Given the proportion there it is going to protrude a little bit above the parfait.

Bruce Hartleben: This is instead of where you have the awning.

Richard Alexander: Or both?

Chairwoman Abramson: No. One or the other.

Richard Alexander: How about this? (Showing of another option)

Kevin Kelly: Can you describe this sign for us?

Richard Alexander: It is 12 feet and 2 feet high and the colors are indicated here.

Kevin Kelly: The background is this crème color?

Richard Alexander: Yes.

Kevin Kelly: You still have the black outline, and the lettering will be white?

Richard Alexander: That will be the background color on the rectangular portion with a black outline.

Kevin Kelly: This is a non illuminated sign?

Richard Alexander: Right. Basically that is it and the colors are what you see there.

Chairwoman Abramson: I have a couple of comments. It is my opinion and I am not saying I would not vote for the sign. This to me looks a lot nicer being on the awning. You would get a lot more space. When I look at this picture there is just more to work with.

Richard Alexander: This only has a 6 inch valance on the awning.

Kevin Kelly: Isn't here another sign in here?

Richard Alexander: I was there today and did not see.

Kevin Kelly: In comparison to the sign around the corner.

Richard Alexander: The other one is 16 feet and this is 12 feet.

Kevin Kelly: That is a different color.

Richard Alexander: A few months ago we asked for a color change and we are going to match that.

Chairwoman Abramson: This is 2 feet and the space is 2 feet. You are going to cover all that space?

Richard Alexander: Just at the oval. You will have a negative space above and below the rectangular space. The oval will be most of the space. The oval at its widest point is 2 feet.

Chairwoman Abramson: It looks like it is going above the roof line.

Richard Alexander: It is showing that.

Chairwoman Abramson: This sign is more than 2 feet if it is going above.

Richard Alexander: In my machine the width of the pen used to draw could cause this to be a little wider and could explain why it goes above the parfait.

Kevin Kelly: If the parfait itself is 2 feet above the awning. The overall sign is 2 feet and you are going to bring it down tight to the awning?

Richard Alexander: Yes.

Kevin Kelly: Technically it should be even with the top.

Chairwoman Abramson: It cannot be above the roof line.

Richard Alexander: I could reduce the size of the oval or proportion it correctly. Like I said the machine, it is almost 1/16^th of an inch.

Frank Tortorello: Since you have 2 signs I would make them both the same size. (In audible air conditioner running)

Kevin Kelly: You are concerned that this sign length is in proportion in size.

Frank Tortorello: I don't think it needs to be. I think they both tend to make the building look ok. This is a nice spot in town. The building is difficult for signs. Given the fact that you are not entitled to 2 signs. This is not on 2 streets, it is on one street. Even under the current code they are entitled to one sign. If you want to stretch that, that is fine. You have a lot of exposure, but I would then say that both the signs be the same. I think the smaller sign would be appropriate in both locations.

Kevin Kelly: On the existing sign that we approved months ago how big was that sign?

Richard Alexander: 16 feet.

Frank Tortorello: That was the understanding that there was to be only one sign. That is how we started out here, it was one sign. Anything else was going to be script on the canopy. No we are back to the second sign and I am not going to make a big issue over it. It should not project above the parfait for sure. I think if there are going to be 2 signs there is no need for this one to be 16 feet.

Anne Houck: I think they would look better if they more balanced.

Chairwoman Abramson: I disagree. I think the scale of the sign that is up there right now works well with the building.

Frank Tortorello: The sign in relation to the size of the awning?

Chairwoman Abramson: Yes.

Kevin Kelly: Are either of these lit?

Richard Alexander: This is what you approved lighting from below. Take into consideration the length of the façade on this elevation.

Chairwoman Abramson: I think if it is too small is going to look dwarfed and out of proportion.

Frank Tortorello: Why are we back to 2 signs? When we approved this sign we all agreed it was one sign. Now we are back to a second sign.

Richard Alexander: If you go back you lead me to believe that I could have a sign on this elevation.

Chairwoman Abramson: I believe you are right. I believe we told you that you could have 2 signs because we were not going to let you do the pylon sign. We did agree to that.

Bruce Hartleben: What was the owner's objection to the sign on the awning?

Richard Alexander: He would like to have both, but he would prefer the larger if it is going to be an issue of one or the other. I was lead to believe that I could have this sign. Last month it was an issue with the awning structure and the top of the parfait and the fact that it was vertical or the pitched façade.

Chairwoman Abramson: Yes we had a long discussion about that.

Richard Alexander: Do you want to talk about the screening?

Chairwoman Abramson: Let's stay with this first.

Bruce Hartleben: From what I understand it is one or the other and not above the roof.

Kevin Kelly: Above the roof is a given.

Bruce Hartleben: On the awning or the sign on top but not above the roof line.

Chairwoman Abramson: Correct. On this façade S. Moger, because we are done on the other elevation.

Kevin Kelly: I tend to agree with Frank that they should be both the same size it would be a little more uniform. I think that 12 feet would be more than ample. When it originally was approved the one side I begged you to think about that. Before we voted I wanted it to be on record that you only wanted one sign. Having said that, if you asked me to vote now I would prefer the signs to be the same size. I would lean towards the 12 feet and I like the style of it and the graphics. The colors are fine.

Chairwoman Abramson: I think it would be too small on that façade.

Bruce Hartleben: The two sizes are fine as long as it is the same color and same fonts.

Kevin Kelly: Keep in mind we have in the past turned people down for two signs.

Frank Tortorello: What we are establishing is if you come back 9 times eventually you will get what you want.

Chairwoman Abramson: That is not true. We told them very specifically they could have 2 signs. WE made a decision.

Frank Tortorello; I do not think I was in attendance of that meeting.

Anne Houck: It was a meeting that you were not here.

Frank Tortorello: Ok so they now have 2 signs. Now what are the 2 signs going to be?

Kevin Kelly: I think the 12 foot sign which is the primary sign. It would be the primary since it is the street side. It is totally proportioned to the street elevation. It is as big as you want to get.

Chairwoman Abramson: He told us that it was not the front. He told us from the start that this one was the front.

Kevin Kelly: Just because that door is there. The street elevation would be the front of that building. At one point in time that was the front door of this building.

Richard Alexander: This is to scale and this is what you would see from that side of the building.

Chairwoman Abramson: It is already up and it looks good. Why would you want to change it?

Kevin Kelly: Because the applicant is coming back and asking us to do something different so now they have opened up Pandora's Box.

Chairwoman Abramson: Last month they asked for another sign and we did not mention to make this one smaller. We told them to come back and give us the plans for the second sign.

Kevin Kelly: Actually the applicant came in and asked for the awning. We were agreeable to the awning being the graphic. I would personally like to see them the same size but I am just one vote.

Frank Tortorello: My first choice would be to have the first sign on the parking lot side and then the awning on the front facade. My second choice would be to have them both the same size.

Chairwoman Abramson: My preference would be to keep the larger sign and to do an awning on the front. I don't mind the smaller sign.

Anne Houck: My first choice would be to have both signs the same size. My second choice would be to have the existing sign stay the same size.

Bruce Hartleben: My first choice is to leave the existing. If there are to be 2 signs they should be proportioned to each façade.

Kevin Kelly: I agree with Frank 2 signs being of the same size. I am ok with the second sign and we lead you to believe would be appropriate. I would prefer them to be both the same size.

Chairwoman Abramson: Is there any chance that he would do anything on the awning? Would you vote for an awning and leave this sign the way that it is?

Frank Tortorello: You have 3 votes for a sign and an awning and you have 3 votes for 2 signs the same size. So it looks like you can pick which one you want and lets not waste anymore time. We are wasting a lot of time.

Richard Alexander: I think it is a mistake to change an existing sign when the proportion is so out of bounds. It would be a dis-service, not to mention the cost he would incur.

Kevin Kelly: You are planning on re-doing that sign correct?

Richard Alexander: Just repainting it and new type and putting up. Now you are talking about new brackets and lighting. It is a large expense. Esthetically I think it is a mistake.

Chairwoman Abramson: I totally agree.

Frank Tortorello: Now how many signs are you looking for?

Richard Alexander: I am for the existing sign, the one that is proposed on the front but smaller. The outline of the sign is as such that I do not seethe relevance of having them both be the same size, when this sign is viewed from farther away. The façade is so much greater. I would take the awning off the table.

Chairwoman Abramson: I would vote for what is presented tonight.

Frank Tortorello: Two signs no awning different sizes.

Chairwoman Abramson: That is what is being presented tonight but we have to have the guarantee that it does not go over the roof line. Would anyone else vote for that? I have seen us approve signs too small and also too big.

Anne Houck: I motion that we approve signage for two signs the same size not to exceed 12 feet in length and not to extend beyond the roof line.

Frank Tortorello: Second.

Chairwoman Abramson: I think that it will look very dwarfed.

Kevin Kelly: I would like to add a caveat and if the applicant would prefer to elect to go back to the awning as an alternative, that we would approve that and they would not have to come back.

Chairwoman Abramson: Didn't it use to be on the awning?

Kevin Kelly: We had one meeting on the awning and then he came back.

Anne Houck: A motion is on the table.

Frank Tortorello: We need to call a vote. I think you are trying to brow beat the board.

Chairwoman Abramson: I understand. I am not trying to brow beat the board. I think you are trying to brow beat me now please stop it. Do you understand if this is voted on right now, that there is still another option for you to come back, with an awning? Unless you want to make that decision.

Richard Alexander: I am uncomfortable with what is going on.

Chairwoman Abramson: I am too. There is a motion.

Frank Tortorello: The motion is for 2 signs the same size, no awning.

Kevin Kelly: I added if the applicant is unhappy with that decision I would be more than happy to say he could elect to go to the awning with the guidelines that he was given tonight and he would not have to come back, in the interest of moving this process along. I would love to see it on an awning to set the record straight. That would be my first preference and in the efforts of trying to keep this going. I do not have a problem doing the 2 signs.

Richard Alexander: In all fairness to me and I have a lot of time involved in this. This would not have been my first choice to do it this way. This is not how I operate coming here after the fact. I know you are in a tough spot and I think it is a little out of line to all of a sudden come back and tell me this late in the game and a whole month has gone by. I was told last month that this sign proportion but more clearly defined would be ok. Now we are coming back and presenting the best graphic I can with as much detail as I can and now you are driving me back four months ago and change this whole other sign.

Frank Tortorello: You are personalizing and this has nothing to do with you. The fact that you chose to take this commission from this client is your responsibility. Personally I think you made this building a disaster and this is a totally separate issue and most of it was done without approvals. Every step of the way has been after the fact and now you come back and want to do something different from what you showed us before and we tried to meet you half way, but you have 3 people here that say if you are going to do that have 2 signs which you are not entitled to by code. Then at least make them consistent. You have 2 people that think different. I understand that. You want people to go with the program because of a favor.

Chairwoman Abramson: Last month we said to him we did not like the way he placed the sign on the roof line and we were not comfortable, we did not understand what the roof line was. We told him to come back for the second sign. This is what we told him and I understand how he feels. Now we are saying we don't like the second sign and we will only accept the second sign if you change the first sign that we already approved. We told him he could have the second sign.

Frank Tortorello: I believe we clearly told him that he could put it on the awning. That was clearly was put forth in several sessions.

Chairwoman Abramson: It was. WE told him to come back for a second sign.

Frank Tortorello: This is going just the way that it is intended to. If I felt it were good I would approve it. I don't feel it is good.

Kevin Kelly: Just a side bar question. Several months ago we approved a sign up at the old bowling alleys for a medical group. Were they the same size?

Nancy Placona: No, they were not the same size.

Kevin Kelly: They were identical but not he same size.

Chairwoman Abramson: All those in favor.

Anne Houck: Aye

Bruce Hartleben: Aye

Kevin Kelly: Aye

Frank Tortorello: Nay

Chairwoman Abramson: Nay

Chairwoman Abramson: Your option on this is either makes the sign the same size or keeps that one the same and come back to us for the other option.

Richard Alexander: A,B,or C is the perspective that you asked for last month.

Kevin Kelly: This screening is how many sides?

Richard Alexander: 2 sides.

Kevin Kelly: Can you see it from the parking lot side?

Richard Alexander: You can see if from the south side elevation.

Kevin Kelly: The color is?

Richard Alexander: It is Benjamin Moore # hc158. This will match the gray in the rood shingles.

Frank Tortorello: I seriously suggest since it is not silhouetted against the sky. You have a whit building in the background, I would leave it alone. I think it is less obtrusive.

Kevin Kelly: I believe that would be a violation of the code. We had this conversation with the medical building. It was in the code that you had to screen.

Chairwoman Abramson: I think I would like the most natural looking. These are huge and I don't think you need the detail at the top and draw attention to it. I think you should be looking at the building and not the screening.

Richard Alexander: I think lattice is the best bet. Asphalt looks like a dog house.

Frank Tortorello: I think I would go with the solid wood without the finials. I would make it a light gray.

Kevin Kelly: The building next door is white. Can you make it white so when you look up it will blend in?

Richard Alexander: I believe the angle that you are concerned with is Main Street or the main road so that the background would be blue sky.

Frank Tortorello: I would make it as natural as possible. If it were to be dark it would really stand out. Take the finials off.

Kevin Kelly: I think the conscious at the moment would look like it would be the solid one with no finials and no color.

Chairwoman Abramson: I like the natural when it changes color on its own.

Kevin Kelly: You can use a bleaching agent and it will get that Cape Cod silver natural color.

Chairwoman Abramson: Does someone want to make a motion and this is only for the screening.

Kevin Kelly: I motion for the solid screen with the removal of the 2 finials and to have a bleaching stain in the gray family applied to the screen.

Anne Houck: Second.

Frank Tortorello: Aye

Bruce Hartleben: Aye

Anne Houck: Aye

Kevin Kelly: Aye

Chairwoman Abramson: Aye

Board All Ayes on the motion.

Richard Alexander: I have to say that I am not pleased with the way that things went. I am particularly not happy with you (Frank Tortorello) I think it was unprofessional of you to cut me off while I was talking and I don't appreciate it. I don't care if I have to come back every month. If I leave here without saying I am going to mad at myself. So guess what I have no idea how you are on this board.

Chairwoman Abramson: Let's move forward. Now he can put 2 signs if they are both matching the proposed sign tonight which is 2 feet, or keep the sign he has and go back to the previous application and make the second sign as a sign awning.

Kevin Kelly: Which is what he asked for?

Chairwoman Abramson: I am not going to get into that. I was here at the last meeting and we told him to come back for a second sign.

14 South Moger Avenue

Mount Kisco, New York 10549

David Stein, representing the applicant

David Stein: We are back to amend our previous application. People's Bank in their efforts to expand and future acquisitions they changed their name from People's Bank to People's United Bank. Essentially all we are here for this evening is to request the change from People's Bank to People's United Bank, logo. The red ellipse is what was introduced to that. Our proposal for the S. Moger St and Kirby Plaza are identical as to what was previously presented. Our square footage is well under the allowed footage. Our colors are the only difference is the addition of the red. The blue is the same. The letters on the signage are actually smaller, we were at 12 and now we are at 9 inches in height. The overall height of the ellipse is 2'2” or so. We are only back here for that overall change. We have already started the construction. We plan to be open for business sometime in September. The change actually happened following out last meeting.

Kevin Kelly: The overall length of this sign now?

David Stein: 10' 6”.

Kevin Kelly: This is national branding sign now?

David Stein: Yes.

Chairwoman Abramson: They changed their logo entirely.

David Stein: Yes.

Chairwoman Abramson: I like this new look better. They are still individual letters. How does the red go on?

David Stein: They are individual pieces. They are essentially cut out.

Chairwoman Abramson: There is nothing lit?

David Stein: That is correct.

Anne Hock: I move that we accept the change in signage as presented. Front and back.

Kevin Kelly: Second.

Anne Houck: On the Motion Aye

Kevin Kelly: Second, Aye

Bruce Hartleben: Aye

Frank Tortorello: Aye

Chairwoman Abramson: Aye

159 Main Street

Mount Kisco, New York 10549

Rick Daly, representing the applicant

Sal D'Errico and Richard D'Errico, applicant

Rich D'Errico: We have spent many hours taking photographs in the village. We have spent quite a bit of time changing up the façade. We switched to the flat front instead of the circular rounded front. If you notice on the photograph our original building is a whole building and now we just had to develop a store front. WE added more glass, varied the logs and added stone at the base. It tied in with the church across the street.

Chairwoman Abramson: What had been an issue for us was that it was very nice but it was a stand alone store.

Rick Daly: I think that we urbanized the look.

Chairwoman Abramson: That is a good word.

Rich D'Errico: We have brought the inside out.

Rick Daly: We did try to tie some of the village flavor into the store front. We went for the square logs and eliminated the projecting logs. We would like to discuss with you on how to color it. We did include a photograph gray building that would be one approach. There is also two different types of cedar. There is white cedar and will probably be easier for you guys. Then there is the red cedar. That is what we have in Scarsdale store. It is brighter. What we would prefer is the white cedar and let it age naturally. The other option it could be painted. We would be willing to have the gray and let it age naturally. We tried to listen to all your concerns. The stone base and certainly there will be some maintenance issues with this building. WE have a tremendous investment in this building. No matter what happens we will address and fix it. The stone base will help reflect easier maintenance. We are hoping that we can get an approval tonight.

Kevin Kelly: Do we have sense of what that stone is suppose to look like?

Rick Daly: The idea is to take the color and size the pieces from the church across the street and use those colors. The outside we wanted to be rough in hue. In the vestibule much crisper and then once inside you would go from slightly finish to an extreme finish.

Kevin Kelly: Tell me about the store front material. The door, frame?

Rick Daly: All cedar.

Kevin Kelly: We have a concern about the maintenance issue on a natural finish like that, turning black over a period of time.

Rick Daly: The photos you have are of our Scarsdale store, I don't think that is a problem.

Kevin Kelly: That was sealed. What are you going to do to the white cedar?

Rich D'Errico: What do you think? Should we let it age naturally?

Kevin Kelly: I think that it will turn black on you if you don't seal it. Here it will turn black, if you were by the salt water it would age differently.

Rich D'Errico: I prefer the maintained look.

Rick Daly: What I understand you prefer the white as opposed to the red and let it go to the gray.

Frank Tortorello: I think if you want the gray you will need to put bleach on it. If not it will mildew under the finish. I even had two chairs I put out in the Adirondacks and they still did not stay natural. If you want it gray you need to make it gray. You can put a bleaching stain with gray in it.