The Newtown Township Historical Architectural Review Board met on Tuesday, October 13, 2009, at 1:30 P.M. in the Meeting Room of the Newtown Township Administration Building, 100 Municipal Drive, Newtown, PA.
Members present were Bill Mahler, Harriet Beckert, Joseph McKernan, Jr., Frank Tyrol, Doug Terry and Building Inspector Rich Wendling. Not present were members Peggy Driscoll and Sue Beasley. Also present were John Boyle, Assistant Township Manager; Patty Powers, Codes Department Administrative Assistant; Mimi Olson, AT & T; Peter Stampfl, Promenade.
Chairman McKernan called the meeting to order at 1:36 P.M.
Certificates of Appropriateness:
AT&T – 3 Durham Road, Building 5 (Goodnoe’s Corner)
The Board discussed the Certificate of Appropriateness for AT&T to change the background color of the blade sign, the tenant panel and the two existing identification signs on the building to tangerine.
Ms. Olson updated the members on the request for the color change and advised that tangerine is the corporation’s logo color.
Mrs. Beckert requested the applicant to tone down the color. She suggested only outlining/framing the signs with the tangerine color.
Mr. Tyrol commented with regards to the color shown on the printouts that the Board received.
The Board agreed that the color being proposed is too bright and suggested toning it down with a lighter orange.
Ms. Olson advised that one of the existing wall mounted signs does have the orange trim and that is not working. She reported that orange is a trademark of AT&T.
The Board advised that tangerine is not a historic color and discussed the business being located in the Historic District.
Ms. Olson requested a copy of approved colors for the Historic District. Chairman McKernan commented on the Board’s suggestion to tone down the color and advised that currently the Township does not have an approved published list of colors for the Historic District, but that most paint manufactures have a listing of historic paint colors (Finnaren & Haley, MAB, Sherman Williams).
Mr. Terry advised Ms. Olson that this Board is only an advisory board and that the applicant could appeal to the Board of Supervisors with regards to the orange being a corporate color.
Ms. Olson reported on AT&T’s brand standards.
The majority of the Board agreed that the orange being proposed is not acceptable.
The Board suggested that the applicant provide a color chip for review.
The Board suggested that the applicant only have the tangerine around the logo and trim of the signs.
Chairman McKernan advised the applicant that if she can get an orange that is acceptable by the Board the matter could be discussed at the upcoming Board of Supervisors’ meeting on October 28, 2009. Ms. Olson advised that she did not think that would be possible.
Mrs. Beckert made a motion to recommend denying the Certificate of Appropriateness for AT&T as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Terry and passed with one member voting nay (5-1).
Mr. Tyrol reported that he feels that the printout misrepresent the color being proposed and suggested that the applicant provide the Board with a paint chip.
Ms. Olson commented with regards to this Board not being able to provide her with an approved list of colors for the Historic District.
The Board discussed denying the Certificate of Appropriateness and the upcoming Board of Supervisors’ meeting on October 28, 2009.
Chairman McKernan advised Ms. Olson that he would be more than happy to meet with her if she has a color for review. Mr. Mahler advised that he is also available.
The Board advised the applicant to provide the following information: paint chips, paint brand, name and number.
Ms. Olson questioned when the minutes from this meeting would be available. Mrs. Powers advised that the Board of Supervisors’ meeting is on October 28, 2009 and that is when the Board’s recommendation would be discussed. Ms. Olson advised that she would not be ready for the meeting on October 28, 2009. Mrs. Powers suggested submitting another extension letter. Mr. Boyle advised that the minutes from this meeting would be approved at the Board’s next meeting and once they are approved they are posted to the Township website.
The Board discussed the presentation of the Certificate of Appropriateness application at the October 28, 2009 and the applicant granting an extension.
Mrs. Powers advised that the application does instruct the applicant to bring color samples.
Ms. Olson agreed that the applicant would not appear at the Supervisors’ meeting on October 28, 2009. Instead the applicant would send in a letter of extension and appear at the Board’s next meeting on November 10, 2009 with color samples.
The Board thanked Ms. Olson for her time and advised that this matter would not be presented to the Supervisors on October 28, 2009.
Marisa The Art of Apparel – 250 North Sycamore Street
The Board discussed the Certificate of Appropriateness for Marisa The Art of Apparel for the installation of two (2) wall mounted identification signs on the front and rear of the building. The applicant was not present.
Mrs. Powers advised the Board that the applicant is not requesting to install a blade sign at this time, only two (2) wall mounted signs. The square footage of the wall-mounted signs is a reduction from the size of the previous tenant’s signs.
The material of the signs would be wood. The signs would be ivory (pantone 155C) with black trim. The logo would be black with gold trim. The paint brand will be Finnaren & Haley. The size of the signs would be 144” X 24”.
The Board discussed the panels for the two (2) entry signs and agreed to approve them to match the two (2) wall mounted identification signs.
Mr. Terry made a motion to recommend approval of Marisa The Art of Apparel’s Certificate of Appropriateness to install two (2) wall mounted identification signs and panels for the two (2) entry signs as presented. The material of the two (2) identification signs would be wood. The signs would be ivory (pantone 155C) with black trim. The logo would be black with gold trim. The paint brand will be Finnaren & Haley. The size of the signs would be 144” X 24”. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tyrol and passed unanimously (6-0).
The Board discussed amending the application if the applicant request a blade sign at a later date.
Mrs. Powers advised the members that she would contact the applicant to advise that this matter will be discussed at the Board of Supervisors’ meeting on October 28, 2009 as that a representative should be present.
The Board signed Marisa The Art of Apparel’s Certificate of Appropriateness.
The Promenade at Sycamore Street – 200 North Sycamore Street
The Board discussed the Certificate of Appropriateness application with regards to the materials that would be used on the exterior of the buildings.
Mr. Stampfl updated the Board on the proposed plan for The Promenade at Sycamore Street. He advised that there would be underground parking deck that extends the entire length of the buildings. The first floor would be for retail use and the two upper floors would be for residential use. There is also a parking area behind the buildings and on-street parking. He advised that various materials would be used and that the materials would wrap around the buildings. The color of the awnings may change depending on the tenant.
Mr. Stampfl advised that Building A is proposed as stucco with architecture shingle on the roof, dormers on the roof and some balconies for residential use. The stucco colors proposed are #108 manor white (field), #110 van dyke (base) and #386 pure cream (trim). He brought stucco samples for the Board’s review. Mrs. Beckert requested going lighter with the trim color. Mr. Stampfl advised that would not be a problem.
Mr. Stampfl advised that Building B’s brick color would be oxford ironspot. The grout color will be cream. He brought a grout color sample for the Board’s review.
Mr. Stampfl advised that Building C’s brick color would be marysville. The section of the building where Anthropologie is located will be stucco (the colors will be the same as Building A).
Mr. Stampfl advised that Building D’s brick color would be rosewood. The grout color will be cream. He brought a grout color sample for the Board’s review.
Mr. Stampfl advised that Building E’s brick color would be marysville. The grout color will be cream. He brought a grout color sample for the Board’s review.
Mr. Mahler questioned the paneling on the second and third floors of Building E. Mr. Stampfl advised that material would be cementicious siding (hardie plank or something similar). The colors proposed are JH20-30 khaki brown (field) and JH30-10 navajo beige (trim). He brought samples of the hardie plank for the Board’s review.
Mrs. Beckert suggested that the buildings have less brick and that Building D use a hardie plank material. She feels that the plans presented today have too much brick.
Chairman McKernan questioned the style of the buildings. Mr. Stampfl replied that he would characterize the style as neo-federal and advised that some of the detailing was lost due to zoning.
Chairman McKernan advised that he disagrees with Mrs. Beckert regarding there being too much brick and that federal style buildings are primary brick. He suggested that the second and third floors of Building D be hardie plank and that the second and third floors of Building E be brick. He reported that he likes the new colors being proposed for the stucco buildings. He advised that he feels that the roof peak on Building A is out of proportion. Mr. Stampfl advised that the roof peak may be able to be lower slightly, but there is mechanical equipment being hidden on that roof.
Mrs. Beckert commented on Building A being next to church and the height of that building. Mr. Stampfl advised that mechanical equipment is located on the roof. Mrs. Beckert questioned if the mechanical equipment could be relocated. Mr. Stampfl advised that there in no other place on the site to relocate the mechanical equipment and on other areas of the site where mechanical equipment is located. He also reported on the collection of stormwater. The Board questioned the possibility of mechanical equipment being located in the parking garage. Mr. Stampfl advised that most of the storage areas in the parking garage has been eliminated.
Chairman McKernan suggested making the windows on the second floor and the dormer windows on the third floor of Building A larger and shorting up the first roof. He also requested the color of the coins to be slightly lighter than the color of the field stucco.
Mrs. Beckert commented on the front balconies on Building A and questioned if they could be relocated to the side of the building. Mr. Stampfl advised on the residential unit configuration and offered suggestions (using a solid rail (a wall instead of a railing) or a different treatment). He advised that the railing would be a balustrade system and that there would be no coins by the balconies.
Mrs. Beckert commented on the balconies on brick buildings (Buildings C, D & E). She suggested using brick or wrought iron on the balconies so that they blend in more.
Mrs. Beckert advised that the Supervisors did request that the height of the building roofs vary and that this plan does not show much variety. Chairman McKernan suggested increasing the height of Building C. Mr. Stampfl advised that the buildings are at their limit with regards to height.
Mr. Stampfl advised that the roof shingle being proposed is Driftwood by Landmark. He brought a sample for the Board to view.
Mr. Stampfl advised that the shutter color being proposed for Buildings A & E are a burnt red (SW0033/rembrant ruby).
Mr. Stampfl advised that the awnings proposed for Building A would be a canvas material. The color would be similar to a burnt red (SW0033/ rembrant ruby). The awnings on the other buildings would be green and the material would be metal. The green would be a little darker than a moss green but lighter than a hunter green (SW6439/greenfield).
Mrs. Beckert commented with regards to the awnings and the color fading. Mr. Stampfl discussed the manufacture’s warranty with regards to the metal awnings and the paint fading.
The Board questioned what Mr. Stampfl is looking for today. Mr. Stampfl commented on the feedback received from the Board and advised that he would look into the Board’s suggestions and discuss them with his client.
Mrs. Beckert advised that she is concerned with the roofline closest to the church. Mr. Stampfl advised that if the roofline can be reduce and still have the manufacture’s warranty for the shingles and hide the mechanical equipment it will be done.
The Boards discussed ways to enhance the dormers.
Mr. Terry advised that he would be abstaining from any voting.
Mr. Stampfl advised that he is scheduled to meet with the Planning Commission on Thursday, October 15, 2009 and then the matter will appear before the Board of Supervisors. He suggested that the Board make their recommendations to the Supervisors.
The Board questioned how they will know if their suggestions have been done. Mr. Stampfl advised that copies of the plans showing the Boards changes could be dropped off at the Township building.
Mr. Tyrol made a motion to recommend approval of the conceptual plan reviewed today subject to the following recommendations:
Building A – shorten roof, enlarge second floor windows and third floor dormers, make railings more ornamental as per item 4 on the product key, the colors of the coins and stucco should be 2 or 3 shades off.
Building B – as presented.
Building C – change balconies to wrought iron and add detailing.
Building D – change building material to clap board.
Building E – change second and third floor balconies to brick.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Mahler and passed unanimously with one member abstaining (5-0-1).
(Mr. Terry left.)
The Board discussed the windows. Mr. Stampfl advised that the windows would be a vinyl or wrapped wood. The color will be off white or ivory. More information will be provided at a later date. Chairman McKernan suggested using Eagle Windows produced by Anderson.
The Board thanked Stampfl for his time.
The Board signed The Promenade at Sycamore Street’s Certificate of Appropriateness.
(Mr. Tyrol and Mr. Wendling left.)
Mrs. Beckert reported on her attendance at the Supervisors’ September Work Session where the Planning Commission made a presentation with regards to Sycamore Street.
The Board discussed the Supervisors needing to make a decision as to what they want for the future of Sycamore Street and updating this Board.
Mrs. Powers commented with regards to temporary signs in the Historic District and reported that the ordinance is being reviewed.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 3:14 P.M.
The next meeting is schedule for November 10, 2009 at 1:30 P.M.