https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/0704c9bc400e8f5e0f17dcad911ef9d2.pdf 10f98d9ce63be3612c13e6e65d7946a5 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Architectural Review Board Meeting - APPROVED February 26, 2 0 1 4 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) 5) Makan Land Development Mario M. Hernandez Three of Them, LLC Raphael Alba & Joanna Cuevas Approval of Minutes 1) Makan Land Development 5 4 5 No. Broadway 19 Barnhart Avenue 16 New Broadway 2 2 5 Gordon Avenue Continued New application New application New application January 26, 2 0 1 4 5 4 5 No. Broadway Continued Nicholas Shirriah and Eric Osborn, architect represented this application for a new singlefamily house. Mr. Shirriah stated they had taken the Board's suggestion at the last meeting to look at other homes in the area. Eric Osborn stated they had added stone elements around the garage doors, the front entry and the concrete foundation on three sides. He showed new plans to the Board. He indicated the trim around the windows, including two bay windows, the gables and the trim area above the stone on top of the garage. Sean McCarthy asked if the house had vinyl siding. Mr. Osborn replied it did. Mr. Osborn stated the front entryway was set back about two feet and there was a small "eyebrow" roof over the front door. �Sean McCarthy asked the height of the garage doors. Mr. Osborn stated they were 7 feet high by 9 feet wide. Mr. McCarthy asked if the bay windows were cantilevered. Mr. Osborn stated they were. Mr. McCarthy asked if the house had a two-story foyer. Mr. Osborn stated it was and there was a window directly above the door. Krista Callaghan asked about the roof over the front door. She stated it did not appear to provide protection for the front entry or add anything to the design. She also stated the front door seemed tight with the lighting on either side of the door. Mr. Osborn suggested moving the lighting over the door. Sean McCarthy suggested removing the stone trim around the door and adding a pilasterstyle trim to make the door appear wider. He also suggested extending the stone across the first level of the house. Discussion ensued regarding placement of the stone and the entryway. Mr. McCarthy asked what was in the space above the garage. Mr. Osborn stated that was the master bathroom and a closet area. The tub would be placed below the window on the second floor over the garage. Mr. McCarthy asked about the front stairs and entry platform. Nicholas Shirriah stated there were only a few steps. Mr. Osborn stated the stairs would be concrete covered with bluestone. Mr. McCarthy asked if the risers would be covered in the same stone. Mr. Osborn replied it would be the same stone. Mr. McCarthy suggested they use the same material on the band above the stone of the garage and on the foundation, to create a consistent use of materials. Mr. McCarthy asked about the Tudor curve on the bottom of the roofline. He also asked about the rakes on the roof. Mr. Osborn stated all the rakes were a foot to give definition to the roofline. Mr. McCarthy asked if the returns on the rakes would return onto themselves and what material would be used. Mr. Osborn stated the rakes would be asphalt. Discussion ensued regarding the returns and the gutters that would wrap into the returns. Sean McCarthy asked about the roof material on the bay windows. Mr. Osborn stated the material could be shingle or copper. Mr. McCarthy suggested it should be copper and a space be added between the top of the bay windows and the roof and also a window head trim detail. The Board felt the material used on the rakes should match the roof material on the bays. Mr. McCarthy suggested the sub-fascia on the rakes should return underneath the eaves. Discussion ensued regarding the entryway and the location of the stone on the front of the house. Architectural Review Board Meeting, February 26, 2 0 1 4 - APPROVED 2 �Krista Callaghan asked about changing the plane of the entry to change the condition of the front door. Sean McCarthy suggested a taller door with a transom above it to add focus to the front entryway. Ms. Callaghan suggested bumping the roofline. Mr. Osborn stated there is still an issue of the phone/electrical pole in the rear of the house. Mr. McCarthy asked if the plan would need much adjustment if the applicant doesn't get Zoning Board approval. Mr. Shirriah stated there would only be change on one side. Mr. McCarthy suggested the applicant make the recommended changes and make the new plans available to the Board for review. The Board also suggested the applicant think about the color palette for the house. 2) Mario M. Hernandez 19 Barnhart Avenue New application Sam Vieira, architect and Mario M. Hernandez, owner represented this application for a second story rear addition and open deck to the existing house. This property has received Zoning Board variances. Mr. Vieira stated the project is for a second story addition to the rear of the house. He stated the homes in this area are very close to each other. The front view of the house remains unchanged. Their intent is to restore what is currently there, especially the front porch. The addition in the back will carry the same line as the existing sidewalls. They will replace the exterior with a horizontal cement board product because that material has a much better fire rating than standard vinyl siding. There will be new windows added and the existing windows will be replaced. The windows will be white clad, Anderson windows. On the gable ends, the horizontal siding will be replaced with Hardie shakes. They are using Hardie plank corner boards as well. All the siding and shakes will be in a factory finish. The trim work on the corners and windows will be white. The biggest difference to the house is in the rear. The new second story will carry the roofline forward. They are also adding a rear, 12 x 10 foot, wood deck with metal stairs. Sean McCarthy asked about the gables and the roofline of the house. Mr. Vieira stated the back of the house is wider than the front. There is a higher pitch to the roof, however there is no proposal to finish the attic. It will be used as an unfinished storage area. Mr. McCarthy asked if the handrail detail on the deck would be the same metal as the stairs. Mr. Vieira stated they are proposing wood railings and balusters on the deck. Krista Callaghan asked about the colors for the proposed renovation. Mario Hernandez stated they were thinking of using a blue tone for the siding and the shakes. He suggested Boothbay Blue or Evening Blue. Mr. Hernandez stated he would put a darker tone on the shakes. The Board suggested a darker tone for the gables. Mr. Hernandez stated the blue Architectural Review Board Meeting, February 26, 2 0 1 4 - APPROVED 3 �color would be different from the other houses in this area. Mr. Vieira stated the house would have white trim. The Board suggested a darker tone for the roof color, possibly dark slate color. There were no public comments. The Board stated there was enough information for this applicant to proceed with a building permit. 3) Three of Them. LLC 16 New Broadway New application Gerarda Rella represented this application for a new driveway entry gate to the parking area for this property. Ms. Rella stated it was a commercial building and random people are parking in the driveway during the day and on the weekends. The staff is concerned their cars may be damaged. The gate they are proposing is a remote controlled gate that pivots up so there would be no issues with the snow. Mr. McCarthy asked the dimensions of the gate. Ms. Rella stated the gate was 20 feet long. Mr. McCarthy asked how the mechanism of the gate would be concealed. Ms. Rella stated there was a pine tree and the 24-inch box would be next to the tree. The mechanism on the other corner would be hidden by a large rock. Mr. McCarthy asked if the gate would open automatically when someone pulled up to it. Ms. Rella stated all the employees would have a remote in their vehicle. Mr. McCarthy asked how the clients would access the parking area. Ms. Rella stated their clients do not park in the lot because there is only enough parking for the employees. The Board stated their concern that this might be a Planning Board issue because of the ingress and egress. Mr. McCarthy asked if this was the only style of gate available. Ms. Rella stated because of the mechanism involved in the pivot, this was the only style for this particular gate. Mr. McCarthy asked if there was a need to have the skirt below the arm of the gate. Ms. Rella felt it looked more industrial if there was only an arm. Mr. McCarthy thought it was less intrusive to just have an arm and it could be more decorative to go with the building style. Sean McCarthy stated his concern with a client trying to enter and then having to back out onto the state road. Architectural Review Board Meeting, February 26, 2 0 1 4 - APPROVED 4 �Ms. Callaghan stated the current gate seemed excessive to accomplish the applicant's need. The Board suggested minimizing the gate 12 or 14 feet long instead of the proposed 20 feet in length and eliminating the skirt of the gate. The Board also added the condition that landscaping hide the mechanism of the box. The Board recommended moving this application to the Planning Board to determine if this proposal requires site plan approval. They suggested the applicant submit an alternative gate design that is less obtrusive. This matter will remain on the Architectural Review Board's agenda pending Planning Board review. 4) Raphael Alba & Joanna Cuevas 2 2 5 Gordon Avenue New application Raphael Alba and Joanna Cuevas, owners represented this application for a new perimeter fence. Joanna Cuevas stated their property is a corner lot along Gordon and Holland Avenues. They are proposing a three-foot high fence along the setback on Gordon and on the other sides, the fence would be four feet high. The fence would be constructed from Vermont cedar. There would be two gates; one gate would be on the Gordon Ave side and another gate on the side. Ms. Cuevas stated the fence would be around the landing and the steps. The fence would be behind the retaining wall on Gordon Ave. The owners presented photographs that showed the location of the fence on the property. Ms. Cuevas stated they would take the trees into consideration when placing the fence. Mr. McCarthy asked if the fence would be on their property line on the south side. He suggested they install the good side of the fence facing them since there is a wall on the other side of the fence. Mr. McCarthy also stated the fence along the street should have the good side facing the street. Mr. McCarthy asked if it would be a solid fence in the front of the house. Ms. Cuevas stated their concern was their small dog getting through the slats of the fence. Krista Callaghan suggested something with a small spacing. Mr. McCarthy suggested solid fencing at the transition from the three-foot high fence to the four-foot high fence. Mr. McCarthy asked about the finish for the fence. Mr. Alba stated they considered either staining the fence to enhance the cedar color or painting the fence a white color. Mr. McCarthy suggested painting the spaced front fence but leaving the rear fence to blend into the background. The applicants thought staining would make it easier to paint the fence at a later time. The Board also recommended a solid colored stain that could be a lighter color rather than a stark white color. Architectural Review Board Meeting, February 26, 2 0 1 4 - APPROVED 5 �There were no public comments regarding this application. The Board stated this application was approved as submitted with the following conditions: • A three-foot, spaced fence on top of the wall along the Gordon Avenue side. • The balance of the fence being a solid, four foot high fence in the rear and sides of the property. • Two gates. 5) Approval of Minutes January 22, 2 0 1 4 The Board approved the minutes for January 22, 2014 as submitted. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15pm. Architectural Review Board Meeting, February 26, 2 0 1 4 - 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-2014 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_2014-02-26 Subject The topic of the resource Architectural Review Board Minutes-2014 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2014 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