Town of Eastchester, NY: Minutes, Architectural Review Board Meeting, 1/05/06

Eastchester Architectural Review Board Meeting

2 January 5, 2006

5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FOR

JANUARY 6, 2006

9 BOARD MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE:

Rose Marie Brescia

11 Enda McIntyre

Laura Raffiani

12 Maria Bonasia

16 EASTCHESTER EMPLOYEES IN ATTENDANCE:

18 Director of Planning, Margaret Uhle

Building Inspector, Jay King

19 Deputy Town Attorney, Louis Reda

Dina M. Morgan, Reporter

24 43 Central Drive

Bronxville, New York 10708

25 914-469-6353

DINA M. MORGAN, REPORTER

1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING - 1/5/06

2 Meeting called to order by Ms. Brescia.

3 Pledge of Allegiance.

4 Roll call conducted by Ms. Uhle:

Mr. McIntyre: Present.

6 Ms. Brescia: Present.

Ms. Raffiani: Present.

7 Ms. Bonasia: Present.

8 Ms. Uhle: States Mr. Miller is unable to

attend meeting.

Mr. McIntyre: Makes a motion to approve the

10 minutes of the November 3rd, 2005 meeting.

11 Ms. Brescia: Seconds motion.

12 (All aye.)

APPLICATION 05-71, ELECTROLUX

15 Ms. McIntyre: States the sign for Aerus the

fascia should cover the corrugated duronautic

16 as it presently exists. Feels because this

building is of such a prominent size and

17 location in the town that's why the Board is

leaning toward the awning.

Mr. Gish: Explains Electrolux has a budgetary

19 issue and that's why he is not able to get an

awning. Explains if this sign does not get

20 approved Electrolux is going to have to opt to

not get a sign because they are unable to incur

21 the cost of an awning. Explains it's a cost

issue for the business owner. States each of

22 these business owners came forward on their own

to remove those signs and do the right thing

23 via the new sign law.

24 Ms. Raffiani: Explains the town is trying to

get rid of those types of signs. Feels they're

25 not getting anything that much better.

DINA M. MORGAN, REPORTER

1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING - 1/5/06

Mr. McIntyre: States Board feels this is one

2 step in the process of making this particular

facade better in its overall appearance. Feels

3 sign is similar to what was already there.

Feels this needs to be looked at as one. Feels

4 awnings are the best solution.

5 Mr. Gish: Explains it comes down to a cost

prohibitive issue. Explains the owner of Aerus

6 Electrolux doesn't have the funds to do that.

7 Ms. Bonasia: Feels the font is too large.

8 Ms. Brescia: Asks if the Electrolux is their

brand.

Mr. Gish: States yes.

Ms. Brescia: States they could leave the

11 Electrolux the same size and change the Aerus.

12 Ms. Uhle: Asks if the background will be

burgundy.

Mr. Gish: States yes.

Ms. Brescia: States Board would prefer the

15 awning. Feels it would look very nice. States

if that is cost prohibitive, covering the whole

16 area keeping the lettering the same is the

second option and the third option is the

17 burgundy background which is in compliance with

the sign law. Explains Board would like

18 something a little nicer for the whole

building. Asks Mr. Gish to present those

19 options to the applicant.

20 Ms. Raffiani: Explains they want the sign to

sit in and not come out at the curve. Asks if

21 the applicant would be willing to meet next

week with some of the Board members.

Mr. Gish: Explains at the point they were at

23 price wise for the size of the pan faced sign

they pitched it was a little more than the

24 applicant was willing to do but that was the

least expensive option so he picked it.

25 Explains he discussed the awning with the

applicant and he indicated he could not afford

DINA M. MORGAN, REPORTER

1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING - 1/5/06

it.

Mr. McIntyre: Explains if this was a new

3 tenant coming into the building they would be

responsible for making right what's not right.

Ms. Uhle: Feels proposed sign is an

5 improvement from what was there before

especially if there is a consistent color

6 scheme. Feels when people prepare applications

that are consistent with the sign law there's

7 only so far you can go.

8 Ms. Brescia: States if they're not going with

the awning the next option would be to cover up

9 the entire duronautic keeping the letters at

the same size.

Ms. Uhle: Recommends that the applicant attend

11 the meeting in the future. Feels it's hard to

have this discussion when you don't have the

12 applicant present. States covering the

duronautic is a compromise because this has not

13 changed other than the color from what was

initially proposed. Explains this Board is

14 here because aesthetics is an issue above and

beyond what the law says.

Mr. McIntyre: States he would be willing to

16 meet with the applicant next week.

17 Ms. Uhle: States applicant can go ahead and

get a permit for an awning that's similar to

18 the Flip Hair Design or they could get a permit

for this sign as proposed large enough to cover

19 the duronautic background, otherwise she will

set up a meeting with the actual tenant to have

20 further discussions.

21 Ms. Brescia: Makes a motion to approve

Application 05-71 subject to the conditions

22 just listed by Ms. Uhle.

23 Mr. McIntyre: Seconds motion.

24 (All aye.)

APPLICATION 05-90, FLIP HAIR SALON

DINA M. MORGAN, REPORTER

1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING - 1/5/06

Mr. McIntyre: Asks if they could address the

3 attempt to remove the paint on top of the

existing sign.

Ms. Brescia: Feels that's a landlord issue.

Mr. McIntyre: Feels it would make everything

6 look better.

7 Ms. Raffiani: Feels that's something that

should be taken care of before the awning goes

8 up.

9 Ms. Brescia: Makes a motion to approve

Application 05-90 with the condition that the

10 phone number has to be removed. States the

building number could stay. States Mr. Gish

11 should present to the landlord that the paint

should be removed before the awning goes up.

Ms. Raffiani: Seconds motion.

(All aye.)

15 APPLICATION 05-96 NORTHFORK BANK

Mr. Ubank: Bill Ubank, America Sign Crafters.

Ms. Brescia: States Board reviewed this and

18 applicant came forward with everything Board

requested. States illuminated box sign should

19 be removed.

20 Mr. Ubank: Asks if a non-illuminated display

would be appropriate.

Ms. Uhle: Explains any sign that's primarily

22 to be viewed from the street is considered a

sign and requires approval of this Board.

23 Explains it would be considered an additional

sign to the primary sign.

Mr. Ubank: Hands Board sample of letters.

Ms. Bonasia: States she would not recommend a

DINA M. MORGAN, REPORTER

1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING - 1/5/06

second sign. Feels it would detract from the

2 primary sign.

3 Ms. Raffiani: Makes a motion to approve

Application 05-96 as presented on the front

4 elevation with the one pin mounted sign but not

the one window medallion and on the side

5 elevation the one pin mounted sign with the

gooseneck lighting on both.

Ms. Brescia: Seconds motion.

(All aye.)

9 APPLICATION 05-101, A & P FRESH

Sign Company: Explains application is to

11 replace existing signs with the new A & P

identity they are using throughout the region.

12 States sign conforms with the code. Indicates

they did away with the logo and put just the A

13 & P letters. States whole sign is a maximum

two foot high. States sign is smaller than the

14 existing Food Emporium sign.

15 Ms. Brescia: Asks if on the back of the

building it's the same.

Sign Company: States Food Emporium sign is

17 being removed and new sign is the same height

as the existing sign. States front sign and

18 sign off the parking lot are the exact same

sign with the exception that the A & P logo is

19 on the parking lot sign.

20 Ms. Brescia: Asks if this qualifies as a

secondary sign.

Ms. Uhle: Explains sign law doesn't address

22 that clearly so it wouldn't have to be half the

size because that's really their entrance.

23 Asks if the front facade sign has the black

returns or a frame.

Sign Company: States yes, same as existing.

Ms. Raffiani: Feels front looks fine. Feels

DINA M. MORGAN, REPORTER

1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING - 1/5/06

in the rear the sign is like a box light and

2 not permitted. Feels the best sign would be

the same as the front.

Sign Company: States applicant asked if they

4 could keep it like that because it's their new

identity. Explains that sign is not seen from

5 the road at all.

6 Ms. Raffiani: Explains it's still in the town

of Eastchester and does not conform to the sign

7 law.

8 Ms. Uhle: Explains the Planning Board's site

plan approval required all signage on that

9 building be white with the black trim.

Explains their review was mostly in the front

10 facade. States all the stores that have

entrances in the back do have the white signs

11 with the black trim as well.

12 Ms. Raffiani: States box signs are not

allowed.

Sign Company: Asks if they could have the red

14 background with the channel letters mounted on

the red background. Explains it would be red,

15 not illuminated.

16 Ms. Raffiani: Feels that's better.

17 Sign Company: Feels applicant would be happy

with that compromise.

Ms. Brescia: Makes a motion to approve

19 Application 05-101 with the only change being

that the red A & P sign on the back of the

20 building is now going to be channel letters

mounted on the red non-illuminated background.

Mr. McIntyre: Seconds motion.

(All aye.)

24 APPLICATION 05-103, 777 WHITE PLAINS ROAD

Signs Inc: States they are proposing a

DINA M. MORGAN, REPORTER

1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING - 1/5/06

directory sign. States they would like to have

2 some light on it from the bottom. Explains

problem with the plaza is it's set back and

3 people driving by never have the opportunity to

see which stores are in the plaza. States they

4 took photographs to show that. States one of

the tenants is here from Pearl Vision who has

5 been hurt financially by the fact no one

notices they are there.

Mr. Nessenblatt: Mark Nessenblatt (Ph.), owner

7 of Pearl Vision. Feels his business is at a

competitive disadvantage in comparison to Lens

8 Crafters which is in the next shopping center a

few blocks down. Explains there's a brick wall

9 at the front of the shopping center where his

business is located and it's impossible to see

10 the sign on his store.