https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/9d1536f916e5e329da7de4586ae0871c.pdf 97f5040187add61c9fbcb5f06f40c991 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD MEETING October 17,2002 RECEf VED NOV ~ 8 9(11)7 The meeting was called to order at 8:04 pm by Nicholas Robinson, Chairman. tdiCftfik£ CLERK noted that a quorum was present. >«^ i Present: Nicholas Robinson, Chairman Nicholas Cicchetti George Tanner David Perlmutter Ed McCarthy Absent: Ed Napoleon Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski Also Present: Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schifl^illage Planner) Dan Pennella (Charles A. Manganaro/Village Engineer) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Ed Lammers (Murphy, Stecich & Powell/Village Attorney) Bob Stiloski (Director, Department of Fire and life Safety) * ** ' * - *- ^ Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) Kendal on Hudson Karl Dibble Omnipoint Antonio Rodrigues Laurentino Rodrigues Ichabod's Landing Monopole permit application status GEIS/Wireless Location Study CFF Realty Barnhart Park Inner Village Parking Minutes George Tanner made a motion to adopt the revised agenda. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). �1) Kendal on Hudson This is a continuation from previous meetings. Andy Tung is representing this application along with Steve Evanusa. Andy Tung spoke about the roofscape and garage facade final designs. He spoke about moving the cooling towers to grade near the parking lot and their impacts. George Tanner asked if anyone could fit under the garage railings and access the cooling towers. Andy Tung responded no. He discussed the proposed railing design. The Chair asked if the Village consultants had any questions. There were none. The Chair asked if the Board had any other questions. There were none. The Chair asked when the plantings would be set. Andy Tung responded as soon as the site is stabilized from the constriction activity. David Perlmutter made a motion to adopt the site plan with regards to the garage and cooling towers. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 2) Karl Dibble This is a continuation from previous meetings. Richard Blancato is representing this application along with the applicant Karl Dibble. Richard Blancato stated that he had some comments on the draft Resolution that he received from the Village Attorney. He stated that the dates are missing from items # 7 and #17. He proposed a date of one-year from the issuance of the building permit. There was an open discussion on the date to be inserted. The Chair recommended adding language to state that the applicant is to agree with the Village Building Department on a phased implementation of the site development with specific dates for each phase and submit this schedule to the Planning Board no later than November 21, 2002 and complete all work by September 18, 2003. Planning Board Meeting, October 17, 2002 2 �There was an open discussion on the length of time it would take to complete all of the remediation work as well as all of the proposed site plan work. The Board, by consensus, asked the applicant to resolve the drainage and retaining wall issues first then return with a schedule for the remaining work. Karl Dibble stated that the neighbors do not have any more water entering their properties. Antonio Rodrigues is one of Karl Dibble's neighbors. He stated that Karl Dibble has added an additional two (2) feet of concrete to the top of the existing walls. The Chair polled the Board. Nicholas Cicchetti asked how long will the work take to complete. Dan Pennella responded about 60 days. George Tanner had no comment. David Perlmutter stated that the Board should approve the drainage and the walls. He also stated that the applicant should return in 30 days and report on the status of the drainage and the retaining walls. Based on his report, the Board will either allow the applicant to proceed with the remainder of the work or recommend that the matter be turned over to the Village Attorney. Ed McCarthy stated that the applicant should return in 30 days. Richard Blancato stated that the entire plan should be approved. David Perlmutter made a motion to reject the application and move the matter to the State Supreme Court. George Tanner seconded. The Chair asked the Board for comments. Nicholas Cicchetti stated that he is against rejecting the application. Richard Blancato stated that the remediation work would be listed first on the construction schedule. There was an open discussion on how to proceed with the application. Planning Board Meeting, October 17, 2002 3 �I Richard Blancato stated that the site plan was mutually agreed upon previously. He stated that the applicant wants to start working. The Chair referred to the Village Engineer. Dan Pennella stated that if the applicant starts and does not finish the work; it would be a big concern for the neighbors. Karl Dibble stated that he wants to do the job right. The Chair recommended altering the resolution by having the applicant perform the remediation work first and then submit a construction schedule for the remainder of the work. Richard Blancato stated that the applicant wants to perform all of the property drainage at the same time. The Chair asked David Perlmutter to repeat his motion. David Perlmutter stated that based on the current unlawful condition of the site, the continuance of unlawful work and the applicant's unlawful remedial work he motion to reject the application and refer the matter to the State Supreme Court. George Tanner asked about the drywells on the property. There was an open discussion on the property drainage. The Board agreed to approve all drainage work. Karl Dibble stated that he wants the entire site plan approved or nothing. Richard Blancato asked the Board for an adjournment to later in the meeting so that he may speak to his client. 3) Omnipoint This was adjourned to next meeting as per applicant's request. 4) Antonio Rodrigues Sean McCarthy is the project architect and is representing this application along with Antonio Rodrigues. Sean McCarthy stated that five (5) copies of the site plan and drainage plans were sent to the NYS DOT. He also stated that Adler Consulting has been contracted to perform a Planning Board Meeting, October 17,2002 4 �traffic study of the proposed parking and traffic plan. He discussed the proposed intersections in detail. George Tanner stated that he was concerned about the ingress and egress of the site and also about making a left-hand turn from the property. Sean McCarthy responded that the traffic consultant would issue a report on their findings. The Chair asked if the Board had other comments. There were none. The Chair asked if the OPRHP (Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation) were contacted since Phillipsburg Manor is across the street. Sean McCarthy responded no. Nicholas Cicchetti asked if the exit would be at the northernmost part of the property. Sean McCarthy responded that the exit is currently at this location. He explained how traffic would flow in case someone was unable to secure a parking space. David Perlmutter made a motion to have the Planning Board act as the lead agency. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair stated that the applicant should work on the Environmental Assessments and the traffic consultant's reports. He stated that the applicant should appear before the Architecture Review Board and the Waterfront Advisory Committee in the meantime. Dave Smith responded that the applicant is on the October 21, 2002 Waterfront Advisory Committee's agenda. 5) Laurentino Rodrigues There was nobody present for this application. 6) Ichabod's Landing The Chair asked if the Board had any comments. Nichols Cicchetti spoke about the road to be built for the stores on the north side. Bruce Lozito responded by speaking about how people would access these stores as well as access to the site. Planning Board Meeting, October 17, 2002 5 �Nicholas Cicchetti asked about the view shed from Route 9. Bruce Lozito responded that the Village has accounted for the view shed in the LWRP. George Tanner asked if the applicant has spoken to the GM developer (Roseland) as of yet. Bruce Lozito responded yes. He stated that Roseland is still working out their plans for the site. Ed McCarthy asked how would the stores receive their deliveries. Bruce Lozito discussed two methods on how merchants would receive their deliveries. The Chair stated that the property is too dense and crowded. He stated that viable alternatives under SEQRA have not been fully addressed. He also stated that the applicant has not shown any factual data as to how the project would succeed. Bruce Lozito responded that they would provide this data in the FEIS. The Chair stated that until the road is known, it is an artificial plan. He also stated that this is the first waterfront project, it must be realistic. The Chair stated that the applicant is not making use of the deep-water port. Bruce Lozito asked if the Board had any ideas. The Chair stated that the applicant could load people for riverboat rides. The Chair stated that a less dense site would be more beneficial to the community. Bruce Lozito responded that he would try to revise the plan and make it more workable. 2) Karl Dibble (continued)Richard Blancato requested an adjournment to next month. He stated that the applicant would return with a construction schedule. He stated that the schedule would reflect all remediation work being performed first. He stated that the ARB meeting is in November. He stated that the applicant couldn't get on their agenda without an approved site plan. Ed Lammers stated that this was a viable alternative. He also stated that the site plan should not be approved without a schedule. David Perlmutter stated that additional screening should be added. George Tanner stated that the schedule should be reviewed by the Village Engineer prior to the next meeting. Planning Board Meeting, October 17,2002 6 �The Chair read the motion aloud. The applicant will provide the following: 1) construction schedule with phased remediation 2) revised screening 3) identification of work The Chair asked when the schedule would be ready for review by the Village Engineer and the Building Department. Richard Blancato responded two weeks. The Chair stated that the schedule is due by October 31, 2002. David Perlmutter added that no additional construction should be done in the meantime. George Tanner made a motion to approve. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 7) Monopole permit application status Ed Lammers stated that he has reviewed the records of previous monopole applicants. He stated that he does not have a sufficient record. George Tanner recommended checking with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ed Lammers asked the Village Planner and Village Engineer to check for any information. The Chair stated that once the files are compiled, the Board would have a worksesion and discuss. Ed Lammers stated that Sprint wants to measure the height of the monopole and make any necessary corrections. Nicholas Cicchetti stated that a Resolution exists concerning the monopole height. He stated that he remembers the applications from previous Tree Commission reviews of surrounding trees as a result of monopole applications. 8) GEIS/Wireless Location Study The Chair stated that the scope has been adopted. Dave Smith stated that selected sites were looked at. He stated that Village owned sites were looked at first, school property (not buildings) were looked at second. He stated that Barnhart Park was looked at for a possible flagpole since it would cover the inner Planning Board Meeting, October 17, 2002 7 �Village and GM as well. He also stated that all technologies would be evaluated. The Chair asked when will the draft GEIS be available for review. Dave Smith responded by the end of the year. The Chair stated that once it is reviewed, a public hearing would be held. He stated that all case studies from the other communities would be included. 9) CFF Realty Victor Solavik is the project architect. He is representing this project on behalf of the applicant. Victor Solavik spoke about the project. He described the proposed 2nd floor addition to the existing structure. The Chair asked about traffic ingress and egress. Victor Solavik responded that there are no changes in the traffic pattern. George Tanner asked about the number of parking spaces. Victor Solavik responded that there are 16 spaces available. He also stated that this is more that what is required. The Chair stated that the Board must declare itself as the lead agency and then refer the applicant to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Dave Smith stated that the Board should refer the applicant to the Architectural Review Board for preliminary comments. George Tanner made a motion to declare the Planning Board as the lead agency, refer the applicant to the Waterfront Advisory Committee and to the Architectural Review Board. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 10)Barnhart ParkThe Chair stated that the Village Board of Trustees wants to be the lead agency. Dave Smith stated that the Village Trustees have declared lead agency status but the Planning Board would have final site plan approval. The Chair stated a Phase I review of the site should be performed. Planning Board Meeting, October 17,2002 �Dave Smith stated that he would make that recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees. 11) Inner Village Parking Dave Smith stated that he met with George Tanner and Larry Rodrigues concerning Village parking. He stated that they have prepared a sketch of an area in the inner Village that could accommodate 45-50 spaces. Dave Smith also stated that any Zoning Board applicant who cannot meet the parking requirements under the Village Zoning Code would be required to provide a fee to waive the requirement. He stated that the fee would go to the Village Parking Authority. 12) Minutes The minutes from July 2002 were reviewed. George Tanner made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The minutes from September 2002 were reviewed. Nicholas Cicchetti made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). George Tanner made a motion to adjourn. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 10:17 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony Del Vecchio Planning Board Meeting, October 17,2002 9 �RECEIVED NOV 16 ?nn? RESOLUTION VILLAGE CLERK KENDAL ON HUDSON CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY SITE PLAN APPROVAL October 17, 2002 WHEREAS, on September 6,2001 Kendal on Hudson and the Phelps Community Corporation (jointly the "Applicant"), including its successors and assigns submitted an application to the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board ("the Board") requesting site plan and wetlands permit approvals to develop a continuing care retirement community ("CCRC"); and WHEREAS, the proposed CCRC is situated on approximately 21.4 acres on the western portion of the existing Phelps Memorial Hospital Center ("Phelps") campus designated on the tax assessment maps of the Town of Mount Pleasant as Section 110.11, Block 1, Lots 1,2 and 3; and WHEREAS, the proposed CCRC consists of 225 independent living apartments, 24 enriched housing units and 42 skilled nursing beds along with common facilities provided in approximately 435,000 square feet of building area, serviced by 393 parking spaces (the "project"); and WHEREAS, the proposed project was the subject of a comprehensive environmental review conducted by the Mayor and Board of Trustees acting as the Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and that the Mayor and Board of Trustees did issue an Environmental Findings Statement on June 19, 2001, which Findings Statement concluded that with the mitigation measures imposed, the project minimizes or avoids environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable and that after due consideration, the Proposed Action will provide a balance between the protection of the environment and the need to accommodate social, economic and other considerations of sound public policy; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2001, October 18, 2001 and November 5, 2001, the Planning Board did publicly discuss the contents of the proposed site plan application and the format in which it would be reviewed; and WHEREAS, on November 21, 2001, December 3, 2001, December 20, 2001, January 17, 2002 and February 21,2002 the Planning Board conducted and/or continued a public hearing on the detailed site plan and wetlands permit application upon due notice and all persons wishing to be heard were afforded an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board did discuss in detail with the Applicant issues related to construction and site preparation, architecture and landscaping, circulation, utility systems and wetland buffer activities; and WHEREAS, as a result of public input during the public hearing process and comments raised by the Planning Board, Village staff, and Village consultants, modifications were made to the proposed site plan application; and Page I of 3 �WHEREAS, the Planning Board, as an involved agency as defined under Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the regulations promulgated thereunder, after thorough review of the environmental documentation, determined that the proposed project is consistent with the Environmental Findings Statement adopted by the Mayor and Board of Trustees as attached to the Planning Board's environmental findings; and WHEREAS, that the site plan approval incorporates by reference the legends on the site plan drawings and any material variation from the approved site plan shall require a resolution from the Planning Board approving said changes; and WHEREAS, as part of the site plan approval there were specific conditions to be completed before building permits are issued or any construction commenced including: 2. The Applicant shall review with the Planning Board the proposed roof drainage system, including the type of materials if gutters and leaders are used, or in their absence, how drainage would be accommodated away from the building and directed to the stormwater management system. 3. The Applicant shall prepare, subject to Planning Board review and approval, drawings illustrating the organization and aesthetic treatment of the roof penetrations and roof scape treatment which shall include sound attenuation and shielding for any use of cooling towers and compressors for the facility's air conditioning system(s). Further, the Applicant shall include facade treatment details for the proposed garage facility, using materials which complement the already proposed buildings. WHEREAS, on September 4, 2002, the Applicant submitted supplemental material including: A 1.5 Roof Plan A2.1 East Elevation (Commons & ILU East) A3.1 Architectural Details and Materials - Typical Elevation SP-11.0 Parking Garage - Detail Site Plan A4.1 Parking Garage -Detail Elevation A4.3 Parking Garage - Section through Cooling Towers all dated 09/05/02, and prepared by Divney Tung Schwalbe, LLP; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has responded to site plan approval conditions outlined above as follows: • proposes to incorporate a roof drainage system consisting of gutters and downspouts that will be directly connected to the site drainage piping and stormwater management system. The gutters and downspouts will be made of aluminum and painted white to match the buildings' architectural trim; • prepared a roofscape treatment plan that includes an architectural shingle that varies from medium to dark brown; plumbing vents located on the west, south and north facing slopes to minimize visibility from the James H use to the east, said vents to extend a maximum Page 2 of 3 �of twelve inches above the roof surface and to be painted black; and incorporation of rooftop architectural elements such as "lanterns", a "tempietto" to screen major roof penetrations and mechanical appurtenances; and • relocation of the project's cooling towers from the tempietto at the west end of the commons building to a below grade well located between the west side of the parking garage and the adjacent Kendal visitor parking area. Sound attenuators are proposed on top of the towers and evergreen screen plantings are proposed around the perimeter of the well. • incorporation of pre-cast concrete panels for the parking garage that match the earth-tone colors of the Kendal on Hudson residential buildings. WHEREAS, the Planning Board did discuss the proposed supplemental site plan information at their September 19,2002 regularly scheduled meeting; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board requested additional information related to the design of the cooling tower; and WHEREAS, on October 2,2002, the Applicant submitted A4.3 Parking Garage - Section through Cooling Towers dated 10/01/02, prepared by Divney Tung Schwalbe, LLP; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that after careful evaluation of the material submitted the Planning Board does hereby approve the supplemental and revised site plan elements as meeting the requirements of Conditions 2 and 3 of the "Conditions to be Completed Before Building Permits Are Issued or Any Construction Commenced" and incorporates those components as part of the approved site plan; and be it further RESOLVED, that the conditions and mitigation identified in the Planning Board's previous site plan approval remain in full force and effect. <4A & \ XsM-w— Nicholas Robinson, Chairman fi/e^tJbr Dated F:\M\M-720 Sleepy Hollow\Resolulions\koh revised site plan.wpd Page 3 of 3 2)^ Jco 2~ � 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-2002 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_2002-10-17 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002