ARB Minutes 1-16-08

Minutes

Architectural Review Board

Village/Town of Mount Kisco

Wednesday January 16, 2008

Meeting called to order at 7:30 pm, Wednesday January 16, 2008, at the Municipal Building Mount Kisco, New York.

Members Present: Chairman Kevin Kelly

Nancy Abramson

Bruce Hartleben

Members Absent: Anne Houck

Staff Present: None

Staff Absent: Austin Cassidy

Chairman Kelly: I would like to open the Architectural Review Board meeting of January 16, 2008 at 7:30 pm.

Minutes:

Chairman Kelly: Does someone wish to make a motion on the minutes for December 19, 2007?

Bruce Hartleben: I motion that we accept the minutes from December 19, 2007 as presented.

Nancy Abramson: Second.

Board All Ayes.

Bruce Hartleben: Aye on the motion

Nancy Abramson: Aye on the second

Chairman Kelly: Aye

Returning Cases:

1. 1-800 Mattress.com Case #07-53

383 North Bedford Road Amend/

Mount Kisco, New York Signage

Paul Josephson, representative for 1-800-Mattress.com, John Oliva, C&M Sign, Anthony Montelone, attorney for the applicant

.

Anthony Montelone: I am here representing the applicant and I have with me John who you know and also a representative from 1-800-Mattress.com. I will have him introduce himself.

Paul Josephson: Paul Josephson General Manager.

Anthony Montelone: I was not at the initial meeting when the presentation was made and one of the signs was approved. The information that I have regarding the second sign was that there was an issue regarding that it not being on a corner. There may have been other issues. So basically I am here to be educated as to what the board's concerns were at that time. I believe you have my memorandum and the entire submission. One of the problems that we have is that because of the location and it is right on the Mt. Kisco, Bedford border and because Grand Union and I call it Grand Union, the sign for Diamond Properties is right there on their property. You have no visibility of the 1-800 business until you are on top of it or by it. That is why the sign on the side is so imperative from a business point and secondly that intersection is one of the largest intersections in the village despite the fact that it is not a public roadway. I have taken numerous photos and not only that exact corner installation but also various other locations in the village where non public street corners have properties which have side signs as well as front signs. Critical is the safety. When you drive from the north to the south you just can't see it until you are on top of it. The other way you have some visibility but not much because there are some signs that block it. Sleepy's blocks it and of course that is a competitor. You have seen the sign that John has installed. I like it and I think the goose neck effect is very attractive and John does great work.

Chairman Kelly: That he does.

John Oliva: Thank you.

Chairman Kelly: When your applicant was here last we discussed that obviously the proposed new sign regulations that have not been adopted as of yet, that might null out the second sign. We started out the conversation with the FYI this would have to come down eventually even if the board was to consider a second sign. Throughout the town we are reworking the sign regulations. As you know it is a driveway not a road and that was another one of our considerations. I believe there was never q permit for that particular sign box from day one.

Nancy Placona: They did have a permit for the D'Agostino sign but only for the front sign. They were to return for the side sign and did not. So that side sign was installed without permit and would be in violation.

Anthony Montelone: I believe prior to D'Agostino's there was a permit for the two signs. I represented D'Agostino and I believe prior to that there was a permit. D'Agostino choose to compromise it do what they did.

Chairman Kelly: I don't necessarily agree that there is no visibility. Where you took your pictures I went back out there. This is not here (referring to photos) and the street light when you stop you can't help but see the store. It is a perfect location there.

Anthony Montelone: But if the light is green you are past it before you see it. The light is green more than it is red. I think that light only triggers when there are vehicles on this roadway.

Nancy Abramson: What is this next to? The Christian store?

Chairman Kelly: Correct.

Nancy Abramson: I can see the Christian store fine. Why wouldn't I be able to see yours?

Anthony Montelone: You just can't see the sign when you are coming south, you are on it.

Nancy Abramson: Why wouldn't the Christian store be able to have a corner sign?

Anthony Montelone: This is a corner store, keep in mind.

Nancy Abramson: Aren't there just two stores here?

Anthony Montelone: There are the two stores and the brake shop which is set back. All the same building.

Nancy Abramson: I agree with Kevin. I drive by there all the time and I see it.

Chairman Kelly: I was under the impression when the applicant left that we had an understanding. They agreed to one sign. We approved the sign that night. We thought it was an improvement to the normal 1-800 and that john did an excellent job. The board I believe unanimously accepted the application and it was approved. Unless there was a change of heart and help me here.

Anthony Montelone: Not being at the meeting as I indicated I do not know what the final result was. I don't know whether it was no we don't want the second sign but you didn't turn it down and you went ahead with the first sign. That is what my understanding was.

John Oliva: There was intent to want to have a sign by having it on the drawing and it was raised.

Nancy Abramson: Do they have another sign up there temporally?

Chairman Kelly: That was the understanding that it was temporary.

John Oliva: The box was there.

Nancy Abramson: Didn't you put a sign in the light box for 1-8oo temporally?

John Oliva: What I did was reface the existing box.

Nancy Abramson: Do we have those minutes?

Nancy Placona: They are in your packet.

Anthony Montelone: My recollection of the minutes was that originally agreed to let him put up a temporary sign up.

Chairman Kelly: Correct me if I am wrong I believe we granted them a temporary time that they could keep the sign up?

Nancy Placona: It was for 30 days.

John Oliva: This was then removed and replaced with the carved sign.

Chairman Kelly: That was the agreement.

Anthony Montelone: I do not believe there was any action on the side sign. Any action distinguished from discussion.

Chairman Kelly: The bottom line is the applicant is asking for a second sign.

Anthony Montelone: According to the code we believe that we are entitled to the second sign, and the second sign would be identical to the existing esthetically. I respectfully submit to you under the code which your board is subject to. Since you approved the first sign esthetically the second sign should be approved.

Bruce Hartleben: If you use that argument then we should approve ten signs. Just because one is approved doesn't mean they all should be approved. That is what you are saying.

Anthony Montelone: Reasonableness applies as well as following the law. We are a village of laws.

Chairman Kelly: I do not necessarily agree just because that just because one sign was approved the second sign would automatically card blanch be accepted. We determined if we went that root the size of the sign may be altered based on the number of signs. So do not automatically assume that two signs would be approved just because one was approved and I don't think that is any grounds for an approval.

Anthony Montelone: I think my comments were esthetically since you approved the front sign that this sign is going to be esthetically going to be the same sign. So therefore esthetically since one was acceptable to you the same design and esthetics would be the basis to approve the side sign. We are not asking for two front signs and throughout the village there are repeated situations where there is a front and side sign not on a corner.

Nancy Abramson: There should not be. Patio.com should not be there.

Anthony Montelone: I disagree with that. There is nothing in your code that says there shouldn't be. If there is something in your proposed coded there is nothing to insure that that would be a valid exercise of power.

Bruce Hartleben: The esthetics of two signs is different than one. You can see both of them from many points of view so esthetically there are two sides. The existing code is going to be different from the new code, so what you are asking for is a sign from now until the new ordinance, which might have to be taken down then.

Anthony Montelone: Or until the new ordinance is put to the test. We are willing to accept that. You approve it now and the new code says it is not permitted then we are subject to that code and we are subject to accepting it or contesting it. We do not have a problem with that.

Chairman Kelly: I am still having a problem getting past the meeting with this board and granted you were not here, that was the applicant's choice. Accepting the terms of the approval and coming back and changing the terms. You all signed off on it including the applicant.

Anthony Montelone: I hear what you are saying. In reading of the minutes it wasn't clear to me that you rejected the second sign.

Nancy Abramson: You are talking semantics. If you didn't ask for it then we did not reject it.

John Oliva: My point of view is that we wanted it and that is why it was on the drawings that we submitted, which clearly shows two signs.

Chairman Kelly: I believe we had a discussion confirming that the second sign was not legal at that time; it was not an approved sign.

Nancy Abramson: Here is Austin' talking. “If this were two entry building you would be looking at signs at two entry points, but to have a sign just to attract more it is not in the making of the law.”

Chairman Kelly: Basically if I understand where Austin was coming from that if there were two entrances to this building.

Anthony Montelone: I understand that, but I do not see in the code where it says that. I have read the sign ordinance and have read the code. I have looked in the village code to see if there was something that wasn't stated in sign ordinance and I found nothing that supports that position.

Nancy Abramson: Well esthetically personally and I am only talking esthetics. I do not feel that two signs are appropriate for this building.

Anthony Montelone: Well that is certainly inconsistent with the current code.

Nancy Abramson; I can tell you that there are a lot of inconsistencies and we did not look at them. Certainly Patio.com is an abomination and it is an embarrassment.

Anthony Montelone: That is a classic example and not in anyway near a corner.

Nancy Abramson: Right. It should not be there and does not work esthetically.

John Oliva: In the future we need to clean up these kinds of things.

Anthony Montelone: When the code addresses the issues then we have to respect the code or contest the code. I accept that as reality. I am not saying do us a favor. I am saying under the code as it exists that I respectfully submit that this side sign should be approved and as far as the esthetics are concerned and since it is going to be identical to the other, although I hear your argument. Two signs have a different esthetic presentation, I hear it and I am not sure I agree, but I respect your comment. I don't think that this particular issue…

Nancy Abramson: What is the problem? Are you having a problem attracting customers?

Anthony Montelone: Yes they are.

Paul Josephson: Without any doubt. From a retail stand point you cannot see that store if you are headed south. You made the point that when people stop there. People don't stop there unless the light changes.

Chairman Kelly: However I can see in the picture.

Paul Josephson: I would like you to understand and I have been doing this for about forty years and I have sat before many Architectural Review Boards. That store does not attract people because nothing tells them that it is there. Then people are putting on their brakes trying to stop. It is an architecturally nice esthetic sign. We need that to do business. We really do. There are people lives that have a job in that store and they need to have customers to come in and though you can tell me you can see it going north if you want to look to your left. That is fine and nobody is going to disagree with you. You are going by at a fairly fast pace on that road and that light only changes when somebody is trying to come out. We really need that sign on the side.

Chairman Kelly: It is a 30mph road.

Anthony Montelone: There is a separate light at Grand Union.

Paul Josephson: There is a light that is in front of that store when you leave and it changes when traffic either comes down or comes up. Otherwise it does not change.

Chairman Kelly: I do not think that is correct.

Too Many People Speaking

Anthony Montelone: Here is the photograph.

Chairman Kelly: I believe it is one in the same light.

Anthony Montelone: No it is not. This photograph is shooting up from the Grand Union property up the road and past the light and across and it is across from where Bramson's is.

Nancy Abramson: That is the light at CVS.

Anthony Montelone: That is not the CVS light. That is not the CVS building.

Chairman Kelly: CVS being across the street.

Anthony Montelone: No that is not CVS.

Bruce Hartleben: Can I see which photograph we are talking about?

Nancy Abramson: Is this next to the Christian Store?

Paul Josephson: Right next door.

Nancy Abramson: Every time I come out of CVS I stare right at it. I don't understand.

Chairman Kelly: There are two entrances to the CVS, so that we all understand each other.

Nancy Abramson: That is the only way you can exit after you have been there. You have gone up to Staples and have come around and there is always tons of traffic there.

Chairman Kelly: That is where you can make a right hand turn going out of CVS towards Bedford Hills.

Anthony Montelone: It is still triggered by traffic.

Paul Josephson: Triggered by traffic and people who are shopping somewhere else. Not necessarily you are the first car you may see it but not if you are the second or third.

Anthony Montelone: From a business point of view it certainly has an impact. As he indicated when you see it you step on your brakes and by the time you have slowed down or stopped you are at Sleepy's, so what are you going to do you are going into Sleepy's.

Paul Josephson: What we have had to do more than a couple of times with our management that has come up there. It really is a…

Anthony Montelone: Sleepy's has both the front sign and a ground sign. The ground sign is not realistic here because Diamond Property has a huge sign that draws your attention to that. That is another issue, when the Diamond Sign is so large and has so much on it that your eye is drawn to that and not drawn to the 1-800-Mattres.

John Oliva: That sign is in Bedford Hills.

Anthony Montelone: That is a fact that exists, that when you are coming south you see the Diamond Property sign dominates that location.

Chairman Kelly: That is something you need to address in Bedford.

Anthony Montelone: That is something that your board should take into consideration. Because your board is here to support the village as being an attractive place to live and to shop and do business.

Paul Josephson: And to have the right merchants.

Chairman Kelly: I understand that and I am very much a supporter of the merchants here. I believe that we need to support them in any way we can. However we are also trying to do the right thing for our town. The one thing that comes to my mind and I am only one person on this board. If the applicant would want to resubmit a full sign package for the whole building, we could possibly look at that. The whole building and in addition I would think that signage sizing might need to be adjusted if you were going to go that root.

Anthony Montelone: When you say the whole building you mean to have the religious store have a sign on the side of the building as well?

Chairman Cosentino: I would prefer instead of things being piecemealed to see a whole package. At the end of the day buildings look much better. I will use JR Martabano's building they have a sign package that is consistent with the whole building and it seems to work. I think you had done one or two of those signs.

John Oliva: What I was thinking as a possible alternative is that the Christian Store does have a sign on the side which is probably illegal. It has been there and it is about 2 feet by 12 feet. Eventually when the new code comes into play that will more than likely have to be removed. I think from what you are saying is that this sign is sort of a subservient sign to the front sign, it is secondary. So is it possible that they could have a second sign as well that would be smaller knowing that they would not have it for maybe a year or more.

Chairman Kelly: I personally would have rethought the whole idea of the size of the sign in the front. If I was going to go that route. We can pole the board, we can see if there is a recommendation or ideas.

John Oliva: Can I say one more thing about the package thing? Wouldn't a new code pretty much address the fact that the pole sign for the Brake Shop is too large? He has channel letters that are too big, and then this whole thing will have to be addressed again anyway on a more individual basis and then everyone will have to be dragged in here.

Nancy Abramson: That is a good point.

John Oliva: In my experience you cannot get everyone in here for the sake of them having a second sign. I think that it would be unrealistic. I am going through that with a couple of clients now, you just can't get everyone to go.

Paul Josephson: Can I ask you a humble question? If the code really does not really prevent this at this time, and we need this type of relief, why would you not consider it?

Chairman Kelly: The need is still open for debate, the second part is the board still has it in their power to determine whether they think that it is appropriate or not. We came in good faith and approved a sign in one night and we thought the applicant did a good job on it and we signed off on it. Everybody signed off on it including the applicant and now we are back.

Paul Josephson: We are back because there is a problem. That is why things like this happen, because there is a definite problem here.

Nancy Abramson: With all due respect when you were saying, is everyone has a need. There are tons of people that come in here and say I need a bigger sign and you need to be respectful of my business, because I need to get as many people here as I possibly can. Anyone that is in business has a need. They want to get as many people as possible to their establishment. Our hearts go out to them certainly as human beings you want to help people but at the same time we can't really get involved in that whether or not somebody's business is not doing as well because their location is here. People come before us and they are on the second floor and nobody is coming up. We feel badly for you but we have nothing to do as to where they want to put their business.

Paul Josephson: Understandable, but at the same time when this company rented this place there was a box sign on the side and they thought that it was going to be able to be used.

Nancy Abramson: I hear you and there are so many people that come in here and thought that they could do stuff with their landlords. It would not be the first time that people thought they could do something.

Anthony Montelone: As John mentioned the original application was for two signs. Your board addressed the front sign and I don't see anything that says we are giving you the front sign provided that you don't do the side sign.

Chairman Kelly: I know we had a dialog about that and I do not see it in the minutes here

Anthony Montelone: I was not here and I do not know.

Bruce Hartleben: (quoting from the minutes) “You mean the side sign, there is no violation. The board is questioning if it was approved to have a second sign on the side. Yes the board did approve for only 30 days.”

Anthony Montelone: That is the front sign.

Bruce Hartleben: It is talking about the second sign.

Nancy Abramson: I thought we approved a side sign for 30 days until the main sign was up.

John Oliva: Only the front sign, because the side sign was in violation and it was actually to be taken down by the landlord when D'Agostino was there.

Bruce Hartleben: You wanted it to be in violation so that it could be taken down by the landlord.

Chairman Kelly: That was a request of the applicant asking us to make sure it was in violation so they could get the landlord to take it down at their expense verse the tenant.

John Oliva: That sign could not be used anyway.

Anthony Montelone: The box was not usable. I was not at that meeting.

John Oliva: It should have come down before you moved in. So that was a separate issue other than the fact that you want a second sign has nothing to do with the box.

Bruce Hartleben: (Quoting from the minutes of September 19, 2007) “I motion to allow the applicant a temporary sign and no second sign.” So that looks clear to me.

John Oliva: WE asked for a second sign to match the front.

Bruce Hartleben: Right and the motion was this paragraph here and it states no second sign.

John Oliva: But the board determined that there would no second sign. As an applicant for the customer we asked for two signs.

Bruce Hartleben: You asked for two sign and only did you get an approval for one. I heard him say he didn't hear any explicit words that the second was not approved.

Anthony Montelone: I don't see that as saying…You're saying that, that means the second sign was denied?

Chairman Kelly: Yes

Bruce Hartleben: It says no second sign. I do not know how else to interpret that.

John Oliva: It was denied by the board. You are saying that I signed off on it.

Bruce Hartleben: Given that because you are back here there some validity to it and some things I agree with you on and some things I don't. If there are problems with this sign with traffic traveling in one direction it is perpendicular to the road so the same arguments have to apply for the traffic coming the other way, its perpendicular to the road.

Anthony Montelone: It certainly…A sign on the side from north to south would be visible for a long distance because there is nothing blocking it. We have all driven that road and I have and have paid particular attention and there is absolutely nothing blocking that corner for I do not know for how many hundreds of yards. It is a clear line of site. You can see that sign and if you are looking for 1-800-Mattres you are going to see the side sign and you are going to be able to pull in. If that side sign is not there when you are going north to south you are on top of it and beside it before you really see that sign unless you stop at the light which doesn't change nearly as much as it should.

Bruce Hartleben: I have driven that and not that this matters. I have driven this road many times in both directions and actually it does catch my eye when I drive north to south more often than south to north. This is just an observation.

Anthony Montelone: Maybe you just like the way the sign came out and you notice it more.

Bruce Hartleben: Actually my kids notice it more. Just for my education. How much of your business is impulse drive by?

Paul Josephson: Not that much. Most of it is destination and you have to know where it is. Without signs you don't have a destination. It is not an impulse business.

Anthony Montelone: We are willing to discuss the size of the side sign and location. If you want to have the bible…I don't know how long the Brake Shop is going to be there. I think the Brake Shop has a pretty good visibility.

Chairman Kelly: The Brake Store is all owned by the same landlord.

Anthony Montelone: Same landlord different tenants.

Chairman Kelly: What would the applicant think if they all agreed to a monument sign and it was one monument sign one location down closer to the Brake Store near the existing sign that will not comply in the future?

Paul Josephson: You mean the pylon?

Chairman Kelly: Yes.

John Oliva: There are not enough setbacks there.

Nancy Abramson: How would that help them?

Chairman Kelly: It is going in the opposite direction and you will see it.

Anthony Montelone: I don't think you will see it because of the Diamond Property sign.

Chairman Kelly: With all due respect I was out there this weekend. And I see it going in both directions and I see it from CVS parking lot.

Nancy Abramson: What I do not understand is that if they are not impulse buyers you're saying they are going to buy a mattress and they are going to see you and they can't find you.

Paul Josephson: Basically you have to be able to find where the sign is to get there.

Nancy Abramson: You are saying people can't find you?

Paul Josephson: Three quarters of the people that come into the store at the present time say I have passed by more than a couple of times. I have no reason to exaggerate that. That is why we are trying to spend money and do this. That is the feed back from everybody. 75% of the people say we didn't know you were here, we passed you by and a few of them obviously end up at our competition that has way more signage than we do.

Chairman Kelly: They have a pylon.

Anthony Montelone: They have a pylon sign and a front sign.

Paul Josephson: Also a tent sign that they stick out at times.

Nancy Abramson: That they should not do.

Paul Josephson: I have seen it.

Nancy Abramson: You should call the town. Nancy will send the troops.

Bruce Hartleben: Is this a temporary sign “Space Available?” I know that is not your property.

Anthony Montelone: No that is Diamond Properties. That is their sign.

Paul Josephson: I am not so sure that it is temporary it has been there for awhile.

John Oliva: I think it is in Bedford Hills.

Bruce Hartleben: I can't say yes and I can't say no. Some arguments for having that second sign are valid, but I still need to think about it. I like the idea of a sign package where you are not coming to apply for the first sign and then coming back in hopes of applying for a second sign, because the first sign was approved it should be considered as a comprehensive package. That sounds like the right way to approach it. With the interest of the new ordinance coming up.

Nancy Abramson: Well the other one was in violation right, when it was on the side? We did not approve it.

Anthony Montelone: It had been previously an approved sign with a prior tenant.

John Oliva: Previous to D'Agostino's it was approved?

Nancy Abramson: Yes. Things that had gone up 10-15 years ago would not have been approved by this board.

Bruce Hartleben: I do not want to be consistent with previous inconsistencies. You have a lot of good examples of other cases where it already exists; I don't feel that is compelling because that is what we are trying to get rid of.

Anthony Montelone: I understand that is what you are trying to get rid of, but as I was trying to say. I am not sure frankly and I am pretty much aware of sign ordinances, and I remember way back when I drafted the sign ordinance for Mt Kisco to stop billboards signs and there was a moratorium period and forty years ago there were a lot of billboard signs. When I was Village attorney I drafted the ordinance to preclude them over a period of years. I drafted it because there was a lot case law that permitted it. What you are trying to do there is no case law. There are a couple communities that have ordinance.

Nancy Abramson: Quite frankly if we are doing the legal stuff then we should ask counsel to help us with this.

Bruce Hartleben: That is a good point.

Nancy Abramson: We are not really prepared.

Anthony Montelone: I was only addressing an issue.

Nancy Abramson: I feel like we are getting involved in the code and legal issues.

Bruce Hartleben: If it is purely esthetics, I wouldn't like the esthetics of two signs the same size on the corner. If that is our only jurisdiction then I say esthetically I would not like it. If there a sign package where there is smaller sign like Eduardo's, if there is a second sign to address the issue…

Nancy Abramson: Which we don't even know, I believe they are in violation too. Conceptually what we approved for Eduardo's.

Chairman Kelly: That is why I use Martabano's building as an example. There was a sign package on the whole building.

John Oliva: Are you talking about the building on Lexington or Woody's?

Chairman Kelly: Lexington.

Anthony Montelone: Woody's has front and side signs too.