https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/ec4bb7047509112295c815ddc69275dd.pdf cd90e31d10091d2c649870c2a1619be6 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Architectural Review Board Meeting - APPROVED September 25, 2 0 1 3 Sean McCarthy called the meeting to order at 8:00pm. 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) Laurentino Rodrigues Oppenheim Joseph Aquilia Vinisio Gonzalez dba El Mango Bar 5) Mark & Kerry Larmore 6) Approval of Minutes 172 Valley Street 1 2 1 Hunter Avenue 21 Merlin Avenue Continued New Application New Application 1 3 4 Cortlandt Street 21 Pokahoe Drive New Application New Application June 26, 2 0 1 3 1) Laurentino Rodrigues 172 Valley Street Continued William Simeoforides, architect and Laurentino Rodrigues, property owner represented this application which is a continuation of a proposed three story mixed use building. Mr. Simeoforides stated the following changes to the plan: • The roof would be standing seam, not canopy • The tower would be two-feet taller but not higher than the main fascia. • The gate to the garage would be wrought iron, no higher than 3 feet to the top and would slide open from the middle to each side. • There would be a sign on the Depeyster Street side of the tower that would be a duplicate of the sign on Valley Street. • The material of the commercial portion of the building on the Depeyster Street side would be stucco from the top to the planning beds at the bottom. • The landscape lighting in the residential courtyard would be Mission-style fixtures. • There would be lights over the garage entrance and wall sconce lights in a bronze tone to match the Mission style lighting in the courtyard. �• • • • • The building number of the residential portion would be placed on a pier in the courtyard. A paved area in the corner of the courtyard would be replaced with a planting bed. A bike rack would be added to the left of the residential entrance. The planter in the courtyard would be a raised, 18-inch planter, which could be faced with brick or concrete. The garbage area would be enclosed. Krista Callaghan suggested a different lighting style than Mission. She stated it does not match the style of the building. There was a discussion regarding the windows on the Valley Street side of the building. Sean McCarthy asked if they could switch the placement of the double and single windows. Mr. Simeoforides stated it would impact the layout of the interior space but he could choose a larger window for the location of the single window to balance the design. Mr. McCarthy suggested extending the brick base in the area to the left of the garage to partially hide the cars parked there. Mr. Simeoforides showed a sample of a planter for the front of that area. Mr. McCarthy suggested building brick planters with a cap on them. Discussion ensued. The planters could be as high as the gate. The Board suggested adding a brick pier and pedestrian gate on the left of the Valley Street side of the garage with lighting that could be used as another entrance to the garage. The Board also suggested removing the sign over the garage entrance. Mr. McCarthy asked about the gutters and leaders for the building. Mr. Simeoforides stated one would be along the side corner and the other gutters would wrap and direct water along the roofline to the rear of the building. Regarding the curve design in the front of the building, Mr. Simeoforides proposed metal for that area as well as the tower roof, the main roof and the awning on the front of the building. Mr. McCarthy asked about recycling for the property. There was discussion regarding the number of containers required. Mr. McCarthy suggested a larger area for the garbage/recycling that would be on a concrete platform, raised and sealed. Krista Callaghan suggested a curb around that area. The Board asked for a sample mockup of all the building materials (brick, stucco, metal roofing, railings, gates, roof shingles) to be available on site, along with the final submission for the exterior lighting. Mr. McCarthy asked if there were any public comments. There were none. The Board stated there was enough information for this applicant to apply for a building permit subject to the final conditions of the building materials and lighting samples. Architectural Review Board Meeting, September 25, 2 0 1 3 - APPROVED 2 �2) Oppenheim 121 HunterAvenue New Application Frank Tancredi, architect, represented this application, which is for an addition to a twostory house. Mr. Tancredi stated his client had received their variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. He stated the only change from the last submission was the transition of the roofline. The materials for the addition would be the same as the house; stucco, slate roof with copper elements. Discussion ensued about adding an overhang to the roofline and the size of the overhang. Mr. Tancredi stated plans had been submitted for the first part of the building permit. He stated the plans were being split because of the code requirements for installing a sprinkler system if the percentage of new construction is over 50%. Mr. McCarthy stated it is not the intent of the law to circumvent installing the sprinkler system by submitting separate building permits. He also stated if the owner files another application to renovate the basement, they would be required to add a sprinkler system at that time. Mr. McCarthy asked if there were any public comments. There were none. The Board approved the application subject to comments made and the applicant can apply for a building permit. 3) Joseph Aquilia 21 Merlin Avenue New Application Joseph Aquila homeowner represented this application. He is proposing a concrete walkway covered with bluestone from his driveway to the front door. Mr. Aquila presented photographs of the property to the Board. Mr. Aquila inquired about the need for railings for the walkway. Sean McCarthy stated the Village Code pertaining to handrails for stairs depends on the number of risers. Mr. Aquila stated the walkway is five feet wide and forty feet long. Mr. McCarthy asked if there would be curbing on one side to hold up the grade. Mr. Aquila stated there would be a curb that was constructed from concrete covered in bluestone. The Board concurred with the choice of the stone. Krista Callaghan asked if the walkway needed to be that wide since it would increase the impervious surface area. Architectural Review Board Meeting, September 25, 2 0 1 3 - APPROVED 3 �The Board suggested 3.5 feet width for the walkway, but no less than three feet. Sean McCarthy stated they wouldn't need guardrails. Mr. Aquila stated the railings would match the wrought iron already in the front of the house. The railing would be on the left side facing the house and not on the driveway side of the walkway. Mr. McCarthy asked if there were any public comments. There were none. The Board approved the application with the following conditions: • Walkway width of approximately 3.5 feet plus a curb on one side. The width would be based on the size of the bluestone. • The walkway, treads, landing and curb would be bluestone. • The wrought iron railing would match what is currently in the front of the house. The applicant can proceed with the building permit application. 4) Vinisio Gonzalez dba El Mango Bar 1 3 4 Cortlandt Street New Application Vinisio Gonzalez and Jennifer Lopez represented this application for a new awning. Mr. Gonzalez would like a new name on the awning. Sean McCarthy stated the Board would approve a new awning if the sign above the awning were removed. Ms. Lopez translated for Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Gonzalez agreed to remove the sign. The awning is a burgundy color, Sunbrella fabric. The graphics would be 6-inch x 4-inch building numbers along with a painted graphic design. Mr. McCarthy asked if there were any public comments. There were none. The Board approved this application with the condition that the sign above is removed and discarded and the building is repaired and patched. The applicant can proceed with their application for a building permit. 5) Mark & Kerry Larmore 21 Pokahoe Drive New Application Eric Jacobson, architect and Anton Whiteford from Remodeling Consultants Inc. and Mark & Kerry Larmore, homeowners, represented this application for a renovation to an existing property. Architectural Review Board Meeting, September 25, 2 0 1 3 - APPROVED 4 �Mr. McCarthy stated that the notices had been mailed and the returns received for this application. Eric Jacobson presented photographs of the current single story home that overlooks the Hudson River. Mr. Jacobson stated the following proposed renovations: • Remove the roof, walls and rear deck. • Addition of a first floor and a partial second story. • Adding an addition to the rear of the home. • The front door is placed in the center with a portico that extends six feet with a bearing roof. • There are two sets of windows with dormers. • Part of the second floor is attic space not living space. • Hardie plank siding, shingle style for the gable, clapboard style for the house. • Remove brick and add granite stone up to the first floor. • Front columns are bluestone at the base up to 3 feet and 16-inch fluted tapered columns above the stone. • Roof shingle is GAF Timberline charcoal high definition shingle. • There is consistent roof pitch with the exception of the dormer off to the side. • Removal of open porch on the side of the house, but keeping the platform and the steps. (They may add overhang roof at a later time) • Deck material is a composite material • There will be a cable rail system with 4x4 posts and a band across the top out of the same composite material. • The deck will be supported by 2x2, stone-wrapped columns. • The area below the deck will be stucco that will be repainted and repointed. • The windows are Jeld Wen aluminum clad, white, cottage style. The upper grille has simulated divided lights. The rear windows have no grilles. The transoms are decorative. • The chimney would have the same stone but in a thin veneer. • There is a large decorative arched window. They are building over the current footprint of the home except for the addition in the rear which 9.5 x 22 feet. The lot is a 17,000-plus square foot lot with a FAR of 4299. Mr. Jacobson showed photographs of the neighboring homes in relation to the applicant's property. They do not want to intentionally block views of the Hudson from the two homes across the street. Those houses are elevated and have a second story and the properties are situated so the views are in between the project home. There was discussion about the trim and the mouldings for the windows. Sean McCarthy asked about the garage door. Mr. Jacobson stated it would be a solid paneled fiberglass door. He also stated the front door would be mahogany. Architectural Review Board Meeting, September 25, 2 0 1 3 - APPROVED 5 �Krista Callaghan asked about the lower portion of the rear columns. Mr. Jacobson stated they are in front of the existing stucco wall and would buttress the existing wall. The wall and columns would be stucco and painted. The deck supports are 6-inch diameter lally columns and pinned to the rock below. Sean McCarthy asked about the pediments. Mr. Jacobson stated they would have decorative corbels that come forward nine inches and overhang. Discussion ensued about fascia and using flashing. Mr. McCarthy asked about the front entry. Mr. Jacobson stated the portico extended six feet with a flat, MDO panel with bead board in the soffit. It would have a bluestone cap on top. Mr. McCarthy stated there was no need for railings in the front entry area. Mr. Jacobson stated the gutters were aluminum ogee and would connect to existing drainage. He indicated the area on the house where the utilities would connect. He also confirmed that the existing front foundation would remain and plantings would be added to cover that foundation. Mr. McCarthy asked if all the windows would be trimmed. Mr. Jacobson stated the windowsills would be picture-framed and the new windows would be wrapped around with a stone cap across the front. The windows on the side or rear do not have head casing. Mr. McCarthy asked if there were any public comments. There were none. The Board approved the application and requested the applicant to submit their plan with the materials noted. The applicant has presented enough information to proceed with their building permit application. 6) Approval of Minutes June 26, 2 0 1 3 The Board approved the minutes for June 26, 2013 with a minor amendment. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30pm. Architectural Review Board Meeting, September 25, 2 0 1 3 - 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-2013 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_2013-09-25 Subject The topic of the resource Architectural Review Board Minutes-2013 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2013 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