https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/0c34b91a8c4ae3386ea55c131ad5e153.pdf 6ddaf573b507dcad48a4cfec6127ea26 PDF Text Text NORTH TARRYTOWN, N.Y. January 19th, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING A Public Hearing was held before the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown on the above date. PRESENT: ABSENT: James Galgano, Chairman Frank Rey Roman Windas Ellen Tsangaris John O'Leary Miguel Jimenez Richard Ayers ALSO PRESENT: John Hughes, Jr., Village Attorney Chairman Galgano called the meeting to order at 8 P.M. Mr. Rey moved, seconded by Mr. Windas that the Minutes of the meeting held on November 17th, 1988 be approved as submitted. Carried. The Acting Clerk read the Public Notice to hear and consider an Application made by County Manor Homes, Inc. for "Final Site Plan approval of plans for the premises located at 15 Chestnut Street, North Tarrytown, N.Y. and known as Section 16, Block 7, Lot 27 on the Village Tax Assessment Map. Mr. Donald Walsh representing County Manor Homes, Inc. requested that the Board ratify the decision of the Zoning Board and authorize the Chairman to sign the "Site Plan". He stated that all requests made by the Zoning Board and Building Inspector have been complied with, all easements had been obtained and several recommendations made were accepted. All items requested by the original resolution have been complied with. Mr. Rey requested information regarding property and parking on Gesner Place property. Mr. Walsh stated that several changes were made and all are in conformance with recommendation of the Zoning Board and the Planning Board. Mr. Rey moved, seconded by Mr. Windas that the Chairman be authorized to sign "Site Plan" in order that the project could proceed. Carried. After a discussion Mr. Rey moved, seconded by Mr. Windas that property immediately west of 13, 15 and 16 Chestnut Street and bordering on Gesner Place will be reserved for parking of vehicles' belonging to tenants of 19 Chestnut Street, Carried. �-2Mr. Walsh stated that as a Trustee for the Levy Estates he was at this time submitting "Preliminary Plans" for property' located on Kendall Avenue. Mr. Walsh stated that said buildings would be demolished and new buildings erected. Further studies will be made and he would keep the Board informed. There being no further comments, Mr. Rey moved, seconded by Mr. Windas that the Public Hearing be closed. Carried. Chairman Galgano stated that the next order of business was a Preliminary Hearing on plans presented by "Rodreugues Enterprises for property located on Clinton Street. He stated that said plans provide for the erection of a building to house five (5) units and ten (10) parking spaces on a lot approximately 76 x 58, and that several variances will be required. After a discussion Mr. Rey moved, seconded by Mr. Windas that the plans be referred to the 2bning Board for their approval. Carried. Chairman Galgano stated that the next order of business would be a Preliminary Hearing on "Preliminary Plans" presented by Mr. & Mrs. Sebastian Amenta. The plans are for the erection of a addition to their office building located at Broadway and Chestnut Street. Said property is known on the Village Tax Assessment Map as Section 16, Block 7, Lots 4 to 8. Mrs. Amenta presented plans and various items and changes were discussed. . Mr. Hughes,Village Attorney, presented a memorandum fromprederick P. Clark Associates to the Building Inspector regarding their comments and recommendations of the plans presented by Paul Amenta on November 8th, 1988. "Copy of memo in Official Minutes. " After a discussion Mr. Rey moved, seconded by Mr. Windas that a Public Hearing be scheduled for the purpose of approving the plans for an office building to be erected on property owned by the Amentas on Broadway and Chestnut Street. Carried. Chairman Galgano stated that the next phase would be the Development Stage and that the drainage and water run-off problem still needed to be addressed. Mr. Friedner presented plans for the former Picard property and the construction of homes on the site. After a discussion regarding said plans Mr. Windas moved, seconded by Mr. O'Leary that a Public Hearing be scheduled to �-3discuss various variances that would be needed, and that preliminary plans submitted by Mr. Friedtier be approved. Carried. There being no further business to come before the Board Mr. Windas moved, seconded by Mr. Rey that the same be duly adjourned. Carried. Respectfully submitted, Z/£^v—•**—*^ Iftene Amatb Acting Clerk �MEMQRANPVM To: Jim Margotta, North Tarrytown Building Inspector From: Frederick P. Clark Associates Date: January 12, 1989 Subject: Preliminary Site Plan for Paul Amenta As requested, we have reviewed "Preliminary Site Plan for: Paul Amenta" and last dated November 8, 1988. The professional who prepared the plan is not identified on the plan. GENERAL INFORMATION Proposal. To enlarge the office use of the site by constructing a second building, of 15,000 square feet, on the 37,104-squarefoot site. Redesign of the parking lot for the existing building is also proposed. When the proposed expansion is completed according to the plan, the site will contain two office buildings totalling 25,000 square feet, 67 parking spaces, and two loading spaces. Vehicular access to the new building is proposed off of Broadway; access to the existing building is from Chestnut Street. Tax Map. Section 16, Block 7, lots 4-8. Location. The northwestern Broadway and Chestnut Street. Zoning. corner of the intersection of C-l Highway Commercial. Existing Land Use. Office. Physical Characteristics. An office building with approximately 5,000 square feet of lot coverage and 11 parking spaces occupy the southern portion of the site. The northern portion of the site, to be developed with the new office building and rearranged parking facilities, is occupied by approximately 43 parking spaces. COMMENTS We have the following comments regarding the preliminary site plan: 1. Frontage on Broadway. The site plan proposes a new building facing Broadway and vehicular access to the site off of Broadway. The plan offers the opportunity to improve the visual aspects along Broadway by replacing the existing parking lot with a structure that can be more in keeping with the existing uses and development in the area than is �the existing parking lot. However, it is critical that the Planning Board ensure compatibility as the Board reviews the site plan. It is important that the use of the building not generate high volumes of additional traffic; therefore, the Planning Board should ensure that the proposed uses will generate acceptable volumes of traffic. It is also critical that the new building be compatible with surrounding buildings and with the character along Broadway that the Planning Board wishes to see for this major corridor through the Village; therefore, the Planning Board should carefully review details for the proposed facade along Broadway, signs, landscaping, and exterior lighting, as well as details for other elements of the plan such as the perimeter fence, screening for the trash bin, retaining walls, and regrading. Second Building. The plan proposes a second building on this tax parcel without subdividing the lot. This is contrary to Section 62-7.C of the Zoning Ordinance. If the applicant wishes to seek a variance of this provision from the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Board may wish to ensure that the site may be subdivided at some time in the future without the need for an areal or dimensional variance. It would appear that a lot line could be placed between the two buildings to allow for acceptable side yards and lot coverage without adversely affecting the proposed plan. However, the proposed driveway for the new building would probably not comply with Section 62-22.B. Furthermore, the applicant would have to ensure that any off-site parking resulting from by a future subdivision of the property would comply with Section 62-21 to the satisfaction of the Zoning Board. Compact Cars. The plan proposes 23 parking spaces labeled as compact spaces and measuring eight feet in width by 14 feet in length with a two-foot overhang. This is not consistent with the minimum area for a parking space required by Section 62-14.A(l). If the applicant wishes to seek a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, we note the following: o This office generally discourages the provision of parking spaces for compact cars in developments of this small size because it is difficult to estimate the correct ratio of compact cars to full-sized cars that will use the parking lot. This is in addition to the general problems with compact spaces: They create maneuvering difficulties for drivers and administrative difficulties for the property owner and the Village Zoning Officer to enforce compliance with the parking scheme. 2 �o When municipalities permit compact spaces, generally no more than one third of the required spaces in large developments are allowed to be compact. For a development of the proposed size, ve recommend that no more than 15 percent (10 spaces) of the proposed parking be for compact cars, provided the Zoning Board finds the use of compact spaces acceptable. o Parking spaces should be with a driveway aisle at allow adequate room for parking space. (The aisles.) o The two-foot overhang for the length of the space is permissible only if the site plan includes details which ensure that the curb along the front of the parking space is no higher than six inches. o The plan proposes 14 compact spaces in front of the proposed building, the most desirable parking location. Therefore, it is expected that drivers in full-sized cars will in fact use these spaces. If compact spaces are found acceptable, approximately half of those in front of the proposed building should be replaced with full-sized spaces. no less than 8.5 feet wide least 24 feet in width to maneuvering in and out of plan proposes 20-foot-wide Full-sized parking spaces. o All of the 44 proposed full-sized parking spaces make use of a two-foot overhang in order to comply with the minimum area requirement of Section 62-14.A(l). The Planning Board should decide if the overhang is acceptable. We note that this design reduces impervious surfaces and stormwater run-off. Despite these benefits we recommend that the overhang not be accepted in the garage because actual and perceived restrictions on movement (caused by columns, walks, low ceilings, etc.) normally encourage a driver to occupy two parking spaces rather than one. For the other parking areas, the design should be accepted only if the curb height along the front of the parking space is no higher than six inches. o Almost all of the full-sized parking spaces have access via a twenty-foot-wide aisle. The plan should be revised to provide a minimum aisle width of 24 feet in order to provide adequate room for maneuvering into and out of the parking spaces. o A back-up area parking garage. is not provided at the end of the This makes the two end spaces in the 3 �garage virtually Inaccessible. A back-up area should be provided or, at a minimum, the two end spaces should be labeled for compact parking only, if the Zoning Board determines compact spaces to be acceptable. Handicapped parking. o The plan proposes only one handicapped parking space for the 25,OOO-square-foot development. This does not meet New York State standards for handicapped spaces. At least one handicapped space should be provided for the existing building. o The proposed handicapped parking space is located so that it is very difficult to find and very difficult to drive to. Although the plan does not illustrate pedestrian circulation, it would appear to be very difficult for a handicapped person to gain access into the proposed building. It is recommended that the handicapped space be relocated to the surface parking near the main entrance to the building. Loading spaces. The plan proposes one loading space for each of the two buildings located within circulation aisles and blocking access to adjacent parking spaces. This is inconsistent with Section 62-14.a. If the applicant wishes to seek a variance for the loading spaces, we suggest the following: o Because of the location of the loading space for the proposed building, it is doubtful that a truck would ever in fact use this space. Because of this and for reasons of circulation, this loading space should be relocated. A space in the aisle between the two buildings and at least 50 feet in from the street line would seem acceptable, provided the aisle is 26 feet in width. We note that even with this arrangement, the driver of the truck will have to back out of the site onto Route 9. To avoid this, the Zoning Board may wish to evaluate the possibility of a designated off-site curbside loading space on Route 9. It would be important to analyze impacts on sight lines at all nearby driveways, interference with the travel lane on Route 9, and the availability of curb-space for loading (in the place of the existing parking spaces) . o Although the proposed loading space for the existing building makes several parking spaces inaccessible when the loading space is in use, the proposed location appears to be acceptable if it is compatible with 4 �existing loading patterns for the building. However, the plan could be improved by rearranging the compact and full-sized spaces on the western side of the parking lot so that the two full-si zed spaces are not behind the loading space. (In addition, the driveway and aisle for that parking lot should be at least 24 feet wide, as noted above.) Width of driveways. The two driveways are proposed to be 20 feet wide. The proposed width is too narrow to provide adequate turns into and out of the property, and the New York State Department of Transportation will require a wider driveway for the entrance onto Broadway. Therefore, the plan should be revised to provide entrances at least 24 feet wide. David P. Fuller Michael A. Galante 5 � 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-1989 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_1989-01-19 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1989 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1989