https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/c6088010b8717cf0aca91f936d9fa580.pdf be5d16b556eab5e8ab75ea8df73c2589 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board Minutes November 17, 2022 The regular meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairperson Hsu. Chairperson Hsu stated that there is a quorum present. Chairperson Hsu introduced Benjamin Nielsen as a new Planning Board member and stated that he is a civil engineer for a consulting firm that focuses on making water accessible to people for recreation. Chairperson Hsu stated that she has submitted her resignation and that this will be her last meeting. Chairperson Hsu summarized the agenda. Present: Marjorie Hsu, Chairperson Kersten Harries Benjamin Nielsen Matthew Brennan Rachelle Gebler 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: Lindsay Krakauer Erin Carney Agenda: 1) LL Parcel E, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 201 Horseman Boulevard, (Building E-3), Utility enclosure- Amended Site Plan Approval-Draft resolution 2) Francesco Alesci, 135 Beekman Avenue, Proposed multi-family building, Site plan approval- Continued public hearing 3) 46 Hudson St., LLC/Alex Tseng, 46 Hudson Street, Proposed three-family residence, Site Plan approval - Referred to ZBA 4) Gabe Realty Corp., 305 North Washington Street, Proposed three-family residence, Site Plan approval - Requested adjournment 5) Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Amended Site Plan Approval-Requested adjournment 6) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase II Waterfront Open Space, Site Plan & Wetlands Watercourse Permit- Preliminary Presentation 7) Approval of minutes, October 20, 2022 1 (11/17/22) �1. LL Parcel E, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 201 Horseman Boulevard (Building E-3), Utility enclosure, Amended Site Plan approval- Draft resolution Mark Gratz stated that he is a Project Engineer for DTS Provident Engineering representing the applicant. The application proposes to install a second gas enclosure for Building E-3. The revised drawings address the comments from the Board including the reorientation of the gas enclosure and the addition of a floor drain. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the Board. There were no comments from the Board. Chairperson Hsu requested that David Smith read the highlights of the draft resolution. David Smith stated that the Village staff and the applicant have reviewed the draft resolution. Mr. Smith read the resolve clauses of the draft resolution. Motion was made to adopt the resolution. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Harries Chairperson Hsu - yes Kersten Harries - yes Benjamin Nielsen - yes Rachelle Gebler- yes Matthew Brennan- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 2. Franceso Alesci, 135 Beekman Avenue, Proposed multi-family building, Site Plan approval-Continued public hearing Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Gebler Vote 5-0 Maximillian Mahalek stated that he is an attorney with Cuddy + Feder LLP representing the applicant. Mr. Mahelek summarized the proposed application and stated that due to the recently adopted Zoning Code regulations, the appeal submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals was withdrawn. Minor changes have been made to the proposed application in order to comply with the new Zoning Code. Mr. Mahalek stated that the proposed application would not cause an adverse environmental impact on the neighborhood as it relates to Zoning Compliance, the amount of parking provided, and the provisions of landscaping and usable open space. The proposed architecture reflects the nature of some of the surrounding structures. The stormwater plans comply with the requirements for stormwater management. Mr. Mahalek requested that the Board close the public hearing and grant Site Plan approval. 2 (11/17/22) �Christopher Barbagli is the architect representing the applicant. Mr. Barbagli stated the proposed changes include increasing the length of the building by 16 feet in order to add the fitness center back into the first floor. The fitness center will include changing rooms, bathrooms, and a refreshment center. Two one-bedroom apartments were relocated to the second floor and third floors. The rear and east elevations were revised to accommodate the new unit layouts, three outside parking spaces were moved to under the building, and the trash enclosure was moved to allow for an additional parking space. There are no changes proposed to the roof or the front elevation. Mr. Barbagli presented revised renderings to show the longer building viewed from the street and how the proposed building will look in relation the size of the property. Mr. Mahalek solicited questions from the Board. Chairperson Hsu asked if the increased building length would affect the proposed outdoor amenities. Mr. Barbagli stated that the outdoor space would not change as it is in the back of the property. David Smith asked Mr. Barbagli to demonstrate where the commercial district is located in relation to the property. Mr. Barbagli demonstrated on the aerial view rendering where the commercial and residential districts are located in relation to the property and the proposed building. Kersten Harries asked Mr. Barbagli if the proposed building length increase is now adjacent to the residential district neighboring properties. Ms. Harries stated that the previous site plan proposed the building to be entirely in the commercial district. Mr. Barbagli stated that the proposed building would extend 10 feet into the residential district. Rachelle Gebler asked Sean McCarthy if moving the building 10 feet adjacent to the residential district effects the required rear yard setback. Sean McCarthy stated that the adjoining residential district does not affect the rear yard setback on the applicant’s property. Although it reduces the proposed setback, they still meet the setback requirements. Sean McCarthy asked Mr. Barbagli how the increased building size effects the proposed floor area coverage. Mr. Barbagli stated that the permitted floor area ratio is 1.4 floor and the proposed building has a floor area ratio of .85 to .95. Kersten Harries requested the architect submit the revised renderings to the Board. Sean McCarthy asked Mr. Barbagli if alterations to the existing driveway are required and how it will affect the street parking. 3 (11/17/22) �Mr. Barbagli stated that the larger curb cut would eliminate (1) street parking space. Mr. McCarthy suggested that Mr. Barbagli provide a compact parking space. Mr. Barbagli stated that he would check to see if providing a compact parking space is possible. Ms. Harries requested that Mr. Barbagli be sensitive to the lighting levels on the eastern side as per the concerns received from neighboring property owners. Ben Nielsen asked Mr. Barbagli to explain how the diagonal parking spaces will be utilized and asked if there are garage doors for the under building parking. Mr. Barbagli demonstrated on the site plan how the parking turning radius work and stated that the parking area under the building is open. Chairperson Hsu stated that there has been extensive discussions on the parking layout and the traffic flow, including the accessible spots. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. James Natarelli stated that there is a difference between the architect’s site plan and the engineer’s site plan as it relates to the connection from the front patio to the sidewalk. Mr. Natarelli asked Mr. Barbagli to confirm if a secondary set of stairs is proposed. Mr. Barbagli stated that he would review with the engineer and confirm if the set of stairs are required. James Natarelli asked if the building’s front balconies are open and not proposed to have a roof, and if they are installing scuppers to capture the runoff and to avoid water going onto the sidewalk. Mr. Barbagli stated that the front balconies will be open and that they propose to have scuppers and leaders to capture the runoff. Kersten Harries asked how far the adjacent neighboring buildings are from the proposed building. Ms. Harries suggested that the proposed building be aligned or behind the neighboring buildings and not projecting in front of them. Ben Nielsen asked Mr. Barbagli to explain why the windows are different on the east elevation side. Mr. Barbagli stated that he designed the windows for circulation because the east elevation contains two staircases, the elevator, and the trash room. Ms. Harries suggested that the applicant consider providing three-bedroom apartments, and stated that although it may affect the unit count, there is a great demand for them. 4 (11/17/22) �Chairperson Hsu asked Mr. Barbagli if the applicant has considered the rental pricing for the apartment units. Mr. Mahalek stated that pricing of rental apartments is not the purview of the Planning Board. Chairperson Hsu stated that the Board previously discussed rental pricing with the applicant. David Smith stated that the applicant had committed to having three of the apartments with comparable rental prices to the three existing units. Mr. Mahalek stated that the comments could be included as conditions of the approval or be part of the consideration with the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Mahalek requested that the Board close the public hearing so they can focus on the getting the plans ready for Site Plan approval. Chairperson Hsu stated that the application proposes a significant development on lower Beekman Avenue, which is a prominent street in the Village. Since there has been such a large gap in time since the public was involved, the Board suggests keeping the public hearing open one more month so that members of the public have the opportunity to comment on the changes to the application. Kersten Harries agreed that the proposed changes are significant enough where the Board needs time to review them and that the public should have an opportunity to comment. Mr. Mahalek asked if the applicant is required to re-notice the public hearing. Chairperson Hsu stated that the Board is not requiring the applicant to re-notice the public hearing. Sean McCarthy asked Mr. Mahalek if the applicant would be ready for Architectural Review Board review because the Board would prefer to grant one approval. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the December 22, 2022 meeting. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Gebler Vote 5-0 3. 46 Hudson St., LLC, 46 Hudson Street, Proposed three-family residence, Site Plan Approval – Referred to the ZBA Chairperson Hsu stated that the Board referred the application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The applicant will be appearing at the December 22, 2022 meeting for a public hearing pending approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals on December 21, 2022. No action was taken. 4. Gabe Realty Corp., 305 North Washington Street, Proposed three-family residence, Site Plan Approval - Requested adjournment 5 (11/17/22) �Chairperson Hsu stated that the applicant has requested an adjournment to the December 22, 2022 meeting. No action was taken. 5. Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Amended Site Plan Approval- Preliminary Presentation- Requested adjournment Chairperson Hsu stated that the applicant has requested an adjournment to the December 22, 2022 meeting. No action was taken. 6. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development Phase II - Waterfront Open Space, Site Plan & Wetlands Watercourse Permit ApprovalPreliminary presentation Andrew Tung is an associate with DTS Provident Engineering representing the applicant. Mr. Tung stated that when they presented Phase I of the Waterfront Open Space in 2020, there was a master plan for the entire space that wraps around the site. The waterfront open space consists of three components, which include the Promenade, the Overlook, and Palisades Green. As part of Phase I, the Promenade and the Overlook were constructed and recently opened. Phase II includes Palisades Green as well as its extension eastward into the third section of Tappan Zee Park, and the eastern border in the space between Hollows Pass and the Kingsland Point Park buffer. Lanie McKinnon is a landscape architect from Nelson Byrd Woltz Landscape Architects representing the applicant. Ms. McKinnon presented the proposed site plan and stated that within the Palisades Green, there are separate components of the Phase II waterfront open space. The Lighthouse Terrace will be a gathering space that will have a continuous view to the lighthouse through the development. The Palisades Green will be a big open recreational lawn that allows for picnics. The proposed Cove will provide access for waterfront kayak use. The eastern part of Tappan Zee Park will contain a more calm lawn space and more robust plantings since it will be in between housing. Phase II also proposes three circles with historical references. The Woodland Circle and the Meadows Circle designs propose ideas of nature play and exploration. The Lawn Circle provides views of the waterfront. Ms. McKinnon presented renderings and described the natural materials, paths, art, and landscaping proposed for the circle areas. Ms. McKinnon stated that an interactive fountain is intended as part of the Boathouse Interpretive Center future phase of the Waterfront. They propose to use the same benches and lighting installed in Phase I to provide easier maintenance methods. Rachelle Gebler asked if this plan includes the plan for the Interpretive Center or just the landscaping. Ms. McKinnon stated that they have not designed the Boathouse. The design will be a part of the Block Q performance. They discussed and sited the location of the Boathouse with the Public Space Council in order to make sure that the views in the park stay open. 6 (11/17/22) �Chairperson Hsu asked if the Public Space Council is still doing requirements gathering for the functions of the Boat House Interpretive Center. Peter Chavkin is a Managing Member of Biddle Real Estate Ventures on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Chavkin stated that they have had discussions with the Public Space Council on what the functions of the Boathouse Interpretive Center will be and the he does not think they have reached a final determination. Mr. Chavkin stated that they are seeking to accelerate the development and construction of the Waterfront Open Space. They are holding off on the center because of limited resources but acknowledged that the Boathouse Interpretive Center is a commitment and a requirement of the Special Permit. Kersten Harries asked Mr. Chavkin to confirm the projected timeframe for Phase II. Mr. Chavkin stated that certain aspects would start immediately as the Kingsland Point Park buffer is a requirement for Certificates of Occupancy in Block O&P. The third section of Tappan Zee Park is a requirement for Certificates of Occupancy in the Block O&P building that fronts the space. Mr. Chavkin stated that they have applied for grant funding from Empire State Development in order to accelerate the other part of the waterfront open space. They plan to start construction next year. Rachelle Gebler asked Ms. McKinnon to explain where the access path is from the circle to Kingsland Point Park. Ms. McKinnan located the path at the roundabout on the Site Plan. Peter Chavkin stated that the path is designed as an emergency access connection requirement coming off the roundabout heading into Kingsland Point Park. The access path would remain closed with a fence going into the Park and that the intention will be for emergency services. The Public Space Council stated that their important design objective was to have one means of pedestrian access at the existing entrance of Kingsland Point Park. If the Board wants this path to be accessible for a pedestrian connection, they will do so. Rachelle Gebler stated that it would be very useful to be able to get from that side of the development into Kingsland Point Park. David Smith stated that there seems to be a disconnect from some of what the Public Space Council has provided for guidance and the official policy documents that the Village has because it clearly shows on the Riverfront Development Concept Plan that there will be a pedestrian walkway to the Park from the roundabout. There are similar issues documented in his memo that will need ironing out with the Board. Benjamin Nielsen stated the Kingsland Point Park site and the Waterfront are not well connected. Mr. Neilson asked if the primary focus of the Kingsland buffer area is stormwater retention treatment. Peter Chavkin stated that the topography of the buffer area has to be kept low for FEMA flood level requirements in order to handle potential floodwaters from the Pocantico River over topping the train tracks and that the meadow area had to be kept low. Their original vision was to 7 (11/17/22) �build the meadow area up and to provide more of a seamless connection between the open space and Kingsland Point Park. Mr. Nielsen suggested providing more of a looping access through the Cove around Kingsland Point Park, and suggested a boardwalk style pathway through the park. Ms. McKinnon stated that they designed the pathways at grade to avoid washing out from water flow. Peter Chavkin stated that they have design restraints because Westchester County owns Kingsland Point Park and the Village of Sleepy Hollow manages it. Mr. Chavkin stated that they are open to working with the County to help with enhanced connections. Chairperson Hsu suggested that Ben review the drawings for the Sleepy Hollow Commons and stated that they show more context for the reasons why they designed the plans for the Wetlands. David Smith stated that as part of the Boat House Interpretive Center, there was a plan for a transient boat dock. Mr. Smith asked Peter Chavkin if the transient boat dock will be included in the future proposal, or if it will not be a part of the overall proposal. Peter Chavkin stated that the transient boat dock in the North Cove is not part of their overall plan. The dock on the southern face and the fishing pier elements are a part of the plan. While they were working with the Public Space Council one of the key direction points was the location of the Boat House. Peter stated that in the Riverfront Design Concept Plan, the consultants focused on siting the location of the Boathouse and preserving the views. When they finalized the location, it was most important to create a pathway to provide access to the water for activities. When they submitted their original application, they had proposed to expand the Cove beach area, but it was rejected by various regulatory agencies. David Smith stated that the walk-in access from the water to the Boat House and the transient boat dock launch element is a critical piece of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program for providing waterfront access for independent uses. Not allowing the public additional access to the waterfront is a deficiency in the plan. Peter Chavkin stated that he would review the history of the Village documents. Peter Chavkin stated that they have their approval for the Phase I docks but that they missed the window for this year to start construction and that they will have to wait until September 1st through October 31st of next year. Ben Nielsen asked Peter Chavkin if the Boathouse use would include the availability to rent slips and or have rentals and deliveries of kayaks and paddleboards. Mr. Chavkin stated that the Village decides how to design and maintain the use of the Boathouse Interpretive Center. 8 (11/17/22) �Ben Nielsen suggested that the applicant design the Kingsland Point Park access path to accommodate the public, provide a better connection between the road and the access path, and provide some sort of pull off lawn space so that visitors can unload recreational equipment and then park their cars on the road. Kersten Harries asked Ms. McKinnon to confirm that parking is only available on the street and asked how the proposed natural play areas compare in scale to others created. Ms. McKinnon stated that there will be 3,500 square feet inside the play circles. Chairperson Hsu stated that it took two years to build the Phase I waterfront open space and asked for the projection for Phase II. Ms. McKinnon stated that it would take two planting seasons to complete. Ben Nielsen suggested that the applicant provide more access to the water’s edge. Mr. Nielsen suggested that terraced boulders would provide the ability to get down closer to the water and the ability for someone to get out of the water safely in an emergency. Peter Chavkin stated that a study was completed and that they were required to repair the rip-rap in certain locations. The evaluation of other barriers methods has not been a consideration. David Smith stated that the rip-rap discussions related to safety concerns and building code issues in Phase I. The considerations that were included in the design for Ichabod’s Landing did not come out as intended and that a barrier was necessary. Mr. Smith stated that he agrees with Ben Nielsen and that there needs to be more of a discussion on the relationship with the site, the rip-rap and the Hudson River. Andrew Tung stated that they would review the Board’s comments and prepare a revised submission for presentation at a future meeting. No action was taken. 7. Approval of minutes- October 20, 2022 Motion was made to approve the October 20, 2022 minutes. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Harries Chairperson Hsu - yes Kersten Harries - yes Rachelle Gebler - yes Matthew Brennan- yes Benjamin Nielsen - abstained Vote 4-0-1 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 PM. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Gebler 9 Vote 5-0 (11/17/22) �Respectfully submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Planning Board 10 (11/17/22) � 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 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_2022-11-17_Approved 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