https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/10cf01894d2773cb8f84594dd2c97a0c.pdf 7debc43214c84c7517b4518a540ee786 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board Minutes December 19, 2024 Chairperson Krakauer called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Chairperson Krakauer stated that SDC Lighthouse Landing Realty, LLC has requested an adjournment. Since the public hearing was noticed, the Board will hear public comments. Chairperson Krakauer stated that Lighthouse Landing Communitiees, LLC, for the Edge-onHudson Riverfront Development, Phase III Waterfront Open Space, has requested an adjournment. A work session to discuss the application is scheduled for Thursday, January 9, 2024. Present: Lindsay Krakauer, Chairperson Ken Anderson Benjamin Nielsen Rachelle Gebler Also Present: Joshua B. Subin, Village Attorney David Smith, Village Planner James Natarelli, Village Engineer Sean E. McCarthy, Building Inspector Absent: Chris Camia Richard Gross Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Planning Board Agenda: 1) SDC Lighthouse Landing Realty, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Block A Proposed medical office building, Site Plan and Architectural Review ApprovalPublic hearing, Pending ZBA Approval- requested adjournment 2) KWD Realty, LLC, 309-315 North Broadway, Proposed mixed-use building, Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval- Presentation 3) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase III- Waterfront Open Space, Site Plan & Wetlands Watercourse Permit ApprovalDiscussion 4) 16 Hudson Street Realty, 16 Hudson Street, Proposed parking area, Site Plan ApprovalPreliminary Presentation 5) Cortlandt Development, LLC, 377 North Broadway, Proposed deli/market, Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval- Preliminary Presentation 6) Approval of minutes, November 21, 2024 1 (12/19/24) �1. SDC Lighthouse Landing Realty, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development Block A Proposed medical office building, Site Plan & Architectural Review- Public Hearing, pending ZBA approval- requested adjournment. The Board received an adjournment request from the applicant’s attorney on December 17, 2024, to adjourn the public hearing to the January 16, 2025 meeting. Benjamin Nielsen moved to open the public hearing. Moved: Nielsen Seconded: Gebler Vote 4-0 Chairperson Krakauer solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. Benjamin Nielsen moved to continue the public hearing to the January 16, 2025, meeting. Moved: Nielsen Seconded: Gebler Vote 4-0 Chairperson Krakauer stated that the Board received and reviewed written comments. (See Exhibit #s 1-6) 2. KWD Realty, LLC, 309-315 North Broadway, Proposed mixed-use building, Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval -Presentation Mark Constantine stated that he is an attorney representing the Applicant. Mr. Constantine stated that the proposed 100,000-square-foot self-storage facility in the C-1 zoning district would supplement and complement the ongoing high-density residential development in the Village. Mr. Constantine stated that the applicant had made changes to address concerns from the Planning Board. Mr. Constantine stated that the current proposal requires variances. Although the variance approvals are in the hands of the Zoning Board of Appeals, the applicant would like to proceed with the understanding that the Planning Board is in favor of the use, concept, and approach, and to the extent that the law tasks him in satisfying the requirements for the required variances. He requested to proceed to the Zoning Board to make the presentation. The applicant wants to satisfy the Planning Board regarding the benefit, viability, and overall enhancement the self-storage facility would provide to the Village without impacting municipal services. Benjamin Nielsen stated it is not the Board's purview to evaluate a permitted Zoning Code use of the property or the economic viability of the proposed project. The Board evaluates how the requested variances would impact the project's planning and architectural review components related to site plan development, stormwater, and traffic. The variances required for lot coverage and building height affect the architectural look of the building. The Board evaluates if the proposed building for excessive dissimilarity to adjacent properties. Mr. Constantine stated that the size of the building would have a significant impact on economic viability. 2 (12/19/24) �Bruno Pietrosanti is the architect representing the owner, Mr. Karl Dibble. He stated that the comments received from the Village Architect related to vehicle maneuverability, loading area, and landscaping will be adjusted during the site plan and engineering review. Changes were made to improve the view of the building along the streetscape, including a tower element and brick and precast façade materials. The proposed building mass is similar to the three and fourstory structures along Beekman Avenue and would not be noticeable from the street level due to the property elevations. Mr. Pietrosanti requested that the Board refer the current application and concept plan to the Zoning Board of Appeals. There was a discussion regarding the areas of the building that require a height variance. Chairperson Krakauer stated that no changes were made to the proposed height and massing. Outstanding items related to vehicular maneuverability, loading dock, stormwater, landscaping, signage, and curb cuts still need to be submitted. Mr. Pietrosanti described the design and intentions for the loading spaces. Mr. Nielsen said the original application proposed a mixed-use building that didn't request additional lot coverage. Mr. Pietrosanti said that eliminating the drive-thru café reduced the required parking calculations but created a need for more self-storage space to offset the desired income. Mr. Constantine stated that although including the food element would reduce the building FAR, the applicant would need more space for queuing vehicles, which may create a traffic burden. Adding the design elements and features results in higher building costs that will not contribute to a return on investment for a service where people look for a safe, efficient, and economical way to store goods. The proposed square footage is required to cover the development and construction costs. The applicant needs to determine the building height and coverage approvals to return to the Planning Board and address the outstanding items accordingly. Joshua Subin stated there is a recommendation process from the Planning Board, but the applicant may insist on going before the Zoning Board without it. The application would still need to return to the Planning Board to review the architectural review component. Sleepy Hollow is unique in that if the plans are determined before you go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, the applicant will not have to worry about it coming back to the Planning Board. Mr. Constantine stated that the Planning Board has stated that the Zoning Board grants requested variances, yet the Board’s two main concerns relate to the proposed building height and massing. Mr. Constantine requested a referral to the Zoning Board, as it is the law that while the items are being discussed with the Planning Board, the decision to grant the variances is up to the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board of Appeals may have valuable input. Regardless of the Zoning Board's decision, they will return to the Planning Board to discuss the outstanding concerns. He asked if the process requires the application to be at a point where the Planning Board says they would approve the project and then go to the Zoning Board. 3 (12/19/24) �Mr. Subin stated that the Planning Board focuses on excessive dissimilarity because it has an ARB component that overlaps with what the Zoning Board would consider. Chairperson Krakauer stated that the Board commonly requests items for other project reviews, including how proposed lot coverage compares with neighboring residences and commercial facilities, streetscape views, and renderings from all sides of the structure to provide a perspective on how the building would fit in the neighborhood's character. Ms. Krakauer suggested that the applicant consider reducing the building height and massing to better fit in the neighborhood. Mr. Nielsen requested that the applicant provide the heights of the adjacent buildings, including the Open Door building. He suggested considering architectural choices to reduce the scale of the building's massing. No action was taken. 3. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase III-Waterfront Open Space- Site Plan & Wetlands Watercourse Permit Approval- Discussion, requested adjournment The Board received a request to adjourn the application to the next scheduled Work Session. 4. 16 Hudson Street Realty, 16 Hudson Street, Proposed parking area, Site Plan Approval – Preliminary Presentation Sam Vieira stated that he is the Project Architect representing the owner, Aniello Ricchiuti. It was determined that Mr. Ricchiuti owns a small piece of land that the previous owner purchased from the Village of Sleepy Hollow, which was never included in the property survey. A Stop Work Order was issued for work started to extend the parking areas without the required permit approvals. Mr. Vieira presented the site plan, stated that they propose constructing a retaining wall, and paved parking area to store customer's cars waiting for service. Although the plan delineates three parking spaces, they should not be reviewed for required space size and maneuverability. Landscaping screening is proposed to screen the parking area from the neighboring house, along Hudson Street, and along the property line bordering the Village of Tarrytown. The height of the retaining wall is proposed to be 5 feet at the highest point. He will submit the requested railing details and ensure proper clearance at the existing fire hydrant. Mr. Vieira requested the Board’s approval to use a 6-foot high commercial chain link fence and gate with opaque barrier inserts to handle the repetitive business uses. Mr. Vieira asked the Board to reconsider the request to extend the sidewalk to the curb cut due to the obstacles of the existing utility pole, stabilizing wires, and street signage. Although the owner has retained Hudson Engineering to provide the stormwater management calculations, he asked the Board if they require the full engineered drawings to take action or if it could be a condition of the approval. Chairperson Krakauer asked James Natarelli what he requires to review stormwater retention. James Natarelli stated that the architect is asking if the Board is comfortable with the engineer designing the stormwater calculations based on the plan presented. 4 (12/19/24) �Chairperson Krakauer solicited comments from the Board. Benjamin Nielsen asked Mr. Natarelli if the applicant should complete a percolation test. Mr. Natarelli stated that previous applications on Hudson Street have illustrated that infiltration would not be an issue and that he does not see an issue with getting the engineer involved now. Ken Anderson asked if a sidewalk extension would affect the impervious surface calculations. Mr. Vieira stated that the sidewalk extension won't impact impervious surfaces because it is on Village property. Mr. Natarelli stated that sidewalks are pitched toward the street, and runoff is not collected. Mr. Nielsen stated that the landscaping should include Westchester County native species, suggested including larger trees on the southern strip, and asked Mr. Vieria if the retaining wall elevations have been studied for sidewalk compatibility. There should be more appealing options than a chain-link fence. Mr. McCarthy stated that the material used for an enclosure on Dell Street has proved to hold up well. Mr. Veira stated that the retaining wall is well within the property lines, and the return is being eliminated. All landscaping is proposed on the 16 Hudson Street property. The entrance is located at the southern property line, and larger trees would be an obstruction. Residential fencing material may not hold up to commercial use. Mr. Veira stated that they would review the options for using synthetic decking materials for the fence and gate. The Board agreed that the concept plan was acceptable and that the engineer should prepare the civil drawings. Rachelle Gebler moved to schedule the public hearing for the January 16, 2024 meeting. Moved: Gebler Seconded: Nielsen Vote 4-0 Chairperson Krakauer Rachelle Gebler Benjamin Nielsen Ken Anderson Vote 4-0 5. Cortlandt Development LLC, 377 North Broadway, Proposed deli/market, Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval- Preliminary Presentation 5 (12/19/24) �Jonathan Merheb stated that he is an engineer from JMER Engineering P.C. representing the property owner. The lot is located on the corner of Pocantico Street and North Broadway, containing a Sunoco gas station and a mechanic shop. The application proposes to convert the building into a deli market/ convenience store. The existing gas station will remain operational with no proposed changes. The application proposes to reorganize and delineate the parking spaces, include a handicap parking space on the Pocantico Street side and relocate and enclose the dumpster area to the rear of the building. Other improvements include raising the sidewalk area in front of the garage bays and replacing the gravel transition to asphalt. Mr. Merheb presented the site plans and renderings. The owner plans to maintain and restore the buildings’ brick and stone façades, replace the garage bays with glass doors and storefront windows, and install a 3-foot-in-diameter sign on the roof over the middle bay. Although the interior layout is not finalized, a kitchen, seating area, and shelving displays are proposed. Chairperson Krakauer asked Mr. Merheb to describe the proposed rear parking lot lighting and if there would be vehicular maneuverability issues with the spot proposed directly behind the building. Mr. Merheb stated that since they are proposing ten parking spaces, where eight are required, they could remove a parking space if it poses a maneuverability issue. He will complete a lighting plan based on requirements for building-mounted fixtures. They want to avoid excavation for bringing conduits to poles. Chairperson Krakauer stated that the Board is concerned about the downspouts discharging where pedestrians would be walking. Mr. Merheb stated that he is discussing the need for adding dry wells in the rear of the building with James Natarelli. Chairperson Krakauer asked Mr. Merheb to describe if a landscaping plan is proposed. Mr. Merheb stated that there is no room to add landscaping. Chairperson Krakauer suggested using movable flowerpots to screen the seating area in front of the building, eliminating a curb cut on Pocantico Street, and adding low shrubbery along the front of the sidewalk. David Smith said he would provide Mr. Merheb with the native planting suggestions. Benjamin Nielsen suggested a decorative screen wall instead of bollards if there is no room for a planter. He asked if moving back the parking spaces along the northeast corner would allow room to create a landscape strip along the property line of the adjacent house. This would also assist in reducing the impervious surface and stormwater challenges. Mr. Natarelli agreed that since the main stormwater concern is the downspout discharging for pedestrian safety, he agrees that pulling the parking spaces back would increase the buffer between the rear parking spots and the property line. 6 (12/19/24) �Mr. Nielsen asked Mr. Merheb to consider alternative fence options for the garage enclosure instead of chain link fencing and asked how the garbage truck would enter the site. Mr. Merheb stated that the garbage enclosure and fencing would not be visible. Chairperson Krakauer stated that the garbage truck would not enter the site and suggested Mr. Merheb consult with the owner regarding the approach for bringing garbage to the curb. Mr. Merheb stated that he would reconsider the size of the dumpster and discuss the enclosure options with the owner. Sean McCarthy asked Mr. Merheb to describe where the kitchen exhaust is proposed. Mr. Merheb stated that the kitchen exhaust location has not been finalized. Mr. Nielsen suggested adding a bike rack on site. Ken Anderson moved to schedule the public hearing for the January 16, 2024, meeting. Moved: Anderson Seconded: Gebler Vote 4-0 Chairperson Krakauer Rachelle Gebler Benjamin Nielsen Ken Anderson Vote 4-0 6. Approval of minutes, November 21, 2024 Chairperson Krakauer tabled the November 21, 2024, minutes to the January 16, 2024, meeting. Benjamin Nielsen moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:42 PM. Moved: Nielsen Seconded: Gebler Vote 4-0 Respectfully submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Planning Board 7 (12/19/24) �From: Benjie Sirota <beonjie@gmail.com> To: Subject: Sean McCarthy Medical Office Building Exhibit #1 Hi SeanI am writing about the medical office. The building height is actually taller at 57'-6 which is a 15' variance and the east facade should match the other facades with brick as it faces the whole village. Circulation doesn't look totally figured out and it's going to be a mess trying to get into and out of the parking area. They can easily have an entry/exit onto the road from the parking garage. There are also many parking spaces that are shown at 8'-6" in the parking lot. Why is the parking garage in the back? Is it municipal parking? Will the lot be open to anyone and will it cost money to park? These questions should be answered before any variance is granted. 1 �Benjamin Sirota Beonjie@gmail.com 2 �Exhibit #2 ���Exhibit #3 Chairman Timothy Church C/O Village of Sleepy Hollow Department of Architecture, Land Use Development, Buildings, and Building Compliance 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Re: Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing December 18, 2024 Dear Mr. Church, We are writing to oppose the granting of height variances for the proposed medical office building and parking garage across the street from our Lofts condo residence at 100 Legend Drive in Sleepy Hollow. We understand a request has been made to increase the maximum building height from 42 to 52 feet, to accommodate a 5-level parking garage and office building structure. We feel strongly that height variances, especially for a parking garage, should not be allowed. We have lived in Sleepy Hollow since 2016, and spent the past 8 years watching the Edge on Hudson property develop from a cement wasteland to a vibrant residential community with a growing number of activities for residents and families. We looked forward to moving into this neighborhood and purchased a Loft unit in late 2023. We expected to buy into a suburban-like residential community with amenities such as a grocery store, restaurants, and offices, but we were not expecting it to include a 5-level parking garage that may not have aesthetics comparable to the rest of our community. As new proposals come forward for plan variances, the focus seems to be moving away from home ownership and residential appeal. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Joseph and Mary Louise Grotzinger �Exhibit #4 Sean McCarthy From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: chrispeulerbs@gmail.com Sean McCarthy Opposition to Height Variance for Medical Office Building Parking Garage - Zoning Board Public Hearing on December 18th/19th 2024 Dear Mr. McCarthy, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed variance to increase the height of the parking garage for the medical office building from 3 levels (42 feet) to 5 levels (58 feet including the mechanical penthouse). This increase would have a significant negative impact on Loft 2 residents, particularly those with southeast-facing units, as it would obstruct views of the Beekman streetscape and reduce the overall aesthetic harmony of our low-profile residential area. The proposed height would make the parking garage nearly as tall as Northlight or the DeCicco tower, which seems incompatible with the surrounding structures and detrimental to our community. While I understand the need for a parking structure, I strongly believe that a 3-level garage is a more appropriate solution, preserving the character of the area and minimizing the adverse effects on residents. I urge you and the Zoning Board to carefully consider the impact of this variance and to deny the request for a 5-level garage. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Christopher Peuler Resident, Loft 2 unit 204 1 �Exhibit #5 Sean McCarthy From: Xin Dai <daixin1225@gmail.com> To: Subject: Sean McCarthy Opposition to Medical Building’s Proposal Dear Mr. McCarthy, I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed variance to increase the height of the parking garage for the medical office building from 3 levels (42 feet) to 5 levels (58 feet, including the mechanical penthouse). As a resident of Loft Building 2, which faces both Decicco’s parking lot and the proposed medical building, we have significant concerns regarding the impact this change may have on our home and community. While we understand the need for additional parking spaces, we believe the height increase will negatively affect both the aesthetics of our views and the overall visual character of the surrounding area. Furthermore, we are particularly concerned about our privacy, as our bedroom is located on the 4th floor of our building. The proposed height increase could result in a direct line of sight into our living space, compromising our sense of privacy. We respectfully request that you consider these concerns as you evaluate the proposed variance. Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Xin Dai Resident, Loft 2 unit 301 1 �Exhibit #6 Sean McCarthy From: Kenneth Chan <chanken88@gmail.com> To: Subject: Sean McCarthy Concerned Resident Zoning Parking Dear Mr. McCarthy, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed variance to increase the height of the parking garage for the medical office building from 3 levels (42 feet) to 5 levels (58 feet including the mechanical penthouse). This increase would have a significant negative impact on Loft 2 residents, particularly those with southeastfacing units, as it would obstruct views of the Beekman streetscape and reduce the overall aesthetic harmony of our low-profile residential area. The proposed height would make the parking garage nearly as tall as Northlight or the DeCicco tower, which seems incompatible with the surrounding structures and detrimental to our community. While I understand the need for a parking structure, I strongly believe that a 3-level garage is a more appropriate solution, preserving the character of the area and minimizing the adverse effects on residents. I urge you and the Zoning Board to carefully consider the impact of this variance and to deny the request for a 5-level garage. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Happy Holidays ! Sincerely, Kenneth Chan Resident, Loft 2 unit 203 1 � 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-2024 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_2024-12-19 Approved Planning Board Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2024 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 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