Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Architectural Review Advisory Minutes 01/16/07
                                                                   Minutes
                                            Architectural Review Advisory Committee
                                                Village of Briarcliff Manor, New York
                                                               January 16, 2007

The ARAC met on January 16, 2007 to consider the application from Chase re: signage at 1100 Pleasantville Road and 1946 Pleasantville Road.~All members were present, but for Michael Gelardi who was excused.~  In addition, the applicant did not appear and a decision was made to hold the hearing in absentia.
~
The ARAC proceeded on the assumption that all proposed signage (see applications) were in conformity with local and, in the case of traffic/safety related standards, State standards.~
~
The Committee found all aspects of the application acceptable, but for the following observations:~
~
-At the 1100 Pleasantville Rd. site, the Committee questions the wisdom of installing vertical signage as shown on p.4 of 26. It would appear that such signage is not as visually attractive nor apparent as the placement of a horizontal sign centered over the entry way to the portico as been the case with the Bank of New York sign.~ The proposed signage is apt to be visually impeded by parked vehicles and may even represent a structural hazard to pedestrians.~ Unfortunately, the ARAC~was unable to represent an applicant response to such concern given the applicant's absence.
~
-At the 1946 Pleasantville Road site, the ARAC questions the need for redundant signage at the entrance of the building (see p. 6 of 38) on both the facade and the awning.~ The ARAC requests an applicant response the need for such redundancy.
~
-At the 1946 Pleasantville Road site, the ARAC notes the applicant intends to place two signs at the drive-up facility--one noting "clearance" (p.19 of 38), the other noting "drive-up" (p. 26 of 38).~ The application indicates the former sign is non-illuminated, while the latter will be illuminated.~ It would appear that, from a safety standpoint, the reverse should be the case; however, the ARAC proposes that neither sign be internally illuminated and that if the applicant seeks to illuminate such signs, it should submit a proposal for external illumination.
~
The meeting commenced at 7:30 p.m. and adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
~
Respectfully Submitted for the ARAC,
~
~
Joseph M. Pastore, Jr., Chair