|
Directory DEC: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NYSDOT: New York State Department of Transportation SEQRA: State Environmental Quality Review Act) Tegeder, John: Yorktown Town Planner Klaus, David: Chairman, Planning Board Flynn, John: Planning Board member |
|
Section 37.18 Block 2 Lots 77, 78 June 9, 2008, work session A representative for the applicant explained that the original site plan was predicated on Dr. Fertucci using two floors for a dental office. Now that that plan is no longer in play, a new site plan was being submitted that called for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a new speculative office building that would be built on the same footprint. Messrs Tegeder, Klaus and Flynn indicated that while they were willing to consider the variances that would have been required under the original plan, now that there was a completely new proposal before them, it didn't make sense for the applicant to build a new building on the old footprint; in effect, the applicant was creating his own hardship which would have required variances for front and side yards and parking. While they acknowledged the difficulty of positioning a new building on the existing odd shaped lot, they advised the applicant to go back to the drawing board, start from scratch and return with a new plan, even if it meant shrinking the size of the building. July 14, 2008 work session The applicant presented a plan for an entirely new building, not built on the old building's footprint and not requiring any variances. It will be a two story wooden structure with a mansard roof to copy the style of the existing building. The applicant would like to have a three story building, but the building code does not allow this in a wooden building with only one egress. Therefore, the applicant proposes a mezzanine floor, which by definition has to be an open space attached to the space below it. This will add 400 sq ft of internal, usable space. Adequate parking is still an issue. There is sufficient on-site parking, even if the mezzanine space is allowed, only if the Planning Board grants a waiver for the property to use five spaces in the town lot across the street. Mr. Giordano pointed out that lot is frequently full because it is used by workers from the adjacent highway department. Mr. Flynn suggested converting two parking spaces in the front of the building to a conservation area. In general, the Planning Board liked this idea, but it would leave the site short on parking. Mr. Flynn again asked about the feasibility of connecting this parking lot with the adjacent one. The applicant said this would “open a can of worms” and actually result in a loss of parking spaces if a connecting drive-through had to be added. The Planning Board asked the applicant to prepare an assessment of how the space will be used and what kind of traffic movement they expect, so the Board can evaluate the adequacy of the parking plan. Mr. Giordano pointed out that the fence which will hide HVAC equipment on part of the roof will clutter the line of the mansard roof if used all around the building. ABACA is expected to comment on this. Mr. Flynn asked for an inventory of existing trees, mentioning several mature maple trees that exhibit spectacular autumn color that should be preserved. The owner asked the Planning Board to tag any trees it wanted saved. Except for the parking issues, the Board was satisfied with the proposed plan and directed the applicant to submit it for ABACA review. October 6, 2008, work session The following changes have been made: 1. the footprint of the building has been reduced, It is now 2 stories instead of 3 which means that a variance for the number of parking spaces will not be required. 2. the building has been moved back on the site giving it a 15 ft front yard 3. the main entrance will be on the building's side 4. all the parking will be in the back 5. the stormwater basin will be underground in the front yard 6. physical plant equipment on the roof will be screened from view 7. the architecture of the new building will match that of the existing one 8. landscaping is moved closer to the building to provide the required sight distances
Additionally the lighting and landscaping plan will be sent to ABACA, and the stormwater management plan to DEP. The Town Engineer will review the plans. The applicant will fill out an Environmental Assessment Form. The project has already had a Public Information Hearing. Although that was on a different project, the Planning Board decided another one will not be necessary, since the neighbors are all aware of the development that is proposed. The applicant was instructed to come back to a work session after ABACA and the Town Engineer had reviewed the project and was told to move forward in its planning so long as ABACA and the Town Engineer conceptually endorsed the plan. October 20, 2008, work session Based on ABACA's review of the site plan, the applicant agreed to change the lighting fixtures in front of the building in order to conform to the lighting fixture that the town is currently installing on Commerce St. Planner Robyn Steinberg explained that the town was asking all new applicants in the area to install the same type of lighting fixture. The applicant will use a different fixture in the rear of the building that gives a better light. The applicant also asked for more direction from the board as to what ABACA meant when it asked for a “maintenance plan” for the landscaping. In response, Ms. Steinberg explained that ABACA wanted to know how the plants would be maintained over the different seasons. On the issue of the site's garbage enclosure, the applicant said his original plan was to use a series of wood slots but Ms. Steinberg said that the preferred approach was a concrete block enclosure that was covered with the same material used for the building. The applicant will confer with ABACA for additional direction. While the applicant was willing to install a sidewalk on his property, he noted that it would be a “sidewalk to no where.” In response to ABACA's recommendation that the applicant extend the sidewalk to include the vacant adjoining property, the applicant noted that this would entail significant additional cost given the grade and need to remove rock. At Mr. Klaus' suggestion, the applicant will prepare a cost estimate for installing this additional sidewalk so that the board can assess whether or not to make it a requirement of site plan approval. The applicant had not received any comments back from the town engineer and will contact her regarding any outstanding issues. If the above issues can be resolved by November 10th, the board may schedule a public hearing on the application. November 11, 2008 Public Hearing Description: The plans call for demolishing the existing building on the site and construction of a new, two story building with the same footprint size. The new building will have 4000sq ft of space, probably for office use, not retail, although no prospective tenants are currently in place. The new building's design will copy the historic architecture of the existing building. There will be 17 parking spaces along the back property line and 5 more spaces will be available in the public lot across the street. A retaining wall, necessary to stabilize the rock ledge extending between this and the adjacent property, will be built exactly along the back property line. Most of the trees on the site will be removed to allow the required sight distances. Also for this reason, front landscaping will be small in scale. Storm water will be collected in catch basins in the parking lot, flow into an underground grit settling basin and then into a series of underground detention basins in the front of the property. Planning Board Questions and Comments: Mr. Flynn was not convinced that the trees along the street actually affected sight distance and wanted to see the calculations used to determine this. He asked that the street trees be located on the site plans. Mr. Curry pointed out that even under current conditions sight distances are inadequate and that the trees need to be removed to install the sidewalk the Planning Board required. The applicant would be happy to leave the trees in place if at all possible. Mr. Flynn asked what measures had been incorporated to make the building energy efficient and “green”. The heating and cooling systems will be of the highest efficiency available, but no other specifically green design features are incorporated. Public Questions and Comments: John DeVito, owner of a property on Underhill Ave. spoke on his own behalf and on behalf of the owners of the adjacent property. He was very pleased that the Fertucci site is being improved, but he was particularly concerned about the placement of the retaining wall right on the property boundary. The retaining wall will require a 6 ft excavation, which Mr. DeVito is concerned will damage the tree roots on the adjacent property and potentially impact utility lines. The blasting on the Fertucci site could destabilize the neighboring building which is an old, converted barn perched on the rock ledge. Mr. DeVito pointed out that although the proposed site development will look attractive from the street, the view from the neighboring properties will be much less so, since all vegetation buffering will be removed. In summary, Mr. DeVito thought the site was being overbuilt and would adversely impact the neighbors. Mr. Klaus pointed out that throughout the planning process the Planning Board had also been concerned that the site was being “maxed out” and that the current building size is actually reduced from the applicant's original request. The Planning Board asked that Mr. Curry, Mr. DeVito and the Planning Department meet to address potential impacts on adjacent properties. The public hearing was adjourned.
January 12, 2009 This was a continuation of an adjourned public hearing. In the intervening time, Mr. Curry met with Planning Director John Tegeder in an effort to mitigate some of the concerns expressed at the earlier hearing. The applicant will move the building five feet closer to the front of the property which will leave a larger landscaped buffer between the site and the adjoining properties. While this will mean that the front yard setback requirements for the site will not be met and that this might require a variance, the applicant's attorney, Al Capellini said that the planning board had the authority to waive the front yard setback as long as it was justified and that the proposed project was in harmony with the surrounding properties. He noted that the adjoining commercial properties abutted the sidewalk. Mr. Savoca asked for a clarification on the legal issue surrounding the possible need for a variance. Mr. Flynn expressed concern over the removal of trees as well as the safety of car entering and leaving the site. In response, Mr. Curry explained that the trees in the front of the site had to be removed in order to construct the sidewalk that the board wanted. He added that it would not be feasible to build the sidewalk around the trees. Moving the building five feet closer to the front of the site will result in less rock removal and a shorter retaining wall. The applicant could not say for sure how the rock would be removed but he indicated that it was likely to be with a jack hammer type device and that he would not be blasting. Mr. Flynn asked if the number of parking spaces on the site could be reduced in order to limit the estimated 40 cars trips in and out of the site each day and also to reduce the amount of rock that would have to be removed. He suggested that nearby municipal parking sites could pick up any slack. Town regulations allow the board to reduce the permitted number of parking spaces by 25%. The applicant responded that he had already reduced the number of spaces by three and that he possibly could eliminate another two. Mr. Giordano, however, suggested, that before the board approved an reduction in parking spaces, that it study whether the existing parking lots could accommodate additional cars; he suggested that they were already full. Mr. Capellini noted that the absence of onsite parking would make the building less desirable for prospective tenants. There being no comments from the public, the hearing was closed but written comments can be submitted for an additional two week period. January 26, 2009, work session A new plan has been submitted that reduces the number of parking spaces and therefore the amount of rock removal necessary. New plans show 17 on site spaces, two of which could also be removed, or alternatively, as few as 11 parking spaces. Mr. Curry said the applicant does not like the idea of only 11 on site parking spaces, but would accept it in the interests of getting the project approved. Mr. Curry said the fear is that with only 11 spaces, drivers will enter the parking lot, not find a parking space, then immediately exit, causing unsafe conditions. Mr. Flynn submitted a memo detailing his objections to the parking plan for this project. They include: 1.) The proposed parking lot is unnecessary to support the intended use. 2.) The proposed parking lot runs counter to progressive planning practices. 3.) The risk of creating insufficient parking on this site is worth taking. 4.) The site exit/entrance is unsafe. 5.) The site plan is incompatible with a surrounding recreational and residential land uses. The revised site plan also shows the building moved 5 ft closer to the street. Mr. Curry cited the portion of the Town code which allows the Planning Board to approve a new building with no front yard if the surrounding older buildings are similarly located. He also showed aerial photographs of the surrounding buildings to show their relation to the street. ABACA has requested that the mansard roof be installed on the building's extension also. Mr. Curry is opposed to this because “mansard buildings are usually rectangular”, so this type of roof on a non-rectangular building would not look pleasing. ABACA also requested that the light fixtures on the building and on a free-standing lamp post be lowered. Mr. Curry said that if the fixtures on the building were lowered, they would be hit by trucks entering the parking lot. He agreed to lower the light on the lamp post. The Planning Board asked for a rock removal plan specifying what removal techniques will be used. There will be no blasting. The Planning Board agreed to review Mr. Flynn's parking plan memo and discuss it at the next meeting. February 9, 2009, work session As a follow up to Mr. Flynn's desire to limit tree removal on the site, the board reviewed alternate plans that would have provided for either 15 or 11 parking spaces. (The zoning code requires 20 spaces, but the planning board can reduce that number by 25% which would leave 15 spaces. Anything less than 15 would require a variance from the zoning board.) Mr. Flynn repeated his assertion that 11 spaces would be sufficient given the existing public parking in the area. He said that there were always four vacant spots (the reduction he was seeking) but Mr. Capellini, representing the property owner, argued that the site had really lost nine spaces because of the earlier 25% reduction the board had requested. He added that limited parking would be a problem for attracting prospective tenants Mr. Giordano noted that the board didn't really have a sufficient handle on the availability of parking at those sites. Mr. Klaus indicated that cars would first have to enter to the site in order to find out that there was no parking available. Although the board was sympathetic to Mr. Flynn's general argument, the general consensus was that this was not the appropriate site to further reduce parking requirements. A few details remain to be finalized before the site plan is approved. February 23, 2009, work session The applicant is reviewing a series of comments and questions from the planning department covering lighting fixtures, windows, roof elevations, the location of signs and how the applicant will handle the rock removal on the site. In response to the last issue, the applicant's engineer said that he was reviewing different techniques for rock removal and once a preferred method is selected he will provide all the details prior to getting a building permit. In response to a question from the board, he said because of recent changes made to the site plan, he did not know how much rock would have to be removed. The applicant is preparing a new set of plans, including a new stormwater plan, based on the agreed upon 15 parking spaces . |