|
P.E.G Realty
Section 16.08 Block 1 Lot 2
Discussion Subdivision
Location: Hill Boulevard, Jefferson Valley, south of the Jefferson Lanes
Contact: Joel Greenberg of Architectural Visions, PLLC
Also represented by: Mel Evans and Joe Giordano
Description: Proposed subdivision and new approx. 15,986 square foot retail
building on 2.87 acres in the C-2 zone
March 24, 2008 work session
The plan calls for retail space on the first floor and professional office
space on the second.
The applicant reported that, as per the Planning Board's suggestion, an arrangement
has been worked out for a cross-easement with the bowling lanes by which the
two sites will share parking. Also a town road easement has been provided on
the south side of the proposed building. This lane will serve as the site's
exit in a one-way traffic pattern. The building has been made slightly
smaller than originally proposed, at the Planning Board's request.
The project has been set for an April 7, 2008 public hearing. Additionally
the applicant will appear at the work session portion of that meeting for a
discussion of the amount of usable space in the building, a parking plan,
landscaping and drainage.
May 5, 2008, work session
Mr. Greenberg presented a letter from ABACA indicating that the preliminary
building design is acceptable and giving its okay to prepare a final design.
Mr. Tegeder pointed out that the parking plan is
still incomplete. Both this project and the adjacent bowling lanes each need
to have adequate parking or else a formal agreement to share the parking must
be in place. The parking requirements have to be calculated on the proposed
building's gross square footage, i.e., the total building footprint, not just
the useable space. This project is nearing the end of the planning process,
so Mr. Tegeder will review the project file to be
sure everything has been addressed, and the project will be scheduled for a
public hearing at the June Planning Board meeting.
June 9, 2008, work session
The applicant submitted a revised site plan that eliminates the second floor
of the proposed new building and enlarges the footprint of the single story
building to be used for retail by 1,500 square foot for a total of
approximately 12,500 square feet. The new plan also creates two distinct
lots: one for the new building and one for the existing bowling alley. By
splitting the site into two lots, the bowling alley site was able to get
additional parking spaces (75, compared to the required 42). The retail
building will have 58 parking space where 55 are
required. The exterior of the building will be similar to what was proposed
for the previous two story building but plans will be resubmitted to ABACCA.
As there will be no barrier between the two sites, it is envisioned that
bowling alley patrons might park in the retail spaces and vis
versa. With that in mind, Mr. Flynn suggested that there be cross easements
in order to prevent parking lots wars and warning signs about being towed
away as in other locations in Yorktown. He
suggested that the applicant look at the BJs/Staples
site where there are cross easements.
The applicant will also have to submit a revised storm water plan and submit
a survey showing the wetland buffer.
In response to a question from Cliff Davis, a spokesman for the adjoining Biffer (sp?) property regarding how drainage from the
site would affect his property, Mr. Klaus indicated that the revised storm
water plan would have to address this issue, showing that the situation would
be no worse.
November 24, 2008, work
session
The applicant advised the board that the engineering aspects of the plan were
95% complete and that the other changes the planning department had
requested, including the lot lines between the two parcels, had been
addressed. The application for both the subdivision of the site and the new
site plan will likely be scheduled for a public informational hearing in
January.
As an aside, as the two PEG partners took their seats at the board table, an
adjoining property owner who had previously expressed some concerns about
runoff from the site onto his property also approached the table to listen to
the discussion. When one PEG partner objected to the man's presence stating
that this was not a public hearing and that the man should not be allowed to
sit at the table, the board advised him that the meeting was open to the
public and that the gentleman in question had every right to be present at
the discussion. The objecting PEG partner left the room and his partner
continued the discussion with the board.
January 12, 2009
Public Hearing
Dan Ciarcia, the applicant's engineer described the
site's storm water plan that included four separate basins that would collect
the runoff and feed them through one outlet to a drain on Hill Blvd. He also
explained that computer modeling had satisfactorily addressed the town
engineer's concern over the ability of large trucks to enter and leave the
site. Still to be done is delineating the site's wetlands.
Clifford Davis, representing the owner of the adjoining property, expressed
displeasure at having received the drainage plan on Friday which had not
given him sufficient time to review it prior to the hearing. He also
questioned the legality of a 30 feet easement on one side of the property
that will include a retaining wall. While he expressed the opinion that the easement
belonged to a third party who had not consented to the erection of a
retaining wall, both Planning Director John Tegeder
and the applicant explained that Mr. Davis was incorrect as the easement was
on the applicant's property.
The hearing was adjourned to February.
March 9, 2009
The board resumed the public hearing. The applicant's engineer reviewed the
storm water drainage plan for the site and told the board he would be
reviewing the latest memo from the town engineer, most of which he said were
clarification type issues, and that he would work out any remaining issues
with the engineer. The applicant said that wetlands on the site had been
flagged and reviewed by the town and that he was waiting for DEC to confirm
the town's findings.
The hearing was closed but the public has 10 additional days to submit
comments. If the applicant and town engineer can resolve all remaining issues
in time, the board may be able to render a decision statement at the April
board meeting.
August 10, 2009, work session
Discussion Site Plan
Although the CAB approved the projects wetland management plan, there is
no room for wetland mitigation on the site. Ann Kutter,
CAB liaison, reported that in that event the CAB would like to see more green
on the property, such as plantings in the parking lot. She asked about
the feasibility of replacing some parking spaces with plantings. Mr.
Greenberg and Mr. Klaus explained this is not possible since the site has an
easement agreement with the neighboring bowling lanes to receive its overflow
parking. Mr. Greenberg suggested that the proposed extension of
sidewalks along Hill Blvd
could serve as wetland mitigation. Mr. Klaus said sidewalks were by no
means a wetland mitigation. The Planning Board
said an approval resolution could not be considered until the lighting plan
was approved by ABACA and the wetland mitigation plan was reviewed by the
CAB.
|