https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/f083107fdd29e04569c4222a6fb7a42e.pdf 99877ab328f7ce9868cc2fd6d391fac5 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board Minutes July 21, 2022 The regular meeting was called to order at 7:03 PM by Chairperson Hsu. Chairperson Hsu stated that there is a quorum and summarized the agenda. Present: Marjorie Hsu, Chairperson Kersten Harries Erin Carney Lindsay Krakauer Also Present: Joshua Subin, Village Attorney James Natarelli, Village Engineer David Smith, Village Planner Anthony Catalano, Consulting Engineer Sean E. McCarthy, Building Inspector Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Planning Board Absent: Matthew Brennan Edward McCarthy Rachelle Gebler Agenda: 1) Francesco Alesci, 135 Beekman Avenue, Proposed multi-family building, Site plan approval- Continued public hearing 2) Village of Sleepy Hollow, Statue Island Park, Proposed improvements- Public hearing 3) Village of Sleepy Hollow, Pocantico River and Devries Park, Proposed improvementsPublic hearing 4) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Block M, Proposed Block H sales office- Site plan approval, Continued public hearing/draft resolution 5) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Block O/P & N Townhomes Phase II, Block N Amenities and proposed sales office, Site Plan & Architectural Review Board approval- Public hearing 6) Landrock LLC, 231 Webber Avenue, Driveway modification, Amended site plan and wetlands watercourse permit approval- Continued public hearing, pending ZBA approval 7) 46 Hudson St., LLC/Alex Tseng, 46 Hudson Street, Proposed three-family residence, Site Plan approval - Presentation 8) Westchester County Department of Public Works, Parks, Recreation and Conservation, Kingsland Point Part, Bulkhead replacement, Wetlands Watercourse Permit approval- Preliminary presentation 9) Zoning Code Amendments, Chapter 450-1 Powers of the Planning Board, Board of Trustees referral- Discussion 10) Approval of minutes, June 16, 2022 1 (7/21/22) �1. Franceso Alesci, 135 Beekman Avenue, Proposed multi-family building, Site Plan approval-Continued public hearing Chairperson Hsu stated that the applicant has requested an adjournment to the September 22, 2022 meeting. Motion was made to open the continued public hearing. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Harries Vote 4-0 Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the September 22, 2022 meeting. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Krakauer Vote 4-0 2. Village of Sleepy Hollow, Statue Island Park, Proposed site improvments- Public hearing Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Carney Vote 4-0 Chairperson solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Joshua Subin stated that he would coordinate the administrative process to take the application off the record. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Harries Vote 4-0 3. Village of Sleepy Hollow, Pocantico River and Devries Park, Proposed site Improvements- Public hearing Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Krakauer Vote 4-0 Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Harries Vote 4-0 Joshua Subin stated that he would coordinate the administrative process to take the application off the record. 2 (7/21/22) �4. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Block M, Proposed Block H sales office, Site Plan approval- Continued public hearing /draft resolution Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Krakauer Vote 4-0 Craig Tompkins is the Project Manager for Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC. Mr. Tompkins stated that they have received a draft resolution and that they have no issues. Mr. Tompkins stated that a revised logistics plan was submitted proposing to use a lane on Lighthouse Landing for trucks or emergency vehicles to turn around at the dead end area on Palisades Boulevard. The logistics plan identifies the proposed work zones for Sun Homes, Block H, and the proposed sales office at Block M. David Smith stated that during the Work Session the Board discussed adding a condition regarding the timing and the mechanisms for removing the sales office. Mr. Smith stated that the draft language of the condition shall read that the temporary sales office and supporting parking shall be removed, and that the site will be restored within 90 days of the issuance of a temporary or permanent Certificate of Occupancy for an agreed percentage of the total of number of units in Block H. Peter Chavkin is the President of Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC and stated that he would be comfortable with the condition of removing the sales trailer on or before 50% of the Block H units have received a Certificate of Occupancy. A model unit will be constructed and an amenity space that could be utilized as a sales office, if needed, for the remainder of the sales efforts. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Harries Vote 4-0 David Smith stated that there are minor editorial comments that need to be made but that the Board has all of the conditions needed to pass the resolution. Motion was made to approve the resolution as amended. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Carney Chairperson Hsu - yes Kersten Harries - yes Erin Carney- yes Lindsay Krakauer - yes Vote 4-0 APPROVED 5. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Block O/P & N Townhomes, Phase II, Block N amenities and proposed sales office3 (7/21/22) �Site Plan & Architectural Review Board approval Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Harries Vote 4-0 Bill McGuiness is the founder of Sun Homes and the architect for the Block O/P & N Townhomes, Phase II and the Block N amenities building. Mr. McGuiness stated that he is working through the comments received from the Village professionals and he requested to discuss any comments or requests from the Board that may change the proposed design of the building, grading, or landscaping. Mr. McGuiness stated that the proposed pool equipment and utility meters will be located in an area across the parking lot with wall and landscape screening, and that the equipment will be nestled down below eye level. There will be a drain and a redundant overflow drain with a gravel base, and the grade will be above the flood plain. He thinks the design looks better like this but will change it if the Board requests it. Anthony Catalono asked Mr. McGuinnes to confirm that the stormwater collected would be discharged into the existing drainage system. Mr. McGuiness stated that the current plan shows a drain connected to the drainage system with an overflow drain into the swale behind. As requested, they will revise the plan to connect the second drain into the existing drainage system. Mr. McGuiness stated the current grading plan shows the pool deck and finished floor elevations of the proposed buildings close to the sidewalk and the street elevation. The intended design is to have the pool deck and finished floor elevation up a few feet from the sidewalk to provide privacy. Chairperson Hsu stated that an elevated pool deck would provide less privacy at eye level than having it down lower with landscape screening. Mr. McGuiness stated that he does not agree and feels strongly about the proposed design for an elevated pool deck. Mr. McGuiness stated that a comment was received requesting that ADA access be provided from the street. The current design proposes ADA access from the designated parking spaces in the back of the building. Mr. McGuiness stated that there is a difference between required access verses best practice, and that his preference is to build the current design. If the Board feels strongly, he will revise the grading plan 1.3 feet lower to provide ADA access from the sidewalk. Mr. McGuiness stated that the current design plans to locate the condensers inside a grated roof parapet system and to use a ladder on the outside of the building for access to the equipment. Comments were received requesting that access be provided from the inside the building. If the Board wishes, he can revise the design to utilize the 3-4 feet of dead attic space to install a fixed ladder inside a closet hatch. Chairperson Hsu asked Mr. McGuiness if he has implemented the proposed roof design on another project. 4 (7/21/22) �Mr. McGuiness stated that he has not used the grated parapet design before, but he has no concerns. Mr. McGuiness requested to continue furthering the design drawings at their risk in advance of the September meeting and the requested changes that the Planning Board requires. Kersten Harries asked if the proposed parking lot is at grade level. McGuiness stated that proposed parking lot is not at grade level. There is driveway going up and a retaining wall shown on the south property line. Kersten Harries asked if entrances could be added to the front façade and be accessible with ramps going up and into the building. Mr. McGuiness stated that he prefers not to have multiple entrances because the proposed buildings are only 30 feet x 40 feet each. If they receive approval to implement the elevated pool deck designs, they would need to raise the grade and the ramps will be dominant from the front of the building. Mr. McGuiness stated that he thinks the entrance doors belong on the parking lot side because he does not expect that people will walk in off the street into a private building, and there is only one door proposed in each building. Kersten Harries stated that the Boards comments relate to providing access from the front for private residents that may be walking there. Ms. Harries asked Mr. McGuiness if the proposed roof top system includes a drainage system. McGuiness stated that a system, similar to the pool equipment area, is proposed with an internal drain running under the parking lot and connecting to the existing storm system. Erin Carney stated that she feels strongly that since the proposed amenity building is so close to the units, it would be a disservice to the convenience and livability of the residents to have to walk by cars to get into the space and that residents should be able to walk or bike to the building, and not be restricted. Mr. McGuiness stated that elevating the building off the street provides a separation of spaces and a more aesthetic design. Mr. McGuiness stated that he prefers his design but will do what the Board wishes. Chairperson Hsu stated that if people who live in Block O/P Phase II are going to walk to the fitness center to exercise, they would not be deterred from walking a few extra steps from the parking lot into the building. Peter Chavkin stated the proposed design includes a walkway connecting Legend Drive to the front door that provides pedestrian access but it is too steep to be an ADA accessible slope. Most of the people walking, who live in the community, will walk across the street or walk up the access ramp at the rear of the building. Since the building will serve as a sales office, they need to be mindful of providing an easy sales experience, and expect that prospective buyers will be driving to the site. Sean McCarthy stated that the sales office is a temporary use and a clubhouse will be the permanent use of the building, and that the design for the permanent use should take precedence. 5 (7/21/22) �Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the public There were no comments from the public. Chairperson Hsu stated that the applicant needs to address the comments received from the Anthony Catalano and Sean McCarthy. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the September 22, 2022 meeting. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Krakauer Vote 4-0 6. Landrock, LLC, 231 Webber Avenue, Driveway modification, Amended Site Plan and Wetlands permit approval- Continued public hearing, pending ZBA approval Allison Fausner is a member of the law firm of Cuddy & Feder, LLP stated that she is covering for her colleague Bill Null for the continued public hearing. Ms. Fausner stated that the applicant received Zoning Board approval at last night’s meeting. Donna Maiello is an associate with DTS Provident Design Engineering, LLP representing the applicant. Ms. Maiello presented updated exhibits and stated that the applicant received approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the requested variances, including the proposed split rail fence at 48 inches high. Ms. Maiello stated that they submitted responses to address the concerns from James Natarelli related to infiltration rates and stormwater. Ms. Maiello stated that proposed tree plantings will be kept out of the 16-foot buffer water main and sewer main buffer and easements. There were trees planted after the applicant received subdivision approval but they are not in the easement. The note on the proposed site plan will be revised to say that the final location of the proposed trees may vary from the plan based on new viewshed or field conditions, but will not be located within restricted areas. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Chairperson Hsu requested that David Smith prepare a draft resolution for the September 22, 2022 meeting. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the September 22, 2022 meeting. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Harries Vote 4-0 7. 46 Hudson St., LLC/Alex Tseng, 46 Hudson Street, Proposed three-family residence, Site Plan approval- Presentation Lindsay Krakauer read the following statement: 6 (7/21/22) �I want to disclose that I live on the same block, approximately two houses away, from the proposed development at 46 Hudson Street. My home does not adjoin any part of the applicant’s property, nor does it adjoin the property where easements are being considered. I do not believe that my proximity to the proposed project prevents me from being objective and fulfilling my duties as a Planning Board member. However, if the applicant has any objection to my participation, I will consider recusal, so as to place my ethics beyond reproach. Brian Hopkins is the architect representing the applicant and stated that a recusal is not necessary. Mr. Hopkins stated that as per the comments received from the Board, a revised application was submitted to request site plan approval for a three-family residence. The applicant will still be seeking a variance for the lot size and parking. Mr. Hopkins stated that changes made to the application include the removal of the top floor porch, adding a portico to the front door entrance for access to the basement, and relocating the trash and recycling collection area from the front to the side entrance. Mr. Hopkins presented photographs of the existing building conditions and stated the house in currently one of the biggest buildings on the block in terms of bulk, height, and square footage. The current proposal does not deviate drastically from the existing building. The proposed building is 67 square feet larger than the existing building and proposed height is slightly larger than the existing building. Mr. Hopkins stated that there is an existing sub cellar below the basement, and that it is in complete disrepair. Chairperson Hsu asked if the sub cellar is a crawl space or a full cellar. Mr. Hopkins stated that the sub cellar is a full cellar and not a crawl space. David Smith asked Mr. Hopkins what is proposed for the sub cellar. Mr. Hopkins stated that the sub cellar will be remediated for mold and be kept as an empty or storage space. Utilities will not be stored in the cellar as the applicant plans to utilize heat pump technology. The proposed square footage increase results from the extension of the top story to the back while removing a part of the front of the building to correct a problem with the street. Kersten Harries asked Mr. Hopkins if he has considered how to resolve moving the front steps to be within the property line. Mr. Hopkins stated that the stairs extend down to the cellar and foundation, and that removing them makes the project unviable for owner. A proposed solution would be to reach an easement agreement with the Village. Sean McCarthy stated that application proposes to demolish the existing building down to the old foundation and to construct a new building. Moving the staircase is not a reason to warrant the project unviable for the owner. Mr. Hopkins stated that in order to more the staircase, they would have the cost of digging down. Sean McCarthy stated that underpinning of the entire foundation will be required in order to keep it, therefore moving the stair is minor in comparison. 7 (7/21/22) �Mr. Hopkins stated that he will revisit the request with the owner. Chairperson Hsu stated that the lower deck is not a usable space for the first floor apartment, and moving the staircase could provide a small amount of open space for the unit, and will provide more street appeal. Kersten Harries asked Mr. Hopkins how far the existing staircase extends over the property line. Mr. Hopkins stated the existing stair extends 18 inches over the property line. Erin Carney stated that historic views of Hudson Street were included in the renderings. Hudson Street used to be a tree-lined street with a continuous feel. Moving the staircase back to have a little more green space would help return the property to the historical images. Kersten Harries stated that moving the stairs would also help with lightening the volume of the front façade. There was a discussion regarding the additional demolition, foundation, and excavation work that would be required to abandon the cellar and move the staircase and why Mr. Hopkins proposes the existing foundation is viable for reuse. Mr. Hopkins stated that the materials proposed for the exterior façade is Hardie board on the front façade and vinyl siding on the other three facades of the building. Chairperson Hsu stated that the Board prefers Hardie board siding on all four sides of the building. Lindsay Krakauer stated that you could see so much of the home from the side and that using a different material will stick out. Erin Carney stated that the use of Hardie board is referenced in the Village Guidelines as what they are looking for. Kersten Harries suggested that Mr. Hopkins improve the architectural details of the third floor dormers. Mr. Hopkins stated that although they have revised the proposed application to a three-family residence, a variance approval is still required for the lot size. David Smith stated that the Planning Board still needs to weigh and balance the overall development program and its appropriateness to the site. Mr. Hopkins stated that the proposed application is a balanced approach for a property that changed from the R-4A Zoning District to an R-5 district where it suggests that approval to increase with bulk height and to have a multi-family use could be permitted. 8 (7/21/22) �David Smith stated that even though the Zoning changed, the application is still required to fit the program on the site and it has to fit in with the neighborhood. There was a discussion between the Village Consultants and Mr. Hopkins relating to the R-5 Zoning District changes and how the Planning Board reviews applications for proposed development in relation to the surrounding properties. Mr. Hopkins stated that the proposed floor area ratio (“FAR”) is within the median for the lot coverage on the site. The proposed application reduces the lot coverage while increases the FAR by .02% or about 60 square feet. Mr. Hopkins stated that he will calculate the turning radius dimensions in the parking area in order to reconfigure the usability of the required open green spaces. Kersten Harries requested that Mr. Hopkins provide more details for the proposed plantings and use of the amenities proposed in the open spaces, and suggested that they consider alternative materials other than asphalt for parking area. Ms. Harries asked Mr. Hopkins if it would be possible to move the three parking spaces on the sides of the driveway verses in the back to provide more open green space. Mr. Hopkins stated that moving the parking spaces is possible but the Village would have to approve the vehicles backing out into the street. Kersten Harries suggested that the applicant provide covered bicycle storage on site. Lindsay Krakauer asked Mr. Hopkins for the status of the easement discussion. Mr. Hopkins stated that the easement agreement has been finalized. Mr. Hopkins asked James Natarelli for comments regarding the turning radius. James Natarelli stated that the turning radius is tight and requested that Mr. Hopkins consider different parking arrangements for the site. Mr. Natarelli suggested that Mr. Hopkins run turn movements for different ways to get cars in and out of the parking spaces. Mr. Hopkins asked James Natarelli if the Planning Board permits backing out of the driveway into the street wall. James Natarelli stated that he does not think there is anything in the Code that prohibits vehicles from backing out onto the street. However, Hudson Street is a through street that is used by many people; so it is not ideal. Brian Hopkins requested that the Planning Board provide the revisions that are requested for the next meeting. Chairperson Hsu stated that Mr. Hopkins should work on the relocation of the front staircase so it is not over the property line and to allow for more green space along the sidewalk, the 9 (7/21/22) �redesigning the roof dormers, and the parking. Further improvements are required before the Board can recommend a positive referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals. No action was taken. 8. Westchester County Department of Public Works, Parks, Recreation and Conservation, Kingsland Point Park, Bulkhead replacement, Wetlands Watercourse Permit approvalPreliminary presentation Chairperson Hsu stated that they Planning Board should remove the application from the agenda since it is clear that representatives from Westchester County are not going to come before the Board. 9. Zoning Code Amendments, Chapter 450-1 Powers of the Planning Board, Board of Trustees referral- Discussion Chairperson Hsu stated that a joint public meeting between the Board of Trustees and the Planning Board is scheduled and will be noticed for Monday, July 25, 2022 at 5:30 PM in Village Hall. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the Board members. There were no comments from the Board. Chairperson Hsu closed the discussion. 13. Approval of minutes- June 16, 2022 Motion was made to approve the June 16, 2022 minutes. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Harries Chairperson Hsu - yes Kersten Harries - yes Lindsay Krakauer - yes Erin Carney- yes Vote 4-0 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:18 PM. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Krakauer Vote 4-0 Respectfully submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Planning Board 10 (7/21/22) � 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-2022 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_2022-07-21_Approved-Planning-Board-Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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