1 25 3 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/adf81e9bc103d0b46305c2037f86d75d.pdf 53f61bf13e4bde30c0f2293a984e3457 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Architectural Review Board Meeting-APPROVED September 26, 2012 The meeting was called to order at 8:00p.m by Sean McCarthy. Present: Sean McCarthy (Village of Sleepy Hollow/Building Department) Krista Callaghan Also Present: Mary Gerlanc (Recording Secretary) Announcements - There were no announcements. Proposed Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) Manuel Villa Rubin Marte Uinisio Gonzales Servio Ramirez Inessa Bliznetsova 51 Pocantico St. Corp. Marcelo Poguio M. Keegan 1) Manuel Villa 110 Beekman Avenue 32 Kendal Avenue 134 Cortlandt Street 179 Beekman Avenue 39 Hudson Terrace 51 Pocantico Street 95 College Avenue 285 North Broadway New awning Replace fence Replace awning New awning Extend fence/install gate Repair & renovation Exterior alterations Exterior renovations 110 Beekman Avenue New awning This was a continuation from a previous meeting. Daniel Couto presented this application along with storeowners, Manuel and Maria Villa. The applicants were asked to make changes to the awning at the last meeting. The applicants stated they do not want to change their design because they don't want their sign to look like the existing awning on the building. Sean McCarthy stated that signs have to be uniform on the same building. He also asked to see a sample fabric for the awning. He asked the owners to show him the color they chose from the choices provided by Sunbrella, the manufacturer of the material for the awning. Since the awning is on village property it has to meet the specifications for fire retardant material. Mr. & Mrs. Villa agrees that the Sunbrella fabric color they choose is Forest Green. �Discussion ensued regarding the shape of the sign. The shape will dictate the size of the lettering. Krista Callaghan was shown the existing awning on the building and points out that the building won't look uniform if the shape of the new awning does not match what is already there. Sean McCarthy stated that the alternate proposal shows the size of the valance to be 12 inches and the lettering of the main description to be 10 inches. The Village does not recommend letter height to be over 6 inches maximum on an 8-inch valance. He told the applicants they would be allowed 10-inch high lettering only if they use the same style awning as the existing awning on the building. The applicants would like their sign to be different. Krista Callaghan stated that the existing building has character and for a consistent look the new awning has to match the same style as the other tenant's awning. Sean McCarthy said that the applicants would get approval if they go with the shed awning that has an 8 -inch valance with 6-inch lettering. If they choose a different direction the board cannot make the decision tonight because this is the first time the Board has seen the new sign plans. Sean McCarthy asked the Villas if they want to discuss and then come back later in the meeting with a decision. The matter was continued. 2) Rubin Marte 32 Kendall Avenue Replace fence Rosina Marte is the owner of the property and presented the application. Sean McCarthy asked about the height of the new fence. Rosina Marte stated she thinks it would be 6 feet. Sean McCarthy said the fence could be a maximum of five feet high or lower if she chooses. Rosina Marte stated that this new fence which will be in the front where the cars park. The fence would be solid, PVC vinyl . Photographs were shown to the board. This fence differed from the existing fence, which divides Rosina Marte's property from the neighbors. That fence is gazebo style, however both fences would be the same white color. The model number for the fence is V3215D-6. It will be white in color and a maximum of five feet in height. Rosina Marte requested permission to put lighting on the fence since this is a parking area. Sean McCarthy asked if there are any objections by the public regarding this application. There were no objections. Architectural Review Board Meeting, September 26, 2012 - APPROVED 2 �Sean McCarthy moved that the application be approved for a building permit. 3) Uinisio Gonzales 134 Cortlandt Street Replace awning Daniel Couto, along with his assistant Sandra Aceituno, represented this application for an awning replacement. Sean McCarthy stated that the old mechanism had been taken out and could not be salvaged. Daniel Couto showed the drawing for the new awning. There were no graphics on the design. Discussion ensued regarding graphics, pattern and material for the awning. Daniel Couto stated that the applicant does not want any graphics or stripes on the awning, just a solid color. He said the awning would be made out of the Sunbrella fabric, which is a fire retardant material. Krista Callaghan asked if the building address would be on the awning. Sean McCarthy asked if the size of the lettering would be 4 inches. Mr. Couto said it would be 4 inches. Krista Callaghan stated the applicant should add the building address somewhere on the awning. Sean McCarthy asked if there were any objections by the public regarding this application. Since there were no objections, he stated there was enough information to process the application for a building permit. The application was approved. The applicant needs to submit certification that the material for the awning is fire retardant. 4) Servio Ramirez 139 Beekman Avenue New awning Daniel Couto and his assistant, Sandra Aceituno represented this application for a new awning. The design showed the color and graphic for the awning. The applicant had changed the color of awning. Krista Callaghan asked if the awning comes past where the molding is on the building. Daniel Couto stated he must cut the awning to go around the molding on the building because the landlord would not let them touch the building. Discussion ensued about the trim and molding on the building. Sean McCarthy suggested cutting the trim and not the awning. Krista Callaghan asked to see a color swatch for the awning. Architectural Review Board Meeting, September 26, 2012 - APPROVED 3 �The color chosen from the Sunbrella choices is Regatta, which is a dark blue fabric. Sean McCarthy asked if there were any objections or comments from the public regarding this application. Since there were no objections, he stated that there was enough information to process the application for a building permit. He told Mr. Couto to inform the owner that it will be part of the application to clean up the lighting that shines down on the awning. This would be included in the building permit. 1) Manuel Villa 110 Beekman Avenue Continuation Mr. & Mrs. Villa have made the decision to go with the shed style awning. Mr. Villa does not want the height to be too high. Approval of the application will consist of Forest Green Sunbrella fabric in the shed style awning to match the existing awning that is currently on the building. Sean McCarthy asked if there were any objections or comments from the public regarding this application. There were no objections. Mr. McCarthy stated there was enough information for the applicant to move forward for a building permit. Mr. Villa was informed as to how to get information on the program to help finance the new awning. 5) Inessa Bliznetsova 39 Hudson Terrace Extend fence and install gate Inessa Bliznetsova represented this application to extend an existing fence and install a gate at this property. She stated that work had been done in the back of the property and an aluminum fence that was already installed would be extended around the corner and a gate added. The height of the fence would be a 4-foot diamond style aluminum fence to match the existing fence. Sean McCarthy asked is there were any objections or comments from the public. There were no comments. Mr. McCarthy stated there was enough information submitted for the applicant to move forward to apply for a building permit. 6) 51 Pocantico St. Corp. 51 Pocantico Street Repair and renovation Kevin Donovan and Joe Kelly represented this application that is a total renovation for a residential property. The house was in a state of disrepair prior to it being purchased. They are doing a new roof, new siding, new porch, and new windows. Architectural Review Board Meeting, September 26, 2012 - APPROVED 4 �Discussion ensued regarding the renovation decisions for the property. The shed roof will stay the same. The proposed columns in the front will be 8 inches. They are replicating what was there before. They restored and replaced all arches in the front. A new railing system will be installed. New Anderson double hung builders windows will be installed. Sean McCarthy asked if the window would be divided light style. Kevin Donovan said the majority would be one-light, double-hung. The windows in the front of the house would all be the same height. Some in the back might be half height. (e.g. kitchen or bathroom). A sample of the new siding was shown. It will be yellow color. The new siding will be the same size as the old siding; horizontal clapboard with 4-5 inch exposure. Discussion ensued regarding capping the windows. Sean McCarthy recommended 3.5-inch cap around all the windows. He suggested using premanufactured-trim that wraps around the window and the siding butts into it. They also discussed corner boards; Mr. Donovan stated that 4-inch white corner boards will be installed throughout. Kevin Donovan said all new gutters and leaders and drainage would be installed. They are waiting for design of the drainage. They are going down to the existing structure on the outside. Sean McCarthy asked if any architectural details were exposed when the siding was taken off, especially at the top in the front of the house. The applicants hope to find something existing in order to break up the pattern on the front of the house and make it more of the period it was constructed. Sean McCarthy asked if shutters were going to be added. Discussion ensued on the color and style. Krista Callaghan suggested louvered shutters might fit the style of the house. Kevin Donovan and Joe Kelly said the shutters would be white. They stated the windows on the front of the house would definitely have shutters - the only exception might be the windows underneath the porch. They would have to see how that might look. Sean McCarthy asked about the foundations. The applicants stated that the foundation is all brick and they will be repointing it, not painting or covering it. The board agreed the renovations would be a big improvement to the property. Sean McCarthy asked if there were any objections or comments from the public. There were no objections. Architectural Review Board Meeting, September 26, 2012 - APPROVED 5 �The Board found there was enough information to process the application for a Building Permit. The applicants can proceed as planned with the project and keep the Architectural Review Board informed as to their progress. 7) Marcelo Poguio 95 College Avenue Exterior alterations Wilson Lima, the store manager and Kyle McGovern, lawyer for the applicant are representing this application. This application has received variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals and approval from the Planning Board to convert space from a former contractor headquarters to a supermarket. Discussion ensued regarding the design and color for the awning in the front of the store. Mr. Lima presented drawings that show the awning to be a burgundy color with white lettering. The building will be painted a yellow color with white "coin" detail on the sides of the building. There will be a plain, white door and no windows in the small loading area. The main entrance has two doors with windows on both sides of the doors. Mr. Lima stated that there would be flower plants in the front by the doors and maybe planters. Wilson Lima said he wants people to see a new building and not recognize it as the old auto-body building. There is an existing sign with simple lettering on it for the old auto body shop. The applicant would like to take down the old sign and replace with a sign in the same location for the grocery. The plans show the size of that sign to be 30 inches by 6 feet and made of aluminum. Kyle McGovern asked of what material the sign must be constructed. Mr. McCarthy stated the sign does not have to be made of wood, but can be a synthetic material. But the sign has to have dimension. Mr. McGovern asked if there was minimum or maximum on size. Mr. McCarthy stated if the building has 2 fronts, then it is allowed to have two signs; the village can make an exception for a hanging sign but they need to check on the size of the original sign. Krista Callaghan asked if the present sign was really 6 feet. Sean McCarthy stated if the existing sign is 6 feet then the village would allow the new sign to be replaced at the same size but using the same style, coloring and detail as on the main sign. He also asked if the font size would be the same as the main sign. Wilson Lima agreed to these recommendations. More discussion ensued regarding the size of the signs and the lettering on the signs. Architectural Review Board Meeting, September 26, 2012 - APPROVED 6 �Sean McCarthy suggested that they review the size of the lettering after they put an outline around the sign since the proportions of the lettering may change. He told them to send it to the Architectural Review Board once they have the proportions decided. Sean McCarthy also recommended that the applicant limit the amount of wording on the sign and possibly put the building number, which is 95, on the sign. Kyle McGovern stated that the applicant wanted to make final decisions so they would take the descriptions off the sign and add the number 95 to the awning on Cortlandt Street. Sean McCarthy agreed with that. Kyle McGovern asked if the awning on Valley Street also needed to include the building number. Krista Callaghan said that typically there is no signage over the loading area because people will misconstrue it for the entrance. Discussion ensued regarding where the awnings should be placed. Sean McCarthy suggested putting the awning closer to the entrance but not over the loading area and only putting identification on the Valley Street awning. Wilson Lima stated they wanted to make the sign on the pole a wood carved sign to match the design on the front awning and that they would eliminate the awning over the loading dock area. They also discussed the color and fabric choice for the awnings.. Kyle McGovern asked if there was concern about the fabric not being Sunbrella. Sean McCarthy showed him the color palette from Sunbrella. They decided on the burgundy color from the Sunbrella color choices. Sean McCarthy asked about the building material. He stated that some areas of the building have brick and some are concrete block. Wilson Lima stated they were going to stucco the front of the building and have the coins on the front. Marcelo Poguio, the applicant arrived for the meeting. He stated they were planning on putting stucco on the side of the building that fronts College Avenue. Krista Callaghan asked if there would be stucco on the Valley Street side of the building. Discussion ensued regarding the finish material for the building and the applicant decided to stucco the Valley Street side of the building along with the College Avenue side. Sean McCarthy mentioned that the Styrofoam stucco gets damaged very easily and does not hold up as well close to the ground. He suggested wire and cement style stucco. Marcelo Poguio agreed to use wire and cement to do the stucco portion of the building. Krista Callaghan asked about the amount of glass on the storefront and the height of the glass. The applicant stated the glass would be in four panels and the width of the metal between the panes was not as large as it appeared in the drawing. Architectural Review Board Meeting, September 26, 2012 - APPROVED 7 �Sean McCarthy told the applicants they could not go less than 24 inches from the bottom of the building. The applicant was concerned with cars hitting the glass so their plan showed 3 feet of concrete and five feet of glass. The Architectural Review Board expressed concerns regarding the drawing, which did not show the correct proportion of glass to building on the front entrance of the storefront. Mr. Lima had already ordered the glass and stated that the dimension area was 60 feet wide by 5 feet high. Discussion ensued about the measurements of the front of the building and the size of the walls and windows. Also discussed was how the glass was affected by the drop-ceiling. Sean McCarthy did not feel these dimensions and proportions were depicted property on the plan. Krista Callaghan asked to have the plan redrawn in order to give approval. The applicant was also asked about the sill detail for the window. Mr. Poguio said it would be stucco to match the building. There was discussion regarding the "coins" on the building. The applicant was asked if they would only be on the front of the building. Krista Callaghan stated that a cornice piece might give a more finished look to the building than the coins. Sean McCarthy was in agreement. He suggested it could be made from styrofoam and in a different color than the rest of the building. And the cornice treatment would need to be in proportion to the size of the sign. He also suggested adding a base detail to complement the design of the cornice. Krista Callaghan suggested the applicant add score lines for the expansion joints to give the stucco a relief. Wilson Lima asked if the Board wanted him to use that idea on the side of the building. Ms. Callaghan thought it would give the building a finished look and it would be a great presence on that corner. Kyle McGovern asked if these decisions had to go before the Planning Board again. Sean McCarthy stated the Architectural Review Board can approve these modifications to the plan and it does not have to go before the Planning Board. Krista Callaghan asked what color were the frames around the windows. Wilson Lima said they were aluminum. Krista thought they should be dark brown. Sean McCarthy agreed and suggested the door match with the darker color. Kyle McGovern asked if this was standard. Architectural Review Board Meeting, September 26, 2012 - APPROVED 8 �Sean McCarthy said yes. He also asked that they consider the lighting that goes around the building. Krista Callaghan asked if the trim around the existing windows on Valley Street was a darker color. Wilson Lima and Marcelo Poguio said yes. Sean McCarthy said it made sense to do a darker brown trim around the new windows since they would match the windows that will not be replaced. Krista Callaghan asked the applicants to provide drawings that show the Valley Street elevation. Kyle McGovern asked when was the next Architectural Review Board meeting. Sean McCarthy said they would meet the 4 Wednesday in October. He suggested the applicant send the new drawing to the ARB sooner so they can review. He asked if there were any other suggestions for the applicants. th Kyle McGovern asked what was needed as far as the awning. Sean McCarthy suggested the applicant have the architect communicate with the sign person to come up with an accurate drawing which also should depict the slope of College Avenue. He also suggested the applicant get a sample of the cornice treatment and tack it to the building to see how it would look. Marcelo Poguio asked if a permit could be issued for the interior work. Sean McCarthy said Mr. Poguio could move forward with a permit on the interior work. The applicant cannot touch anything that would affect the outside of the building until new drawings are corrected and received by the Architectural Review Board. He asked if there were objections from the public to the applicant working on the interiors - doing the mechanical, electrical and plumbing. There were no objections from the public. Sean McCarthy said this application would be continued until October. He asked the applicant to get the information requested prior to the meeting for review by the ARB. He also asked that the applicants provide brochures on any materials and lighting that will be used on the outside of the building. 8) M. Keegan 285 No. Broadway Exterior renovations Mr. Keegan was not present for this application. Mr. McCarthy and Ms. Callaghan discussed the application for exterior renovations on the existing building. Architectural Review Board Meeting, September 26, 2012 - APPROVED 9 �There will be a replacement of the sign that says "Mickey's Automotive". The directory sign will also be replaced in addition to the front and side awnings. Krista Callaghan asked if they are painting the building. Sean McCarthy said yes and they are going to repair the stucco. Krista Callaghan asked if the new signs would match. Sean McCarthy said they will mimic the old signs but not match exactly and there will be new lighting above the signs. Discussion ensued about adding a new sign to the top middle of the building. Sean McCarthy said the applicant would also be fixing the roof. Krista Callaghan thought they were good improvements to the building. She asked if the sign square footage was okay and if the replacement signs will be new. Sean McCarthy said one is a replacement sign and one is a new sign. There were no objections to this application. Mr. McCarthy stated there was enough information for the applicant to move forward and apply for a building permit. With no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:45pm. Architectural Review Board Meeting, September 26, 2012 - APPROVED 10 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Architectural Review Board Minutes-2012 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ARB_2012-09-26 Subject The topic of the resource Architectural Review Board Minutes-2012 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2012 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/716746822088f10188325d34c5f40383.pdf ce6678125d68d451b8421c782c51f3a7 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Architectural Review Board Meeting - APPROVED October 24, 2012 Sean McCarthy called the meeting to order at 8:00p.m. Present: Sean McCarthy (Village of Sleepy Hollow/Building Department) Krista Callaghan Also Present: Mary Gerlanc (Recording Secretary) Announcements - There were no announcements. Proposed Agenda: 1) Marcelo Poguio 2) Michael & Janet Pietsch 95 College Avenue 9 Birch Close Exterior alterations New Application 1) ) Marcelo Poguio 95 College Avenue Exterior alterations This was a continuation from a previous meeting. Sean McCarthy stated this was an application to convert a contractor's office to a grocery store. There were several issues before the Board last month regarding the storefront, doors, windows, cornices and signage. Mr. Steven Costa, engineer, and Steve Chester from Signs Inc. represented the applicant. Mr. Costa stated there is no change to the signs on the eastern exposure other than installing the signage over the existing doors. There will be stucco but as far as windows and doors, everything is existing. They will be putting a cornice detail around top as recommended. It will be made of stucco. Sean McCarthy asked about the color for the cornice detail. Mr. Costa said they would try and match the color of the stucco. Sean McCarthy had recommended at the September meeting that the cornice detail be a different color from the rest of the building. As for the College Avenue side of the building, they will be adding more glass. The dimension will be 27-inches to the sill. The slope of the street is 7-inches which has been taken into consideration �for the glass installation. They are putting as much glass as recommended. They will be using the same cornice detail around the top on this side of the building. Krista Callaghan asked about the score lines in the stucco that were discussed at last month's meeting. She stated she did not see them in the drawings and asked if they decided not to do this detail. Mr. Costa stated that there are already six breaks in the stucco on the side of the building. Krista Callaghan stated that the score lines would give some detail along the base and add some treatment to the stucco wall. Discussion ensued regarding adding detail and/or score lines to the stucco wall. Sean McCarthy asked how if they would build out this detail with Styrofoam or a harder material. Mr. Costa stated they would build it out of cement board. Krista Callaghan asked if they would return the detail around the side of the building or does it stop at the edge of the building. Mr. Costa asked how far they would like it to wrap around the building since that side of the building is brick or finished block. On the other side it would be different because there is a driveway that comes up. At the base of the driveway there will be plantings so that part of the wall will be masked. Further discussion ensued regarding the cornice detail and whether to wrap it around or how to finish the edge. Mr. Costa stated that they could do a metal edge to make a clean edge. The Board stated they would like to see some return detail on the cornices. Mr. McCarthy asked if they would be painting that side of the building. Mr. Costa replied yes they would. Krista Callaghan questioned what the clearance would be from the bottom of the awning to the sidewalk. Mr. Costa replied that there would be a 9-foot minimum to the lowest point. Krista Callaghan stated that proportionally it looked long and narrow. She asked what was the clearance for code. Sean McCarthy stated the Village Code does not permit less than 7-feet. Krista Callaghan asked if there was a way to gain an inch or two between the bottom of the sign and the awning, and from the top of the sign to the bottom of the cornice. Mr. Costa stated it would not be a problem getting at least two inches, although he is working with a fixed lintel height because they were garage doors. He stated there would be a reveal around the sign. Krista Callaghan also stated that in the drawing the sign is not located over the entrance. She asked if it would be centered over the door or on the building. Mr. Costa stated it would be centered on the canopy. Architectural Review Board Meeting,September26, 2012 - APPROVED 2 �Ms. Callaghan asked about the space on either side of the text on the awning. Discussion ensued. She also stated that in the previous month's meeting they had discussed getting rid of the canopy over the loading door to avoid confusion over people mistaking that door for an entrance. Sean McCarthy suggested keeping the awning but getting rid of the sign. Mr. Costa agreed that was what was decided. Discussion ensued. Mr. Costa stated the corner sign would be sufficient for traffic coming from Valley Street. Krista Callaghan asked if customers could enter the store where the bakery was located. Mr. Costa stated there would not be a sign over the bakery and customers would have to access the bakery through the main entrance. Mr. McCarthy asked about exterior lighting. Mr. Costa stated there would be lighting under the awning and over the doorways. Mr. McCarthy asked if the hanging sign would be lit. Mr. Costa said it would not be lit. Ms. Callaghan asked if the door would be aluminum color or the dark brown that was mentioned at last month's meeting. Mr. Costa stated the door color would be brown - an anodized aluminum finish. Discussion ensued regarding the brown color. They compared it to a bronze sample. Sean McCarthy asked if it was similar to the windows on the building. Mr. Costa said the door color would match the window color. Mr. McCarthy asked if the bakery door would be changed to match the aluminum front door. Mr. Costa said it would be a solid metal door. Discussion ensued about the bakery door. Mr. McCarthy stated the sign looks nice. He asked if the overall size is 3-ft x 5-ft and if it is made out of wood. Steve Chester stated the main sign would be carved and painted with imitation gold paint but would look nice. The other sign would not be carved but would be wood with vinyl graphics. Sean McCarthy stated the sign must have some dimension to it; either carved or raised lettering. Steve Chester was not aware of this requirement but said they would make the change and carve the sign. He stated the awning would be a burgundy Sunbrella material. Sean McCarthy stated they would need a certificate and documentation that it is a fire retardant material. Steve Chester stated that all the dimensions for width and height would be the same for all the signs. There would be a consistent projection. Mr. McCarthy asked what is the projection? Steve stated the height is 30-inches and the projection is 30-inches. Architectural Review Board Meeting,September26, 2012 - APPROVED 3 �Sean McCarthy stated the Building Dept. had received the new mechanical plans. He sated there is a 10-ton unit on the roof for the air-conditioning. He asked if the applicant knew how big it is and if it could be seen from the street. Mr. Costa stated it couldn't be seen from the street. Mr. McCarthy asked if could be seen from the College Avenue side. Mr. Costa said no. Sean McCarthy stated if it became visible for some reason, then the applicant would need to put some kind of screen in front of it. Mr. Costa stated they could position it so it was not visible from the street. Mr. McCarthy asked where the property line was on the western side of the building. He asked if it was where the parking lot begins and would the applicant try to close off that space and install a gate. Mr. Costa said that it was not their property. The building line is the property line on that side. Mr. McCarthy suggested they might be able to work out something with the adjacent neighbor so people cannot walk through the property that way or through items in that area. Mr. Costa stated they would make the offer to the neighbor. Mr. McCarthy asked if the vinyl fencing that is currently around the gas meters would remain. Mr. Costa stated the fencing would be replaced by landscaping. Sean McCarthy asked if there were any additional questions. He stated there was enough information to satisfy the conditions required. He asked if there were any comments from the public regarding this application. There were no comments. Based on the conditions and comments of the meeting, there was enough information to move forward and process the application for a building permit for exterior work on this property. 2) Michael & Janet Pietsch 9 Birch Close New Application Peter Cole, the architect for the homeowners, represented the application. Mr. Cole stated the applicants are proposing to renovate and upgrade some of the exterior finishes on a 1960's ranch house and introduce two new additions. One of the additions is a new portico in the front and the other is an expansion to the existing master bedroom in the back. He indicated the addition of the new foyer space and portico on the plans, as well as the expansion in the rear where the master bedroom is located, which takes advantage of the phenomenal views of the Hudson River. In addition, there are other renovations taking place at the same time. They are moving a few windows around, however most of the windows remain the way they are. The windows currently on the corners will move to the center of the house. They are also changing the exterior kitchen facade to incorporate more of the granite stone that's in the front by making a smaller opening and closing off a window. Architectural Review Board Meeting,September26, 2012 - APPROVED 4 �They will introduce some natural light through the front door by adding glass doors with a transom. Existing skylights will be kept. The corner windows are moved towards the centers of the rooms. On the south side, the house would be extended to give them a panoramic view of Haverstraw Bay. In the back where there are large picture windows, they will introduce more windows. The cable rail on the existing deck will be changed. It is currently 6-inches on center, which is not to current code so it will be redone. They will be adding sliding French doors on to the deck in an area where there is currently a window. They are also changing the siding, which is 9 or 10-inch shingles to 6-inch cedar perfection shingles. Sean McCarthy asked how the siding would be finished. Mr. Cole stated it would be pre-finished stained siding. Mr. McCarthy asked about the staircase. Mr. Cole stated the homeowners currently have a spiral staircase and they are changing to a regular staircase. Discussion ensued about the staircase. Peter Cole showed photographs of the view from the house. Sean McCarthy asked if the whole house would be resided. Mr. Cole said yes. Mr. Cole stated the only way onto the grounds would be off the deck and down the stairs. Mr. McCarthy asked if they are doing a new roof. Mr. Cole stated they would be keeping the roof but just extending in the back over the addition. Sean McCarthy asked if the roof would match. Mr. Cole said yes. Mr. McCarthy asked about the windows. Mr. Cole said the current windows are Anderson and will remain Anderson Mr. McCarthy said this application has to go before the Zoning Board because of an existing nonconformity. Discussion ensued about the variance. Mr. McCarthy stated that anytime there is a nonconforming lot and work is being done, the applicant must go before the Zoning Board. Sean McCarthy asked if the transom would have divided lights. Mr. Cole said yes however the front door would be full glass panels so the view can be seen all the way through the house. Krista Callaghan stated that it's nice to see through the door even though some of the windows already have that view. She asked about the material that would be used to match existing granite. Mr. Cole said the material was called Yonkers Granite and can still be obtained. Architectural Review Board Meeting,September26, 2012 - APPROVED 5 �He stated the columns would be too tall for the new proportions so the base would be stone and the columns would be foreshortened and a square shape. He said they have a deep frieze so they would fit in with the design of the house. Sean McCarthy asked if they would do mitered corners or corner-boards when the house is resided. Mr. Cole said they would do mitered corners. Mr. McCarthy asked about the casings around the windows. Mr. Cole stated they are doing 3-1/2 inch casings. Sean McCarthy and Krista Callaghan felt the proposal would be a nice improvement to the house. There were no comments from the public regarding the application at 9 Birch Close. Sean McCarthy stated there was enough information to move the application to building review subject to approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. He felt there was no need for the applicant to return before the Architectural Review Board unless there were major changes to the plans. 3) Alci Tavaras 160 Depeyster Street Grocery Store They applied for permits to put an ATM sign and an Open sign on the door of the grocery store. They wanted to know the status of the approval. Sean McCarthy stated this application was not on the agenda to approve but asked Krista Callaghan if they could review this request. She agreed. Mr. Tavaras presented a drawing showing the location of the Open sign and the ATM sign. Sean McCarthy asked how big the ATM sign would be. The applicant was not sure of the dimensions. Mr. McCarthy stated they should take a photo of the sign and submit with the dimensions. He asked if the sign was illuminated. Mr. Tavaras said yes. Mr. McCarthy said they might not need Architectural Review Board approval; it depended on the size of the signs. He stated the code allowed one illuminated sign in each window, not in every pane but in each storefront side. He said the code stated the maximum size the sign could be. He suggested they give the Building Department a color picture of the sign with the measurements and where it would be placed and if it meets code criteria, then they do not need Architectural Review Board approval. Minutes were not approved at this meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45pm. Architectural Review Board Meeting,September26, 2012 - APPROVED 6 �Architectural Review Board Meeting,September26, 2012 - APPROVED 7 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Architectural Review Board Minutes-2012 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ARB_2012-10-24 Subject The topic of the resource Architectural Review Board Minutes-2012 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2012 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/9e25942e997ff70b3aa6c18c091649df.pdf f59b8cd6be652483dc4df21adaa9947f PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Architectural Review Board Meeting - APPROVED November 28, 2 0 1 2 The meeting was called to order at 8:17p.m by Sean McCarthy. Present: Sean McCarthy (Village of Sleepy Hollow/Building Department) Krista Callaghan Also Present: Mary Gerlanc (Recording Secretary) Announcements - There were no announcements. Proposed Agenda: 1) Approval of Minutes 2 ) CRAS Real Estate Corp. 1) Approval of Minutes 3 8 Beekman Avenue September 26, 2 0 1 2 October 24, 2 0 1 2 New Application September 26, 2 0 1 2 & October 24, 2 0 1 2 The Board approved the amended minutes of September 26, 2012 and October 24, 2012. 2 ) CRAS Real Estate Corp. 3 8 Beekman Avenue New Application Maria Solari, Mirella McNulty & Rosalyn Ferrera represented this application. Mr. McCarthy stated the Board did receive the mailings that notice was given to the other property owners. He stated that this was an application for a portable sign. The Board viewed a photo of the proposed sign. Mr. McCarthy read a response received from Rob Solari, owner of this property, regarding the placement of the sign, style and size of lettering for the proposed sign. Mr. Solari wrote that the letter style would be bold and the sign has no borders, no graphics, and no logos. The sign is a plastic black frame, 43-inches high and 26-inches wide. All letters are plastic, 5-inches in height with one-inch spacing. The sign will not be lit. The sign will be �placed on the property. Mr. Solari stated it is a portable sign that can be taken in and out every day. Maria Solari stated the biggest reason for this type of sign is that they cannot just put the name of the business on the sign because it does not tell the customer what kind of business it is. Mr. McCarthy asked the name of the business. Mirella McNulty stated the business name was the New York Refinery. The applicant stated the name alone would not let customers know they could sell gold at this business. The applicant is upset that they have not had any gold sales since the portable sign has been taken off the property. Mr. McCarthy stated the Village is not saying this business cannot have a sign. He stated the Board is abiding by the Village of Sleepy Hollow sign ordinance, which states how many signs can be on a property, the types and styles of signs and where they can be placed. He stated the sign the applicant is proposing presents a problem. Mr. McCarthy stated this sign was teetering on top of the wall on the property for a while. The Village requested it be removed. Mr. McCarthy stated the Village could be sued if someone walked by and was hit by the sign. Discussion ensued about various municipalities and their sign ordinances. Mr. McCarthy stated the applicant should create a sign that is more desirable and abides by the sign ordinance. Mirella McNulty, who works in the New York Refinery, asked if the applicant could propose the creation of a Village ordinance to allow a "sandwich sign" that could be placed on the sidewalk but conform to approved specifications and dimensions. Mr. McCarthy agreed that the applicant could submit a proposal to amend the sign ordinance. Maria Solari stated that the property owner could not afford to replace the $9600 sign that already was approved and installed at 38 Beekman Avenue. She stated the current sign does not help business. Maria Solari stated the sign does not work because it cannot be read from far away. She also stated the business name alone does not bring in business. The $200 portable sign has brought in all the business. Discussion ensued regarding the location of a sign on the sidewalk. Sean McCarthy stated neither the Architectural Review Board nor the Building Department have the right to authorize the placement of a sign on any Village sidewalk. He stated the applicant would have to appeal to the Board of Trustees to get a licensing agreement to place a Architectural Review Board Meeting, November 28, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 2 �sign on the sidewalk. Mr. McCarthy stated the applicant would need indemnification and insurance in case of any accidents. Mr. McCarthy stated it is a constant enforcement issue to keep these signs off the sidewalks and the Board appreciated the applicant coming before the Board and trying to get approval for a sign. However, he stated it was the consensus of the Architectural Review Board that a plastic sign with removable letters is not appropriate for a building the applicant has spent money fixing. Krista Callaghan stated that when she received this application, she read the Village Code pertaining to signs. Based on the Village Code and the Downtown Revitalization Design Guidelines she did not feel the sign fit in. Discussion ensued regarding other businesses on Beekman Avenue and the buildings and signs that had been redone and approved by the Board. Maria Solari asked what kind of sign the Board would allow. Sean McCarthy stated the Board would allow a sign that was more appropriate in materials and design and was a more permanent solution then a portable, plastic sign. He also stated the Board would allow the applicant to have a temporary sign while they make a more permanent solution. Rosalyn Ferrera asked if the sign could be A-frame sign that the property owner could stand on their wall. Sean McCarthy suggested the applicant redo their building directory. Maria Solari stated Rob Solari would not put any more money into the directory because it was not descriptive of the business. Krista Callaghan stated that Village code did not permit businesses to advertise their services on a sign. She also stated that the applicant had a neon sign on the property window. Maria Solari stated they had a building permit for that neon sign. Sean McCarthy stated that the permit was granted for that additional sign to help the business advertise their services. Discussion ensued about neon signs on Beekman Avenue and how many are allowed per window. Maria Solari stated they have limited budget and are not going to be able to build on to their existing sign. Krista Callaghan stated that the applicant should put the name of the businesses in the building underneath the current sign on the property. She stated it should be presented as a legitimate business in that building. She also stated she drove into the parking lot and didn't know where the business was located in the building and not because the building is set back from the street. Architectural Review Board Meeting, November 28, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 3 �Maria Solari showed photos of the property and stated that the signs can't be read from the street. Sean McCarthy stated the applicant is allowed in addition to the directory, a large awning for Studio 38, signs above every business and signs in the windows. Sean McCarthy stated the applicant has been permitted for the awning with the oversize lettering, which was not approved, and then a sign above every storefront and also signs in the windows and a directory sign. Maria Solari stated it should be the right of a business owner to have signs. Discussion ensued regarding the appropriateness of various types of signs. Mr. McCarthy stated the Village has already established guidelines for signs and the portable, plastic sign the applicant was using does not follow the guidelines. He stated the sign the applicant made several years ago kept to the guidelines. Maria Solari stated that sign was a waste of money because it does not work. It is not functional. Krista Callaghan asked if the other businesses on the property are doing well. Maria Solari stated it was hard to keep businesses on the property and one of the empty spaces has not been rented for three years. Discussion ensued. Sean McCarthy stated that the sign should not make or break the business. Maria Solari disagreed and stated that since their portable sign was not on the sidewalk they haven't had business in three weeks at New York Refinery. Sean McCarthy suggested the applicant add something to their current signs to advertise the business. Maria Solari stated no one would be able to read it. Sean McCarthy stated they could read the neon sign in the window. Rosalyn Ferrera stated the business is only open during the day so the neon sign cannot be seen. Sean McCarthy asked if the applicant could incorporate lighting on their sign. Rosalyn Ferrera asked if they would be allowed to do that. Mr. McCarthy and Ms. Callaghan said yes. Discussion ensued about rules and regulations regarding businesses. Sean McCarthy asked the applicant how many businesses were sharing one space. Maria Solar stated two businesses. Mr. McCarthy stated the Village has allowed this, which is a violation. He also stated the Village allowed the applicant to have a Gold sign, which was put up without a permit. He also stated the applicant put up their portable sign without a permit and the Village is trying to cooperate with the applicant. Discussion ensued about what the Village of Sleepy Hollow ordinances allow. Sean McCarthy stated that Village code says plastic lettering is not allowed on a sign. Krista Callaghan suggested the applicant should have come with pictures of signs the applicant has seen in other villages to show the Architectural Review Board some creative solutions besides the plastic sign they were using. Architectural Review Board Meeting, November 28, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 4 �Rosalyn Ferrara asked if the big objection to the plastic sign was its' location on the wall. Sean McCarthy stated the sign couldn't be on the wall. Discussion ensued about where the sign could be placed on the property. Rosalyn Ferrara asked if a different style A-frame sign could be placed on the approved area of the applicant's property. Sean McCarthy suggested the applicant do research on what other municipalities allow in terms of A-frame signs. Krista Callaghan suggested they keep in mind what kind of sign is already above the new one they need to design and how do they relate to each other without necessarily going to the same expense as the original sign. Mirella McNulty stated they found that a sign that has a white background with black lettering stands out the most. Discussion ensued about the A-frame style sign. Sean McCarthy stated this style sign has never been approved in the Village. He suggested the applicant design a sign that is the opposite of the colors they have already used. He suggested using gold paint instead of gold leafing. Mr. McCarthy also suggested hanging the sign underneath the one already in place. He stated the sign could have the name of the business and then the words "We Buy Gold" in six-inch letters underneath. He suggested using a gold background with black lettering that ties in with the applicant's original sign. He also suggested having spotlight installed to shine upon the sign and spotlight the gold. Mr. McCarthy stated the Village would allow the applicant to display their portable plastic sign while they come up with a compromise solution. Rosalyn Ferrera stated it was important for this business that the sign be descriptive and also the placement of the sign. Discussion ensued about the area the sign should be located and the landscaping of that area on the property. Sean McCarthy stated if the area was landscaped and the sign was there and it was lit then it would look finished. He stated that if the applicant used the parameters they already had in place, they could have a much bigger sign with bigger lettering. Currently, they have 5-inch lettering but they could go 6-inch or even 8-inch lettering to fill up the area. Rosalyn Ferrera asked if the Board had a problem with a white background for the sign. Krista Callaghan stated she had no problem with the lighter background that Mr. McCarthy suggested but it needs to be more consistent with the colors the applicant has already used. Mr. McCarthy suggested they use a gold background with a black border and blue or black lettering so it goes with what the applicant already has but still stands out. Krista Callaghan said the simplicity of stating "We Buy Gold" is all that people need to notice on the sign. Maria Solari asked if they could drill the sign into the wall. Architectural Review Board Meeting, November 28, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 5 �Sean McCarthy stated they would have to look at where the property line ends but they could if it was on their property. The sign would just have to be in an area that doesn't block the view of cars pulling in and out of the property. Discussion ensued about installing a sign that wouldn't be mobile. Krista Callaghan stated that even if the sign were drilled into the wall it should be consistent with the other signs on the property. Mr. McCarthy stated the sign couldn't take away room from a parking space. Maria Solari asked if it was possible to mount the sign on a wooden post on the wall located on the property. Sean McCarthy stated he would not recommend using wood because it wouldn't last very long. Maria Solari asked if they could use a black, iron post instead. Sean McCarthy agreed that was possible. Maria Solari asked for some time to get the new signage together. Mirella McNulty asked if Rob Solari could meet with Sean to discuss new ideas. Sean McCarthy agreed that Mr. Solari could meet with him and discuss possible scenarios for the sign. Discussion ensued about possible ideas or choices for signage and lighting for signage. Krista Callaghan asked if the business was open at night. Maria Solari said no. Rosalyn Ferrara stated that if the sign were lit, then people at night would also notice it. Sean McCarthy stated the Board could grant a 30-day temporary sign. Krista Callaghan stated that would get them through the holidays. Sean McCarthy suggested the temporary sign could stay until January 1st and the applicant should have an alternative proposal to show the Board by that date. He stated the Board could then grant another extension. Maria Solari asked if the temporary sign could be placed on bricks in another location in the parking lot. Mr. McCarthy stated they just couldn't block any parking spots. Mr. McCarthy also pointed out that portable signs must be maintained so if a storm arises then the owner must remove the sign. Maria Solari asked about the colors Mr. McCarthy suggested. He stated using gold as the background with dark blue or black lettering. Mr. McCarthy suggested starting with the size and location of the sign before the colors. He also suggested the applicant think about putting New York Refinery -We Buy Gold and then an emblem in the middle of the sign. Rosalyn Ferrara suggested a hand painted sign. Sean McCarthy suggested changing the shape of the sign from rectangle to an oval. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55pm. Architectural Review Board Meeting, November 28, 2 0 1 2 - APPROVED 6 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Architectural Review Board Minutes-2012 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ARB_2012-11-28 Subject The topic of the resource Architectural Review Board Minutes-2012 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2012 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text