https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/b9d6b6f42f56c23553313b210264f4e8.pdf baa132e9be75e3b1876035e968bf34e0 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board Minutes December 16, 2021 The regular meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairperson Marjorie Hsu. Present: Marjorie Hsu, Chairperson Erin Carney Matthew Brennan Lindsay Krakauer Also Present: Clinton Smith, Village Attorney David Smith, Village Planner James Natarelli, Village Engineer Sean E. McCarthy, Building Inspector Absent: Kersten Harries Edward McCarthy Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Planning Board Agenda: 1) Francesco Alesci, 135 Beekman Avenue, Proposed multi-family building, Site plan approval- Continued public hearing 2) 14 Clinton, LLC, 14 Clinton Street, Proposed two-family residence, Site plan approvalContinued public hearing 3) Phelps Memorial Hospital/Northwell Health, T-Mobile Northeast, LLC, Wireless communications permit, Amended site plan- Public hearing 4) Cristian Carrion, 72 Beekman Avenue, Proposed addition and alterations- Site plan approval-Preliminary presentation 5) Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Proposed swimming pool, Site plan extension approval- Resolution 6) Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Proposed new construction of Carriage House, Site plan approval- Preliminary presentation 7) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Block O/P Townhomes, Phase II- Introduction of builder 8) Approval of minutes, November 18, 2021 Chairperson Hsu read the agenda and stated there is a quorum. 1. Franceso Alesci, 135 Beekman Avenue, Proposed multi-family building, Site plan approval- Public hearing Motion was made to reopen the public hearing. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Brennan 1 Vote 4-0 (12/16/21) �Chairperson Hsu stated that Mr. Alesci submitted the site plan application on January 4, 2021 and came before the Planning Board on February 18, 2021. Prior to their presentation to the Planning Board they started working with the Building Department in October of 2020. Chairperson Hsu stated that she wants to inform the public that they have been working with the applicant regarding this property for over a year and that they have come before the Planning Board many times and that they have been adaptive and receptive to their suggestions regarding the proposed site plan and the architectural drawings. In August of 2021, the Board of Trustees passed a resolution that included a number of Village Code changes that were the first actions to come out of the Comprehensive Plan. The intentions of the Comprehensive Plan were to preserve and enhance the character of the Historic Village and spur economic development in Sleepy Hollow. Chairperson Hsu stated that the Board has worked with their consultants and the Building Department and that this application adheres to the current Village Codes and that no variances will be required. Chairperson Hsu stated that they welcome public comments and that they have received recent written testimonies provided by Anne White of Kendall Way as well as Daniel Convisor of Maple Street (See Exhibits 1-3) Chairperson Hsu stated that she wants the community to be confident that they are trying to do what is best for the entire community. The proposed building will be safer than the existing building because they will be required to adhere to the current Fire Code and have a fire sprinkler system. Chairperson Hsu encouraged members of the public to be respectful of the Planning Board, the consultants, and the Village staff when making comments. The Board and consultants are here this evening to be optimistic and hopeful that they going to make Sleepy Hollow better and to be able to look back and say that Code changes and developments have enhanced the community overall. Christopher Barbargli is the architect representing the applicant. Mr. Barbargli stated that they will submit the Civil Engineering drawings for the next meeting. Mr. Barbargli stated that as requested by the Board, they have prepared two aerial renderings of the site to show how the proposed building will interact with the surrounding properties. Mr. Barbargli presented the rendering to show how the neighboring lots relate to the residential and commercial zones and where their site extends into the residential zoning district. Mr. Barbargli presented revised elevation drawings and stated that changes were made to the windows and details were added to the columns and balconies. Changes were made to the garage archways and they have stepped back the left elevation to break up the facade. One of the stair towers on the east side elevation has been eliminated to bring down the scale of the building, and breaks have been added to the building to reduce the long wall appearance. Chairperson Hsu stated that the changes to the fa9ade and the contours look better. The Board will focus on the site plan and will invite the applicant back for an Architectural Review Board meeting as they move forward with the Site Plan preparations. Chairperson Hsu stated that the aerial renderings provided are very helpful in understanding the zoning districts in the community. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the Board. There were no comments from the Board. 2 (12/16/21) �Tony Gioffre is a member of the Law Firm of Cuddy + Feder representing the applicant. Mr. Gioffre asked Chairperson Hsu if there are any other outstanding documents that they need to submit regarding the proposed site plan other than the civil engineering drawings. Chairperson Hsu stated that the only outstanding submission required for the next meeting are the civil engineering drawings. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the public and requested that they introduce themselves. Kory Salomone is an associate of the Zarin and Steinmetz and stated that he is there on behalf of Maria Martins, the owner of 11 Kendall Avenue. Mr. Salomone stated they have no objection to the project. The concern is how the applications relates to the Lower Beekman Overlay District. Mr. Salamone read from the Code 450-107 and from page 16 of the booklet describing the massing height limits. Mr. Salomone stated that at the last meeting Sean McCarthy stated that the application meets the requirements because the property abuts a commercial district and not a residential district so the requirements did not apply. Mr. Salomone stated that he respectfully disagrees with the determination. Mr. Salomone stated that when you look at the Schedule of Regulations, it specifically states where a mixed use multi-family building is abutting the residential district, the height limitations of the structure at 80 feet or greater from the edge of sidewalk shall be 25 feet unless otherwise indicated by the Overlay District Design standards. Mr. Salomone stated that the Design standards specifically state, with no qualifying language about abutting a residential district, that when you set back 80 feet, you drop down to 25 feet. Mr. Salomone questioned if Mr. McCarthy has reduced his determination in writing and filed it with the Village Administrator. Mr. Salomone questioned that if their intention is to file an appeal with the Zoning Board of Appeals, will the determination will be reduced in writing or is the Board relying on statements made at the prior meeting to file as a determination. Chairperson Hsu stated that a determination in writing has not been filed at this time and that it can be reduced to writing. Mr. Salomone requested that the determination be reduced in writing and that the public hearing remain open pending the outcome of an appeal, and that once the appeal is made that the application is stayed and no further proceedings can occur. Lauren Connell lives at 5 Pleasant Street stated that the determination is a large departure from what is written and if this is the stance that the Village is going to go with from here on out it significantly changes the intent and written meaning of what the Overlay District says. Ms. Connell stated that one of the primary rules of statutory interpretation is plain language and the very title of Overlay District means to go on top of. Ms. Connell stated that if the Board bends the rules, or breaks the rules in this case, she questioned when they will enforce them. Ms. Connell stated if the Board tries to enforce them later, someone may point backwards and say that is how it was applied last time. Ms. Connell questioned if most of lower Beekman is commercial than what is the point of the Overlay District. A member of the public stated that he is an architectural designer and from his experience working in Westchester County, the Board is rolling the red carpet out for the applicant and the 3 (12/16/21) �Board has not fully studied the project. He questioned why the drawings were only available to the public on Tuesday when the drawings are supposed to be submitted 14 days prior to the meeting. He stated that at the last meeting, Mr. Alesci accused the public of misinterpreting the drawings and requested that the architect share the site plan and stated that there are no dimensions on the site plan to show the public how big the proposed building is. Chairperson Hsu stated that the purpose of the aerial renderings was to provide the community with a sense of the scale of the building. The member of the public stated that the drawings have no overall dimensions. He stated that the chart states that the C-2 district requires, as in the R-5, a minimum one side yard at 5 feet and both 15 feet. On the site plan, there is an off-set, and the back of the building goes over the 5 foot setback. He read page 17 of the Overlay District Booklet and stated that in this proposal there is no public use parking provided on the property and it goes against the code for the curb cut and takes a public free parking space away that will cause more havoc and density to the area. He stated that in regards to the 25 foot height limit on the 80 foot setback, the proposed roof plan shows that there is a missing line of the site section and if you put the section line in the project goes over the line by 2 feet and that this project at the height is 46 feet, 9 inches above the ground and does not meet the 25 foot height requirement. He stated that the proposed project needs to be in scale with the residential area. Mr. Gioffre stated that it is premature to request that the Board keep the public hearing open indefinitely pending an application that may be made to the Zoning Board of Appeals to appeal an interpretation. It is contrary to public policy, inappropriate, and they could slow role or drag the application through the Zoning Board of Appeals process. Lauren Connell requested that the Board not agree that the project complies with the Overlay District and that if there is an attempt to move forward that the rule of interpretation be solidified. Chairperson Hsu stated that she stated previously that the application adheres to the Village Code and that no variances are required. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to January 20, 2022. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Krakauer Vote 4-0 2. 14 Clinton LLC, 14 Clinton Street, Proposed two-family residence, Site plan approvalContinued public hearing Motion was made to reopen the public hearing. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Brennan Vote 4-0 Dena Alto is the Project Manager for the applicant and stated that their architect is in quarantine and is not able to attend. Ms. Alto stated that they were granted a variance with the condition of the side yard setback to be 3 feet from neighboring property. They are going to revise the plans accordingly and asked Sean McCarthy if they are permitted to extend back more into the rear yard. 4 (12/16/21) �Sean McCarthy stated that as discussed at the Zoning Board meeting, as long as they stay within the rear yard setback requirement and not exceed the overall building coverage, they may extend the building in the rear yard. Dena Alto stated that they will submit the revised plans before the next meeting. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to January 20, 2022. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Krakauer Vote 4-0 3. Phelps Memorial Hospital/Northwell Health, T-Mobile Northeast, LLC, Wireless Communications permit, Amended site plan - Public hearing Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Brennan Vote 4-0 Daniel Patrick is an associate of the law firm of Cuddy + Feder LLP representing T-Mobile. Mr. Patrick stated that the Planning Board expressed their concerns regarding the heights of the proposed antennas. Mr. Patrick presented amended plans which propose 6 foot high antennas in lieu of the 8 foot antennas originally proposed. The proposed antennas will have the same center line as the existing antennas and there will not be an increased height to the structure. The revised plans propose to replace two of the existing cabinet base structures with two smaller cabinets. Chairperson Hsu asked Mr. Patrick how the smaller antennas will affect the coverage and capacity and if they will fulfill the intentions of what T-Mobile wishes to accomplish and if they switched antenna vendors or brands. Mr. Patrick stated that the small antennas will allow T-Mobile to achieve their goals and that he can't speak to the specifics of how the equipment has changed. Matthew Brennan asked Mr. Patrick if the visibility will change with the added antennas. Mr. Patrick stated that the facility height will remain the same. Erin Carney stated that she appreciates the effort made to match the existing height. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. Chairperson Hsu requested that a draft resolution be prepared for the January 20, 2022 meeting. 5 (12/16/21) �Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Carney Seconded: Krakauer Vote 4-0 4. Cristian Carrion, 72 Beekman Avenue, Proposed addition and alterations, Site plan approval-Preliminary presentation Michael Tribe is the architect representing the applicant. Mr. Tribe presented aerial and street views of the property location and stated that Pocantico Street is on the West and North Washington is on the East. The existing building is a three-story structure with two stores on the ground level and two apartments above. Part of the building has a pitched roof and part of it is a flat roof. The existing building is in poor condition. Mr. Tribe presented photographs of the existing conditions and stated that the applicant proposes to renovate the interior of the building and enclose and extend the rear elevation to increase the store space and add 350 feet to the overall size of the building. The application proposes to remove the rear yard patio, replace the existing fencing, and plant trees to create a nicer backyard space. Mr. Tribe presented the survey and stated that the lot size is 25 feet by 125 feet, and the building is 3,125 square feet. With the FAR of 1.4 they can accommodate up to 4,275 square feet. The proposed application would bring the total square footage to 3,450 with a proposed FAR of 1.1. The proposed renovations to the interior will create a safer code compliant structure. Mr. Tribe presented and described the existing and proposed floor plans and sections. Mr. Tribe presented the proposed exterior elevations and described the materials proposed for the fa9ade. Chairperson Hsu asked Mr. Tribe if he has reviewed the downtown Design Guidelines and stated that the design is is too modern to meet the guidelines. Mr. Tribe stated that he read through the Design Guidelines and stated that the plans meet the guidelines with a modern and traditional approach. Chairperson Hsu requested that Mr. Tribe show the current street view and questioned the intentions for the top floor levels. Mr. Tribe stated that the intentions are to raise the flat roofed area to match the peeked roof in order to make the existing apartment larger. Erin Carney asked Mr. Tribe if the existing store spaces are currently in use and questioned if they intend to the keep two separate store front spaces. Mr. Tribe stated that the building is currently vacant and the owner has been working to make the conditions safe. The intention is to build the structure across the entire span of the building and have a partition between the stores fronts that can be removed if a tenant wishes to have a larger space. Lindsay Krakauer asked Mr. Tribe if the rear garden area will be for the use of the tenants in the apartments. Mr. Tribe stated that the only access to the rear yard is from the store fronts and that it will be more a visual amenity for the upper floor apartments. 6 (12/16/21) �David Smith suggested that the applicant provide access to the rear yard for the apartment tenants and that it would create an amenity that adds value. Mr. Tribe stated that they will consider adding an exterior staircase so that the apartment tenants could have access to the rear yard. Mr. Tribe stated that the proposed application doesn't require variances. Chairperson Hsu questioned if there are parking requirements for the two apartments and what the applicant proposes for heating and cooling of the building. Mr. Tribe stated that if the frontage is less than 30 feet wide in the C2 district there are no parking requirements. Edison Venegas is the engineer representing that applicant and stated that due to the Con Edison moratorium they are unable to bring back the gas service so they are proposing electric heat pumps to heat the building. They have confirmed that the existing electrical service is adequate and that they will update the services to 4 meters approved by Con-Edison. They have already applied with the Department of Health for a new 4 inch water line and it will be a combined service. The existing building has a 1 inch service. They will bring in the 4 inch water service line and install sprinklers throughout the entire building James Natarelli asked if they will be maintaining the existing sewer service. Mr. Venegas stated that the existing sanitary sewer system will remain. There was a discussion between James Natarelli and Edison Venegas regarding the existing stormwater management system and it was agreed that the engineer will investigate the management of the roof drain runoffs and the opportunities for infiltration and retentions systems in the backyard. Sean McCarthy asked Mr. Venegas how they propose to excavate for the proposed addition. Mr. Venegas stated that they will complete excavation by shovel as needed. Sean McCarthy asked how the garbage for the building will be handled. Mr. Tribe stated that the tenants will be responsible for taking the garbage out to the sidewalk on collection days. David Smith requested that they provide a rendering to show the how proposed building will fit in with the surrounding properties. Lindsay Krakauer agreed that it would be helpful to see the design elements as they relate to the neighboring facades. Mr. Tribe stated that they will provide renderings for the next meeting. 7 (12/16/21) �Sean McCarthy asked Mr. Tribe how they are going to deal with the building on the right side and the existing windows on that wall which are zero lot line structure. Mr. Tribe stated that they will leave space for the windows in the building to the right because there are sprinklers heads coming out above them. Chairperson Hsu asked Sean McCarthy what the next steps should be. Sean McCarthy stated that there is sufficient information provided to allow the Board to schedule a public hearing. Motion was made to schedule the public hearing for January 20, 2022. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Carney Vote 4-0 5. Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Proposed swimming pool, Site plan approval extension- Resolution Kimberly Martelli is the architect representing the applicant. Ms. Martelli presented the master site plan and stated that the request for the site plan approval extension includes the main house conservatory addition and the outdoor pool and pool house addition. Chairperson Hsu requested that David Smith read the highlights of the draft resolution. David Smith read the Whereas clause of the confirmatory resolution relating the Carriage House and the indoor pool and read the resolve clauses of the confirmation resolution. Motion was made to adopt the resolution. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Carney Chairperson Hsu - yes Erin Carney - yes Matthew Brennan - yes Lindsay Krakauer- yes Vote 4-0 APPROVED 6. Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Proposed new construction of Carriage House, Site plan approval - Preliminary presentation Kimberly Martelli is the architect representing the applicant. Ms. Martelli stated that the previous site plan approval for the Carriage House proposed lifting up the existing structure, adding ground floor additions and the construction of an attached enclosed pool house. During the process of preparing construction drawings for permit filings, their engineering and construction team determined that the severity of the construction risks to the existing structure, the site, the historical landscaping, and the safety of the construction personnel was significant enough to warrant the demolition and reconstruction of the Carriage House. Ms. Martelli stated that the filed construction documents for the Building Permitting specified demolition of the existing 8 (12/16/21) �Carriage House and detailed construction consistent with replication of the architectural characteristics. The proposed submission does not change the previously approved location, the architectural exterior finishes of the Carriage house or the enclosed pool. Ms. Martelli presented photographs and details of work completed to date on the structures located in Mount Pleasant and stated they intend to maintain the integrity of the historical site for the structures located in Sleepy Hollow. Ms. Martelli stated that they would be happy to attend work sessions or schedule field visits to keep the Board updated on the construction progress. Ms. Martelli presented photographs and described the location of the existing Carriage House and the views as they appear from Bedford Road and the Main House. Ms. Martelli provided renderings to show what the proposed Carriage House and enclosed pool structure will look like on the site. Chairperson Hsu requested that a site visit be scheduled so the Board can see the overall scope of the proposed work. Motion was made to schedule a public hearing for the January 20, 2022 meeting. Moved: Brennan Seconded: Krakauer Chairperson Hsu - yes Erin Carney - yes Matthew Brennan - yes Lindsay Krakauer- yes Vote 4-0 Vote 4-0 APPROVED Kimberly Martelli requested that the application be referred to the Zoning Board to approve the variances for the proposed application as they relate to the front yard setback, height of an accessory structure, and height of retaining walls and guard rails. Chairperson Hsu asked Sean McCarthy if they are required to go back to the Zoning Board for approval of the variances. Sean McCarthy stated that the applicant needs to go back before the Zoning Board of Appeals for the requested variance approvals. Motion was made to refer the application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Moved: Krakauer Seconded: Brennan Vote 4-0 7. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Block OP Townhomes Phase II, Introduction of builder- Presentation Peter Chavkin is a managing partner of Biddle Real Estate Ventures on behalf of Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC. Mr. Chavkin stated that Bill McGuinness of Sun Homes has been selected as the home builder for the final section of Block O/P. Bill McGuinness is the founder of Sun Homes and stated that they are a design-build firm specializing in wood framed infill dense suburban development. Mr. McGuinness provided a history of his firm and the benefits of being a design-build firm and having control over the 9 (12/16/21) �projects. Mr. McGuinness presented examples of completed projects and precedents to show the different architectural styles and inspirations. Mr. McGuinness stated that the first group of buildings proposed are six 20 foot-wide interior units on Legend Drive. Mr. McGuinness presented concept sketches and stated that they are proposing to step the building elevations in and out between each unit and recessing areas to create depth. Mr. McGuinness presented elevation drawings and stated that the "Kits of Parts" options will be available based on the location of the units. Peter Chavkin stated that they plan on submitting the architectural information for the first building before the next meeting. Mr. Chavkin stated that he knows that there are revisions that need to be made to the site plan to address the comments from the Village consultants. At the next meeting they will be seeking an approval for the "Kit of Parts" with the understanding that some of the plans will come before the Architectural Review Board for the proposed facades for each building similar to what was required from Toll Brothers in the first section of Block O/P. Chairperson Hsu stated that the site plan needs to be analyzed and approved to address concerns regarding density and a pending parking issue letter that was received from their attorney. Peter Chavkin stated that they are seeking the same height variance for the units along Legend Drive from 42 feet to 48 feet and requested that the Planning Board refer the request to the Zoning Board of Appeals so that may schedule a public hearing. Sean McCarthy stated that an application was submitted to Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board will review the application and then refers it to the Planning Board for a recommendation. Mr. McCarthy stated that the request for height variances should be on the January Planning Board agenda for a discussion. David Smith stated that the applicant has submitted an application to the Zoning Board for the height variances but there could be the potential for other requests for variances related to the parking. The question arose as to whether the Zoning Board wants to hear individualized requests for variances or collaborate all of the requests for variances in one application. 8. Approval of minutes- November 18, 2021 Motion was made to approve the minutes from the November 18, 2021 meeting. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Krakauer Chairperson Hsu - yes Erin Carney - yes Matthew Brennan - yes Lindsay Krakauer- yes Vote 4-0 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 PM. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Krakauer 10 Vote 4-0 (12/16/21) �Respectfully submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Planning Board 11 (12/16/21) �EXHIBIT #1 December 11, 2021 Marjorie Hsu Chair, Planning Board Village of Sleepy Hollow re: 135 Beekman Ave Public Hearing -- Legal Analysis of Maximum Height Dear Chairperson Hsu: The legal debate regarding 135 Beekman Ave revolves around where the 25 foot height limit starts. The Village's new Zoning Code indicates the starting point is 80 feet from the sidewalk. The presentation to the November 18th Planning Board meeting shows the building would be approximately 45 feet high until about 135 feet from the sidewalk. Below is the step-by-step analysis leading to that conclusion. It consists of quotes from Local Law 3 of 2021,1 the law that approved the new code. Attached to this letter is a copy of Local Law 3 in which I have highlighted key passages. Overlay District Applies: 135 Beekman is part of the "Lower Beekman Avenue Design Standards Overlay District," as specified by Section 450-106, which defines the boundaries as "current lots on Beekman Avenue west of Kendall Avenue and east of Clinton Street." Overlay Regulations Take Precedence: Section 450-107 says "All projects within the LBADS Overlay District shall comply with the regulations set forth in the underlying zoning except to the extent of regulations set forth in the annexed 'Lower Beekman Avenue Design Standards Overlay District Regulations Booklet.'" C-2's Height Section Says to Use the Overlay: The "Schedule of Regulations" for the C-2 (Central Commercial) zone says to use its "Maximum Height" rules "unless otherwise indicated by Overlay District design standards." The Overlay's Height Limits: The "Regulations Booklet" defines two types of buildings: "Residential" and "Storefront." Both types have the same "height limits" text, based on the distance from the sidewalk. The relevant portion says: "80-ft and greater from sidewalk edge: 25-ft." No exceptions are specified. I am strongly in favor of more housing in Sleepy Hollow and want the Alesci family to succeed in building such. I also want to ensure the Planning Board, and Village government as a whole, follows the law. Doing otherwise places the Village in jeopardy of sanctions by New York State, as well as litigation. Sincerely, Daniel Convissor 26 Maple St 1 Local Law 3 of 2021 as adopted, obtained from the Village's website: https://www.sleepyhollowny.gov/building-department/files/zoning-local-law-no-3-2021-amendingchapter-450 �Meeting Date: 8/24/2021 Resolution #: 8/114/2021 A LOCAL LAW No. 3,2021 AMENDING CHAPTER 450 IN THE CODE O F THE VILLAGE O F SLEEPY HOLLOW ENTITLED ZONING TO (1) REMOVE DISTRICT R-4A, (2) CREATE A LOWER BEEKMAN AVENUE DESIGN STANDARDS OVERLAY DISTRICT, (3) REVISE PERMITTED USES IN DISTRICT C-2, (4) ALLOW NON-RESIDENTIAL USES ON UPPER FLOORS O F MIXED-USE BUILDINGS, (5) REVISE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, (6) CREATE INCENTIVES FOR INVESTMENT IN DISTRICT C-2, (7) CREATE INCENTIVES FOR ADAPTIVE REUSE, AND (8) AMEND THE STRATEGIC PROPERTY REDEVELOPMENT ZONE Motion: Trustee Spiro moved, seconded by Trustee Rodriguez. Motion carried unanimously. BE IT ENACTED by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Sleepy Hoilow, New York, as follows: Section 1. The Code of the Village of Sleepy Hoilow is amended at §450-5 by deleting "R-4A One- and Two-Family Residence/Neighborhood Commercial.** �Section 2. The Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow is amended at §450-6 and the map entitled "Zoning Map of the Village of Sleepy Hollow" to delete the mapping of R4-A Oneand Two-Family Residence Neighborhood Commercial and replace it with C-2 Central Commercial on the ends and R-5 Multiple Residence-Medium Density in the center as follows: Prior Zoning on Hudson Street Amended Zoning on Hudson Street Section 3. The Code of The Village of Sleepy Hollow is amended at §450-41, Offstreet parking and loading space, as follows: A. At Paragraph E, in the "Use" and the "Minimum Required Spaces columns insert after "Office uses in commercial or residential buildings" the following: Use Minimum Required Spaces Medical and denial office 1 for cach 150 square feet of floor area Ail uses in commercial or residential buildings on lots of 30 feet or less in width The minimum parking requirement is waived except when a change of use includes medical or dental office uses B. At Paragraph F, in the "Square Feet of Total Floor Area or Other Unit of Measurement" and the "Required Off Street Loading Berths" columns insert for "Offices, hotels, retail, commercial, wholesale, storage, and miscellaneous uses" the following: Square Feet of Total Floor Area or Other Unit of Measurement Required Off Street Loading Berths �Under 5,000 square feet 0 5,000 to 20,000 square feet 1 20,000 lo 50,000 square feel 2 More fh&n 50,000 to 100,000 square feet 3 For each additional 50,000 square feet or major fraction thereof 1 Section 4. The Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow is amended at §450-49, Restaurants, delicatessens, food service establishments, taverns, bars and drinking establishments, by deleting it Section 5. The Code of The Village of Sleepy Hollow is amended at §450-51, Mixed-use (commercial and residential) developments, as follows: A. Paragraph C is deleted. B. Paragraphs D, E, and F are renumbered C, D, and E. C. Renumbered Paragraph £ is amended to read as follows: E. Mixed-use developments shall not be permitted where the nonresidential use of the building includes manufacturing or where the nonresidential use is automotive in nature. PROVIDED, however, that the non-mechanized, non-assembly line, small-batch production and assembly of finished products or component parts, typically by hand, and including design, non-noxious or environmentally deleterious processing, fabrication, assembly, and treatment, and packaging of finished products shall be permitted as the nonresidential use in mixed-use developments. Section 6. The Code of The Village of Sleepy Hollow is amended at §450-53, Offsite parking areas, as follows: A. At Paragraph B, to read as follows: B. Location. An off-site parking area shall be so located that its pedestrian access shall be within 500 feet from the effective entrance to the use which it serves. B. E. By the addition of a new Paragraph E to read as follows: Parking for existing uses, buildings, structures, and narrow parcels. (I) Ground-floor uses within buildings in the C-2 District that are in existence prior to July 1,2021, shall be considered legally nonconforming with respect to parking even if they do not meet the minimum parking requirements for the use. The difference between the number of spaces that the existing use is required to provide and the number of spaces that it provides shall be considered a credit that �carries forward with the building (unless the building is enlarged, expanded, or replaced). (2) At the time of any change in use within existing buildings that are legally nonconforming with respect to parking as described in Section A above, the credit may be deducted from the parking requirements of the new use. If the new use requires the same or fewer parking spaces as the previous use, the new use is not required to provide additional off-street parking, but shall not reduce the number of existing spaces provided, except to the extent that the new use provides parking in excess of the requirements in Section 450-41). If the new use requires more parking spaces than the previous use, the parking requirement shall equal the number of spaces required by Section 450-41 minus the credit described in Section H(I) above. (3) Parcels that are 30-ft wide or less, within the C-2 District, and with frontage along Beekman Avenue, Clinton Street, Valley Street, and Cortlandt Street are considered legally nonconforming with respect to parking and need not meet the minimum parking requirements indicated in Section 450-41 Section 7. The Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow is amened at §450-99, Statement of intent and objectives, to read as follows: It is the intent of Strategic Property Redevelopment (SPR) Floating Zone to enable the redevelopment of underutilized privately held and municipal properties so they can be returned to the tax rolls as applicable or otherwise redeveloped for mixed use, affordable and market rate housing and to provide criteria for the development of such uses. Section 8. The Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow is amended at §450-100, Development standards and general requirements for SPR, at Paragraph A(l)to read as follows: {1) The property must be owned by the Village or its designated entity, the Sleepy Hollow Local Development Corporation, or if the property or assemblage of properties is privately held, such property or properties must together contain a minimum of 65 feet of frontage on either Beekman Avenue, River Street, Valley Street, or Cortlandt Street. Section 9. The Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow is amended at §450-103, Development incentives, as follows: A. At Paragraph A to read as follows: A. Purposes. It is recognized that the SPR encompasses a unique resource within the Village of Sleepy Hollow, containing both a significant opportunity for achievement of public amenities and a major potential for redevelopment. To provide an incentive which will further encourage the most appropriate use and development of the Village's various land holdings along with those of other government related or private entities in a manner designed to achieve adopted planning objectives and to further the policies and purposes of the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, the Village may allow, only by application for a special permit and following a �public hearing held on notice duly given in the same manner as required by law for zoning amendments, an increased building bulk (i.e., floor area ratio and/or building height), relief from required setbacks, nonresidential uses on the upper floors of mixed use buildings, relief from parking and loading requirements. B. At Paragraph B( i )(c) to read as follows: (c) Streetscape/landscape improvements in the form ofstreetlighting, plantings, sidewalk improvements, benches and other similar streetscape/landscape amenities for the Village's downtown commercial/ residential areas or enhanced vehicular or pedestrian access or rights of way through the property. C. At Paragraph C( 1) to read as follows: (1) The maximum floor area ratio and/or building height increase shall not exceed 34% as compared to that otherwise permitted in the underlying district. Section 10. The Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow is amended by adding a new Article XVIII to read as follows: Article XVIII Lower Beekman Avenue Design Standards Overlay District §450-105. Findings and Purpose. Lower Beekman Avenue has a decidedly residential character, with large, generally wellmaintained homes set back from the sidewalk with small front yards, porches or stoops, and many mature street trees. Some of these homes have been converted to two- or three-family homes. The overall effect is to establish an attractive, walkable neighborhood that serves as a link between the downtown and the waterfront and can take advantage of both portions of the Village. Non-residential uses that are currently allowed in the C-2 district are appropriate on Lower Beekman Avenue, such as professional offices, child-care, or small boutiques, but the predominant visual character of the area should be preserved. §450-106. Location. The boundary of the Lower Beekman Avenue Design Standards Overlay District ("LBADS Overlay District") is current lots on Beekman Avenue west of Kendall Avenue and east of Clinton Street. §450-107. Applicable Regulations. All projects within the LBADS Overlay District shall comply with the regulations set forth in the underlying zoning except to the extent of regulations set forth in the annexed "Lower Beekman Avenue Design Standards Overlay District Regulations Booklet." �Section 11. The Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow is amended by adding a new Article XIX to read as follows: Article XIX Adaptive Reuse of Religious, Educational, and Institutional Buildings §450-108 Findings and purpose. The purpose of this section is to prevent the demolition of and foster the renovation and reuse of structures originally constructed for religious, educational, or institutional uses, which have historic, architectural, economic, cultural or other value to the Village and are atriskof becoming underutilized, vacant or demolished. This section encourages the adaptive and flexible reuse of such buildings to allow more economic and efficient use of the property. Special regulations are appropriate to this type of reuse because of the difficulty present in adapting these structures to allow economic and efficient use of the property. §450-109. Location. This provision may be applied within Zoning District C-2 and Zoning District R-5. §450-110. Eligible buildings. Any building originally constructed for religious, educational, or institutional purposes including buildings previously occupied as a primary or secondary school, place of worship, or accessory building to a place of worship such as a rectory, convent, gymnasium, or similar use. §450-111. Applicable regulations. All projects within the C-2 District and the R-5 District shall comply with the regulations set forth in the underlying zoning except to the extent set forth in this Article. §450-112. Special permit. A, The Board of Trustees must review and grant a special permit for requests to demolish structures meeting the eligibility requirements herein. B. The Planning Board may grant a special peimit subject to the additional provisions set forth below to allow the use of an eligible building for uses which may not otherwise be allowed and such adaptive reuse of an existing building may occur within its existing footprint even if dimensionally nonconforming. �§450-113. Site plan approval. The granting of a special permit for other than demolition of a religious, educational, or institutional structure pursuant to Section 450-112 shall require compliance with site plan review requirements. §450-114. Area, height, setback, etc. modifications. The Planning Board may modify minimum lot area, height, stories, minimum lot frontage, maximum coverage, maximum habitable floor area, minimum lot width, and front, side and rear yard setback requirements if the Planning Board determines that the modification is necessary to preserve the building and allow its adaptive reuse. §450-115. Parking modifications. A, Parking may be provided on lot(s) in private ownership within 500 feet of the building entrance. B. The Planning Board may modify off-street parking requirements based on applicant's information regarding the parking impacts of the proposed adaptive reuse. §450-116. Additional conditions. The Planning Board may attach such additional conditions to a special permit granted under this section as may be necessary to protect the neighborhood surrounding the property and to encourage the most appropriate adaptive reuse of the buildings and property. Section 12. The Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow is amended by adding a new Article XX to read as follows: Article XX Development Incentives for the C-2 District §450-117 Findings and purpose. The purpose of the development incentives and community benefits program is to encourage investment in the Inner Village of Sleepy Hollow, to incentivize development of underutilized sites. In exchange for provisions of community benefits described in this Article, a developer could receive a series of incentives to make investment more attractive. §450-118. Location. This provision may be applied within Zoning District C-2. �§450-119. Applicable regulations. All projects shall comply with the regulations set forth in the underlying zoning except to the extent set forth in this Article. §450-120. Special permit. The Board of Trustees may grant a special permit for the development incentives program. As part of his special permit application, a developer must demonstrate that the proposed project achieves a total of 15 points based on the community benefits described in §450-121. The Board of Trustees may grant all or some of the development incentives described §450-122 based upon satisfaction of the minimum requirements to achieve 15 points of community benefits. §450-121. A. Community benefits. A proposed project may include any combination of community benefits. Community benefits, their description, and their maximum points are: Community Benefits Public open space Green Building Certification Affordable Housing Converting Nonconforming Uses Streetscape Improvements Infill Development Neighborhood t Stabilization Fund | Off-Strcct Public | Parking t Cultural Facilities Green infrastructure Green Building Strategies Public Art NYS stretch code with Electrification Ready Provisions Description Maximum Points Provision of a new public park or substantial improvements to existing public open space LEED Gold and/or Passivhaus certification (or equivalent) with full or substantia] electrification Provision of affordable housing as defined by Westchester County at a minimum of 10% of the tola! number of units. Conversion of a substantial nonconforming use to a use that conforms to the requirements of the C-2 District i j Slreetscape/landscape improvements (e.g. streetlighting, plantings, sidewalk improvements, etc.) including but not limited to improving Complete Streets standards in the vicinity of the new development or at a location deemed a priority by the Board of Trustees. New development on existing infill sites that are less than 30 feel wide. Payment into a fund to provide for building repairs, landscaping, and similar measures to improve housing conditions. Provision of off-street public parking in excess of the parking requirements for the uses on site and/or provision of public and municipal access alleyways. Designation of leasable space building to a cultural use, such as a museum, galfery, performing art space, theater, etc. Incorporation of green infrastructure measures (e.g., green roofs, rain gardens, bio-retention areas, rights of way for renewable energy, community solar access, etc.). Incorporation of strategies to support the Climate Smart Communities program (e.g. EV charging stations, low carbon thermal energy networks, ground source heating or cooling, community solar). Commissioning of public art that is viewable in the public right of way Achieve NYS stretch code energy efficiency standards and provide infrastructure to eliminate on-site fossil fuels combustion. �§450-122. Development incentives. Development incentives that may be granted by special permit are: i" Existing/Underlying Zoning ! 45 feet (4 stories) Height Parking (residential) Maximum Lot Coverage Required Yards and Open Space Floor Area Ratio §450-123. 1 space per unit plus 0.5 spaces per bedroom Mixed-Use No maximum coverage, 1.4 FAR Multi-Family Dwelling: No maximum coverage, 1.4 FAR Mixed-Use: None Multi-Family Dwelling, as in the R-S: From: 20 feet Side: 5 feel/15 feet Rear: 25 feet ~ Development Incentive 55 feet (5 stories) unless otherwise specified in Overlay Design Guidelines 0.5 space per unit plus 0.25 spaces per bedroom Mixed-Use: No maximum coverage, 1.9 FAR Mulii-Family Dwelling: No maximum coverage, 1.9 FAR Mixed-Use: None Multi-Family Dwelling: Front: None Side: None Rear: 12 feet Unless otherwise specified in Overlay Design Guidelines i 1.9 Amendment of Schedule. "450 Attachment 1, Village of Sleepy Hollow, Schedule of Regulations" applying to District C-2, Central Commercial, is amended to read as follows: �5? spS I I "i.- If Xz eh? s l l St c •8 i= s <3 1 o '•5 •o nl i t o VI 3 S. 3 a v ? tsi to 1 l l I II 1 i l l aiasbB 9 s a £ a 3 B D I 1 s E ! t <* S z < te £ E _ i J i >"7 dO ? S 28 g f OS e 3 s § If 5 - | = « %i cljSJQlilLljslg, *5 II bz e VO «|3„| sS 6 B bh g-s I 1 1 c i i i i i i i i y i l a i s a 9> u fi-Sfe.^i'J J - IS * £- i ^J i=i = c ilS-Sgi 1 3 I.fissid I: I ! . . 2- R i li 3 oi IN i >,J ^ -S 3» 5• sJ 5! 4 t tc •2 1 ZEE c S .Igf J - - J ZEE g e 1u h l l f g l 13 E- 4r l ! Is o E ZEE oli ZEE a l li H l> oK 3 i« 5 M a ? fr If 3 1 £ 1 ee £t £s ]- I £ b •*,8 8 S* J a 3 x®^3 oi fc G 3 * s § & 8 I I a a I< | or- �Section 13. The invalidity of any word, section, clause, paragraph sentence, part, or provision of this local law shall not affect the validity of any part of this local law which can be given effect without such invalid part or parts. Section 14. This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the Office of the Secretary of State {01 l44573.doc.2} - 13 - �Lower Beekman Avenue Design Standards Overlay District Regulations Booklet {01 l44573.doc.2} - 14 - �Building Typologies Permitted in the Overlay District Residential Porch/Stoop Building Typology Residential Porch/Stoop Building Typology Architectural Design Standards AHlwUtai fog(Bn*|M*dfctc*Jgn — •GbVWMf'MW) * Mmm Jofim of i ft tvftcolto ^^ • MlfwwWh d . I | / r •Mln.d^hrf nrtdulfltteiv 3 It tMe^d^rthtf rtwUoltmlh * Mtpmobmy fL+mtnm J tm/uiaw fi i t* * ^"hdan * Afeuc*<io dwnwi, dwarf W* gotiw ft f2 A lw i*Kol badtJidto fidMbBAUk rco/ McaMion • Top Joptd tooty. iwit mm {•<»*, dHM WBIMill) * UMfoct,: : dm^Hi sadrtgt We. '04t4*n pdiAvi^fH^ld l^afHutJdW Glaring t«vifraTMnt M OA I«taflhsrn twhW M*w fM WM irtod<bIw (W&c© t A, •dUUIgn . M M M * Mm** • *fcr. irk Hat. lilt * 5mA a* J tolavtAi* MM, ifl • MB., (FT -to* Itt* rt» IiIH, * *< (VMMHMUI CHfrfw Gfwrtd Plan* fofrm At^vrf mJ tJtWI lawfmapMff miiw»H|d Uf ( m f m t MtdviMr lundsccQptn fl anot *ei/d <ndidh q cow&wofioe of din/M. ^nn^tvui I. twd/oi poOmf ffa&t * shw* • toWmp^t • • • • Porches, stoops and entry porticos o Semi-public porches, stoops and porticos, elevated above the ground plane, provide a greater degree of privacy for ground-floor residential uses and help preserve existing architectural character. o Porches and stoops may be elevated up to six (6) stair risers within the build-to zone. o Porch depth minimum of 6-ft and maximum of 12-ft Ground plane o Between the porch and sidewalk, landscaping is encouraged but hardscape as a continuation of the sidewalk is permissible to allow for retail or dining activity. Glazing requirement o Minimum of 50% of the street-level, street facing building area (between T and 12' above the sidewalk) shall be clear, non-reflective glass. Build-to-zone {01144573.doc.2} - 15 - �o • South side of Beekman Avenue: Minimum front yard setback of 5 feet and maximum front yard setback of 8 feet, o North side of Beekman Avenue: Minimum front yard setback of 12 feet and maximum front yard setback of 18 feet, o Within the build-to-zone, the following edge elements are allowed: • Raised edge • Outdoor seating - Ornamental fence (transparent, not chain link, maximum height of 42") • Stairs, stoops, and porticos • Planters and tree pits • Landscaping • One half of the total depth of proposed front porch(es), stoops or porticos o Garage doors, parking areas, drop-off or delivery zones, loading docks, port cochere, and semi-circular driveways are prohibited within the build-to zone, o No new sidewalk curb cuts are permissible in the Overlay District except for vehicular access provisions accommodating public use, emergency vehicle access or public parking. Setbacks and Sky Exposure Plane: o A Sky Exposure Plane is intended to preserve equitable access to light and air to the front yard and rear yard areas. Massing must meet the following front and rear setback requirements, which are indicated as height limits: • 0-ft to 18-ft from sidewalk edge: 36-ft • 15-ft to 80-ft from sidewalk edge: 55-ft • 80-ft and greater from sidewalk edge: 25-ft {01 l44573.doc.2} - 16 - �Neighborhood Storefront Building Typology Neighborhood Storefront Building typology Architectural Design Standards Hwlmtd Buatfng HwlnoMIMIrflia I•nisillilen moMaMmllt •MKUtftaPUtH • Wchum f Wy nmjvmw dvyW vefi. • Mtvmfrwttimn. -LF^riicnfi o *-' *TrTn pM** irpnmfml 1-tffllflflHiri jQmlMf •nUMauifr VtrtM/MKultfkn • Tap (w, OWMtfrMtaflft •MfeM* n l m U n w natntff dlWfK mt. ' >4n*m• flii l j loaolfaUl^. tdoM Olalns Ff&tt Ytmi -Mm> J Ht^itMW. Mlml<liu«i fWw»> 0* Ml IJ Fl A. .VnWtl jvAook •«». lOh IWU rt» bUdtojm, lb QnuMMott ^ fflbWt « Ito^aggpt ^•dMga. • teM^tdSf* * OtfrfwMUvg •Vi LoidKaptag ' - HMf«tpV«h tMftrfMDI •telJrf B MMIMMIM df Imf, ^wg* Acre PH prgkbfcd storefront component definitions and suggested facade elements: cornice upper atory iVrni.-W9 fcefc course ir.insca; dsfMy »!fUicw Carat* KylKW Unm si SfcraecMCoTO Ktaoi Hatrentl S^iuge tin) Wert* tj(M fttn CoUTOH nswwed enliy Manner Per tee {01144573.doc.2} - 17- 77 ft �• The Neighborhood Storefront Building Typology is permissible at comer lots, street intersections, or at street terminated vistas only. The Neighborhood Storefront Typology is prohibited from mid-block areas unless providing a terminated vista to a side street. • Ground plane o May be a hardscape continuation of the sidewalk or landscaped (or combination). • Glazing requirement o Minimum of 80% of the street-level, street facing building area (between 0' and 12' above the sidewalk) shall be clear, non-reflective glass, o The storefront fa?ade base panel or kickplate may not be greater than 2-ft in height. • Build-to-zone o Minimum front yard setback of 3 feet and maximum front yard setback of 10 feet, o Within the build-to-zone, the following edge elements are allowed: • Raised edge • Outdoor seating • Stairs, ADA-compliant ramps, and porticos • Landscaping is limited to tree pits; planters may not be permanently installed. Movable planters are encouraged. • Garage doors, parking areas, drop-off, or delivery zones, loading docks, port cochere, and semi-circular driveways are prohibited within the build-to zone. • No new sidewalk curb cuts are permissible in the Overlay District except for vehicular access provisions accommodating public use, emergency vehicle access or public parking. • Setbacks and Sky Exposure Plane: o A Sky Exposure Plane is intended to preserve equitable access to light and air to the front yard and rear yard areas. Massing must meet the following front and rear setback requirements, which are indicated as height limits: • 0-ft to 18-ft from sidewalk edge: 45-ft • 15-ft to 80-ft from sidewalk edge: 55-ft • 80-ft and greater from sidewalk edge: 25-ft {01144573.doc.2} �General Design Standards The following generat design principles are encouraged in the Lower Beekman Avenue Design Standards Overlay District: High quftjltyi and^hltecti Oft jggjj JHfltlpg wWeWSlii • Landscaping o Where space permits, front yard areas should include a combination of trees, shrubs, groundcovers and/or planters utilizing native species. No invasive species as defined by NYSDEC are permitted, o All sidewalks, open spaces, and parking areas shall be landscaped and/or paved in a manner which will harmonize with proposed buildings. Materials for paving, walls, fences, curbs, benches, etc. shall be attractive, durable, easily maintained, stormwater permeable, and compatible with the exterior of adjacent buildings. Brick or cobble stones are encouraged, o Public sidewalks along Beekman Avenue must be maintained at a minimum of 14-ft width or the width of the condition existing at the date of adoption of this regulation. {0U44573.doc.2J - 19 - �o o o o o The Planning Board may require buffer landscaping, fencing, or other screening to separate different types of land uses and to screen parking, utility buildings or structures, refuse collection areas, heating or cooling systems, and other similar installations and features, All plants, trees and shrubs shall be installed in accordance with a planting schedule provided by the developer and approved by the Planning Board, Curb cuts are banned other than for the provision of rear alleyway access for public use or emergency vehicle access. If curb cuts, fire zones or other public street modifications are necessary, cobble or brick aprons must be incorporated as a street surface treatment, If feasible and permissible and if obstacles are not present, street tree pits and approved street trees must be provided at 15-ft increments along the street frontage. Stormwater retention tree pits, bioswales, permeable pavement and other green infrastructure amendments are highly encouraged at all sidewalks, driveways and parking areas. Architectural Standards o Horizontal building modulation • Maximum width without building modulation: 22 feet • Minimum depth of modulation: 2 feet • Maximum depth of modulation: 8 feet - Minimum width of modulation: 12 feet - Bays and towers are encouraged • Building modulations must be proportionate to the overall building facade o Roofline Modulation is desirable with use of dormers, gables, turrets or other architectural elements o Primary entrances are required at the facade facing Beekman Avenue. Building entrances must be covered by a porch or portico, o At corner lots, the primary building entrance should be located at the corner of the property at a 45-degree to Beekman Avenue and set back a minimum of 5 feet from the corner sidewalk edge, o Flat roofs or roofs with a horizontal eave, fascia, or parapet • Change roofline so that no unmodulated segment exceeds 22 feet • Minimum vertical dimension of roofline modulation: 2 feet - Parapet pediments or other traditional architectural features are encouraged • Flat roofs must visually suggest a cornice at the eave, fascia, or parapet. Architrave, frieze, and cornice molding including brackets, corbels and dental molding is recommended. o Gabled, hipped, or shed roofs • Minimum slope of 5 feet vertical to 12 feet horizontal if facade includes a pediment {01144573.doc.2} - 20 - �• Minimum slope of 12 feet vertical to 12 feet horizontal if facade includes a gable roof o Mansard roofs • Minimum slope of 12 feet vertical to 3 feet horizontal • Convex, concave, and complex mansard roofs are encouraged. • Mansard roofs must contain a cornice or curbs below and above the mansard roof o Dormers • Dormers must be vertically oriented, unless the dormer is a shed or squint dormer, and meet the rectangular ratio requirements indicated in the Fenestration requirements in this section. q Widow's Walks, Cupolas, Bulkhead or Crow's Nests • A vertical architectural projection or enclosure to provide roof access is permissible above building height limits if the enclosure is less than 10-ft in height and is no more than 8-ft wide in any direction containing not more than 65 square feet of occupiable space. Ornamental roof typologies are recommended, and enclosures must contain a minimum of 70% glazing. Flagpoles or finials are encouraged. No enclosure may be within 30-ft of another enclosure. o Building articulation • Some combination of the following design elements should be included in a rhythm or pattern that complements the horizontal modulation and roofline modulation: • Repeating distinctive window patterns • Balcon ies or bay windows • Alternating dormers, stepped roofs, gables, or other roof elements including turrets, towers, campanile, etc. • Varying materials and textures • Vertical articulation • Top: sloped roofs, strong eave lines, cornice treatments, etc. • Middle: windows, balconies, materials changes, railings, etc. • Bottom: pedestrian-oriented front of the building, pedestrian-scale building details and awnings. o Materials • High-quality, durable materials • Masonry, including brick and stone • Realistic cast stone or tile - Wood or cementitious (hardiplank or equivalent) • Vinyl, metal panels, or other artificial siding materials are highly discouraged along street frontages and public ways - Other materials subject to approval by the planning board {01144573.doc.2} - 21 - �The following roof and dormer typologies and features are encouraged within the Overlay District: GENERAL ROOFING TERMS •MMIMLNIUMAtlOtULUIKJinai ItCIWOlfiM,JJC.MM SHKFT PCNT OR T FAN TO ROOF | I 'MANSARD ROOF VCNTIIATOR OGEE ROOF / L. \ SEMICIRCULAR DOME SEMICIRCULAR OR. 8AR.FU0. ROC* ailPSOfOAL DOME SEGMENTED DOME DORMTR BELL DOMF. I IIP AND VAU J.V ROOF CRFCIAN PITCH ROMAN PITCH LLUABUHANNICH EVtOROW DORMER {01144573.doc.2} A £ COTHIC PFTCH �o o o {0I144573.doc.2J Fenestration • Height to width ratio of single openings and group openings proportionally scaled to the wall. The following width:height ratios are encouraged: • Ground Floor: 1:2.236 • Floor 2: 1:2.36 • Floors 3 and above: 1:1.618 " All windows on floors 2 and above must be the same width, unless part of a bay window, facade projection or other architectural feature. • The following window height to wall height relationships are highly encouraged: • Ground Floor: 80% minimum and 95% maximum of wall height • Floors 2 to 3: 50% minimum to 70% maximum of wall height • Floors 4 and above: 33% minimum to 50% maximum of wall height • Door and window details and trim suitably scaled to the wall. • On floors other than the ground floor, reduce large expanses of glass used in windows and doors to smaller component windows reminiscent of traditional main street vernacular architecture. Horizontally oriented bands of glazing are discouraged. " Avoid grouped windows. • On floors other than the ground floor, windows and doors must be equally and symmetrically distributed horizontally across flat facades. • Blank walls are discouraged along any exterior wall facing a street, parking area, or sidewalk. • Visible lintels or crossheads are encouraged Signage • Signage plan shall be provided as part of site plan review, Parking Structures - Parking structures facing the street should be architecturally integrated in the building or located behind a liner building to screen the structure from public view. - Design of parking structures should focus on screening views of cars at the street level. • Parking shall be prohibited at the street level within 40 feet of the sidewalk edge so that an active use faces the street on the ground floor. - Parking access, ramps, or entrances and exits must be screened from public view and articulated with an archway or otherwise architecturally compelling portal elements. -23 i �Recommended architectural styles include Italianate, Second Empire, Romanesque Revival Federal, Greek Revival, Half-timbered, Carpenter Gothic, Stick, Queen Anne, or other Hudson Valley vernacular styles of the Victorian period and serve as a visual reference for permissible architectural designs within the Lower Beekman Overlay District. Example images of acceptable architectural styles, elements and encouraged architectural features are included herein: {01 l44573.doc.2} - 24 - �projecting bays and lowers lintals lail decorative chimnoy* towers, bays project up (iom root and Out from entry to create complex taeade and my turn along si/eet ereslmg slate root dormer in douWe hung wind. decorative pressed (Kick « terra cotta panels round-headed window often soon buck detailing and sir ngcourses in high relict paired doors and windows often Men siring course koysiono transom over entry do fc'ten paired doors: hiQhfy textured turlac Often mixing brick and sione low hippvd (01 ttat; <oot aSyrnmnlnat mail ng and taeade pdiiod windows and rpund-hoadod window) ate a hallmark of ihts styte deep protecting cot o ornalo wood brackglj ir<ue brsckeied hoods ov«i windows and doors Urge 2/2 double hung windows olta'lnarrow proportions se«n in buck. frame oi itucco protecting woodon onlry piych wilh decorative carved and tumoe brackets ondoosii {01144573.doc.2} pared woodendooii wilh a glass Hansom - 25 - �Rwnnguler tftnwm RBGQIAR FENESTRATION GABLE ROOF PROMINENT CHSQ0SY6 & S BLINDS/SHUTTERS 6/6 SASH PORTICO PAKLISHT— SIDELIGHTS COLOMNS*— {01 l44573.doc.2} - 26 - �GABLE BHD TO STREET REGULAR PBHBSTRATIO& WIDE FRI5ZB PARKED PILASTER FLU8HB0ARDIKG OFF-CEWTER ENTRANCE EHTABIAXURB TRANSOM SIDE LIGHTS OVERALL V88TZCAUTV CUPOLA MING OR ELL SHALLOW ROOP PITCH ROUND ARCHED WIHDOH OVBRHANGUQKS EAVES DBCORATZVE BRACKETS WINDOW HOOD PAIRED WXtEDOWS WINDOW BAY SIDE ENTRANCES AND PORCHES {01144573,doc.2} . 27, �BARSEBOASD SWISS CUT-OCT DgTRILING - VERTICAL BOARDING SAWM-gDGB • WINDOW HOOD ••...„,BULL'S-EYE MOOT STICK N081C FRAMING CROSS BUCK ——. ENTRANCE HOOT BRACXSTIH6 ———— DECORATIVE SLATS BELLCAST HANSARD ROOF CORNERS •" . . DEEP-SET SAVES PAIRED BRACKETS 2/2 SASH BRACKBTED HXNDO PORTICO PAIRED DOORS- {01144573.doc,2} -28- �STEPPED CORBEL 1ABZS GROUPED ROMANESQUE ARCHES SEGMENTAL ARCH" STRING OOURBB — DECORATIVE BRXGKNORK GOTHIC AHCB — COLONNADE I f£i*£S J I 2SSsK 1 = I W i m t IRREGULAR MASSING OONPLBX ROOFLINE DBOORATIVE CHIMNEY SHALL SQUARE UPPER PANES MASTIC PANEL DIAMOND PAMED WINDOW ORIEL WINDOW MOLTI- SURFACING MATERIALS HALF-TIMBERING SBWGLBS CLAPBOARDS — TURRET OR TONER. PORCH BALUSTRADE TURNED BPIMPLBS H-1 •• " f n 1 ! ypfir^a {01144573.doc.2} - 29 - �EXHIBIT #2 December 12, 2021 Marjorie Hsu Chair, Planning Board Village of Sleepy Hollow re: 135 Beekman Ave Public Hearing -- Substantive Comments Dear Chairperson Hsu: I am excited someone is working to build 14 new apartments in Sleepy Hollow. Even better, they are proposing some wheelchair accessible units. A few small changes can make big improvements for people living in the building and for people walking by it. Make the main entrance barrier free by eliminating the steps (shown in rendering "R-002" in the 10/7/21 PDF). People using mobility aids should have direct access to the building, rather than be relegated to a back door. The driveway needs to be 1 lane wide by the sidewalk. This is important for the safety and comfort of people walking. Center the driveway between the western building edge and western property line. Doing so maximizes sight lines between people driving and walking. The 10 feet of the driveway closest to the sidewalk should have very short plantings, and no fence along the property line in that zone. This helps ensure visibility between people driving and walking (especially children). The sidewalk needs to maintain its cross slope at the driveway. This maintains mobility for people using wheelchairs, etc, to travel east/west on Beekman Ave's sidewalk. Thus, the curb cut for the driveway needs to be as short as possible, like the drop curb shown in drawing C-001.00 in the 10/7/21 PDF. Bike parking: The racks in the back of the building need to be sheltered from the rain, snow and sun. It will be good to have at least one ground level bike parking space for each apartment. The best functioning racks are "inverted u" or "staple" shaped. Rack spacing specifications are provided in the graphic on the right. The racks should be at driveway level, so people can roll to the racks without having to lift their bikes. At least one rack should be added to the sidewalk for guests and deliveries. Car parking: The following is a comment on the Village's zoning code. The 135 Beekman Ave project is a car parking lot with some places to sleep attached to it. It is absurd that we require 27 car parking spaces for a 14 unit apartment building. This reminds me of the adage "You'll never be homeless in America... if you're a car." Sleepy Hollow desperately needs to eliminate car parking minimums. Sincerely, Daniel Convissor 26 Maple St �December 16, 2021 Marjorie Hsu Chair, Planning Board Village of Sleepy Hollow Please find below my testimony to be read aloud at 135 Beekman Ave Public Hearing December 16, 2021. I ask that this testimony be read aloud, because I do not feel it is safe for me, at the age of 84, to come into Village Hall to testify in person in the midst of rapidly rising numbers of breakthrough cases in Westchester County, in the Village of Sleepy Hollow and at Kendal-on-Hudson. I know written testimony is normally not read aloud in public, but with no hybrid option to testify on zoom or webex, I think it is only fair to allow for my perspective to be read aloud, instead of just being included in the official records of comments, which few will ever read. I write to object to the Planning Board's determination that the current plan for 135 Beekman does not require a variance. After hearing another resident read the relevant passages from the newly adopted Village Zoning Code for lower Beekman Avenue at the November 18 th Public Hearing, I reviewed the code and have concluded that the building plan that was presented clearly does not meet the requirements of the new code. The plan shows the height of the building at 45 feet, going back in one solid block to approximately 135 feet from the sidewalk. This does not meet the requirement in the new code for a height stepdown to 25 feet, starting 80 feet from the sidewalk edge. It is clear that this requirement is applicable to the proposed building. Section 450-107 states: "All projects within the LBADS Overlay District shall comply with the regulations set forth in the underlying zoning except to the extent of regulations set forth in the annexed 'Lower Beekman Avenue Design Standards Overlay District Regulations Booklet.'" And looking at the "Regulations Booklet", both "Residential" and "Storefront" building heights are governed by the same "height limits", based on the distance from the sidewalk edge. The regulations read: "80-ft and greater from sidewalk edge: 25-ft." No exceptions are allowed within the code. On this basis, it seems clear to me that this building, as proposed, would require a height variance from the Zoning Board before approval by the Planning Board. Because there appears to be no option for me to testify from home on zoom, I urge you to have someone read this testimony aloud at the Public Hearing this evening. With Covid breakthrough cases rising so rapidly, I cannot afford to risk a trip to a crowded hearing in Village Hall, especially with the danger of carrying the infection back to my community of elders here at Kendal. Thank you for your consideration. Anne White, 3301 Kendal Way, Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 � 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 Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 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_PLAN_2021-12-16-Approved-Planning-Board-Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 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