https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/4ff6778a02f098129ab735bff6166738.pdf 607c11a2243841df3bf6bae355029709 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Board of Trustees March 29, 2005 Work Session In attendance: Mayor Philip E. Zegarelli Trustee Mario DiFelice Trustee Tom Capossela Trustee Kay Brown Grala Trustee Richard Spota Trustee Richard Zieja Joel Sachs, Esq., Special Counsel David Smith, Planning Consultant Dwight Douglas, Village Administrator Absent: Trustee Andrew Murray At 7:30 p.m., Mayor Zegarelli opened the Work Session with an announcement for cable television regarding conserving water for the March 30th shut down of the Catskill Aqueduct from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The Board then went on to discuss the draft review report regarding commenting on the DEIS for Lighthouse Landing. Dave Smith highlighted key components among the 73 issues raised. At 8:25 p.m., Mayor Zegarelli called the Board of Trustees into Special Session to deal with one attached item. This resolution was duly adopted as shown. Special Counsel Joel Sachs noted that in addition to the Village Board of Trustees comments, other consultants working directly for the Village will be directly providing comments to the applicant by the April 4, 2005 deadline. On the motion of Trustee DiFelice, seconded by Trustee Spota, the special meeting was dosed at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, <&~4»Dwight H. Douglas �Meeting Date: Resolution #: 03/29/05 3/46/05 RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS ON THE LIGHTHOUSE LANDING AT SLEEPY HOLLOW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WHEREAS, on January 11,2005, the Mayor and Board of Trustees (the Village Board) did accept as complete a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Lighthouse Landing at Sleepy Hollow Riverfront Development Concept Plan and Special Permit prepared on behalf of Roseland/Sleepy Hollow, LLC and General Motors Corporation (jointly the Applicant); and WHEREAS, the Village Board held two public meetings on the DEIS on February 8 and 15, 2005, and two public hearings on the DEIS on February 19 and 22, 2005 and has been receiving and reviewing written comments; and WHEREAS, the Village Board convened six subcommittees composed of no more that three trustees, village staff and consultants that were open to participation by members of the community to study in detail the information and issues presented in the DEIS; and WHEREAS, the subcommittees held a series of several meetings during February and March 2005, each focused on the respective committee's designated impact issues; and WHEREAS, on March 22, 2005, the Village Board representatives from each of the subcommittees reported back to tine full Village Board with preliminary comments on the DEIS; and WHEREAS, after a careful and thorough review of the DEIS document, public comments, and the sub-committee reports the Village Board has compiled a list of substantive comments on the DEIS that must be addressed as part of the environmental review process; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village Board does hereby authorize the Mayor to transmit the attached list of substantive comments to the Applicant together with such clarifications and minor changes as he so deems necessary, and to require that each comment be responded to in the Final Environmental Impact Statement; and be it further RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution and the attached comments be kept on record in the Village Administrator's and Village Clerk's offices. Moved: Trustee Zieja Seconded: Trustee Grala Vote: Unanimous �6a Village of Sleepy Hollow Dwight H. D o u g l a s Philip E. Zegarelli Mayor (914)366-5107 Administrator (914)366-5105 Mario DiFelice Deputy Mayor (914)366-5107 Angela Everett Village Clerk (914)366-5106 TRUSTEES Kay Brown Grala Thomas Capossela Andrew T. Murray Richard J. Spota Richard Zieja (914)366-5107 fiew Vork 1874 More than a Zegend TO: Jonathan Stein, Roseland Property Company FROM: Village of Sleepy Hollow Mayor and Board of Trustees DATE: March 29, 2005 RE: Substantive Review Lighthouse Landing DEIS Robyn G DeCarlo Treasurer (914)366-5144 Robert Ponzini Village Attorney The Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Sleepy Hollow, acting as the Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review laws of the State of New York, do hereby transmit the following substantive comments on the Lighthouse Landing Draft Environmental Impact Statement. On February 22, 2005, the Village Board closed the public hearing on the DEIS. Since that time the various members of the Village Board met as sub-committees on seven separate occasions along with members of the public, Village staff, village consultants and the Applicant and their representatives to discuss specifics topical sections of the DEIS document. On March 22, at a duly noticed work session of the Village Board, the Board members did discuss various aspects of the DEIS relative to additional information that they would like to see provided as part of the Final EIS, and overall comments and concerns with respect to the Proposed Action as outlined in the DEIS document. Based upon all of the public input provided to date, and the Board's own initial assessment of the Proposed Action with mitigation as identified in the DEIS document, it is clear that the proposed development is too dense and will benefit from an overall reduction in the residential density. Provided herein are substantive comments raised during the course of the review period that the Board, after due consideration and deliberation, would like to have addressed as part of the Final EIS document. The Village Board views the DEIS as one more important step towards the eventual redevelopment of the former General Motors site. The DEIS builds upon the other efforts of the Village including the Local Waterfront Redevelopment Program, the underlying RF-Riverfront Development District and the Waterfront Linkage Study. The Village Board thanks the Applicant for its cooperation and participation in this important process. 28 Beekman Avenue • Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 Telephone (914) 366-5100 • Fax (914) 631-5880 www.sleepyhollowny.org �Building Design and Visual Impacts 1. The site layout should respond differently to Kingsland Point Park (KPP). There should be more of a buffer between KPP and the proposed development, including the potential idea of allowing the green space to penetrate somewhat into the development, breaking up the parallel parking, and altering the character of the roadway and landscaping so that it has a more natural feel that responds to the Park and provides a contrast to the formalized boulevards. Any additional buffer provided should be set aside and plantings or other suitable screening installed as part of the initial stages of site development so as to better protect the park from the effects of site development. 2. The Village Board is generally satisfied with the design concept and treatment for Beekman Place, although the Applicant will need to identify how loading and refuse removal would be accommodated. However, the interior residential blocks have not yet received the same level of detail and basically represent potential building templates. Additional analysis regarding scale, massing, and place-making for the multifamily residential buildings is necessary, including the precedent examples of multi-family development (e.g., Bronxville, Scarsdale and Forest Hill Gardens were cited as examples). The Applicant is encouraged to work with Village staff and their consultants in preparing an alternate neighborhood design concept(s). This would include such issues as roadway design, facade treatments, use of materials and relationship to landscape treatments and open space. 3. The Village Board is particularly concerned about the uniform four-story bulk throughout the site. The project should be designed to include much more variety in building height, something that is allowed for in the RF District regulations and is in keeping with the Village character which contains many varied building heights from two to five stories. For instance, the area along the railroad tracks has zoning limitations that need to be reconsidered given the lack of development activity along the East Parcel. In some instances, such as the area abutting Ichabod's Landing, there needs to be a different scale of development (see also comments raised by the Planning Board), the selected use of five stories and other signature vertical elements needs to be evaluated. 4. It will be vitally important for the interior residential buildings to exhibit variety. Additional discussion or visuals of how this effect will be achieved are necessary. The Village Board also notes that there may be the potential for different architects to execute the different blocks. This could be a method to produce the minor variations that will create a place that feels "real". The use of unifying elements throughout the development such as building materials consisting of wood, stone and brick would be consistent with the "old Hudson River Village" theme identified in the LWRP and RF District, and subsequently illustrated in the Waterfront Linkage Study. The Applicant has indicated �that they intend to use EIFS as a building material. Comments raised during design subcommittee meetings indicated the inappropriateness of this material in certain instances and its potential inability to hold up over time. The Village needs to require that the Applicant be very specific about the use of this material, if at all, as part of the design palette. The consensus of the Village Board was that design concept relative to the "spirit of an old Hudson River waterfront community" does not necessarily preclude the use of more modern features. While the residential area should generally have a historic style, the Village Board feels that it is important that some contemporary elements be introduced in the residential blocks to provide emphasis or visual interest. Hudson River communities developed over time and it is not necessarily out of character to have these different elements. There is a small cove below Kingsland Point Park. The possibility for adding some water-related use in this area should be further explored, including a possible boathouse for hand launching. Precedent examples of boathouses need to be provided for further evaluation. The application of the RF zoning district height regulation results in a situation where buildings with lower heights are located nearer the railroad tracks. We understand that this provision was created to allow for views from development on the east side of the tracks. Now that circumstances have changed (i.e., no development proposed on the east side) it seems that having shorter buildings near the tracks does not make as much sense. The Village, along with the Applicant, needs to reconsider the appropriateness of the height regulations for this part of the site. The buildings along the tracks could be of a different configuration /use such that they could be used for business incubator type uses, live/work lofts and the like. This would introduce the potential for opportunities for increased employment and tax generation. Any residential use proposed along the railroad tracks needs to have a landscaped buffer. In the event that the proposed senior housing is moved away from the currently proposed location along the tracks, other potential locations need to be identified, such as the South Parcel. During the course of the discussions, it was generally recognized that the hotel offers an opportunity to create a "jewel" for the site and the Village; the design concept for this building should be fleshed out in greater detail; the architectural treatment of the facade facing the Hudson River is of particular importance. We recommend the Applicant review historic hotel precedents from the region to identify elements that could create a distinctive architecture for this building. There have been some general concerns regarding hotel related uses such as conference space and events. Given that the RF District allows for valet parking arrangements for hotel uses, the Applicant should �provide some indication of how those types of hotel related functions could be accommodated on site, even if in a limited format. 9. The Applicant should present street designs that introduce a few minor shifts to the grid or flaring that could introduce variation and interest. A narrower roadway pattern could be explored for certain sections of the site, particularly in the areas serving the townhouses. This could be viewed as a consistent design approach for a historic Hudson River village development pattern. 10. A general question was raised as to the appropriate time to install landscaping and street trees; the Applicant needs to outline an installation program relative to other site improvements, including Beekman Place. 11. There should be some comparison relative to the typical size for different units such as apartment vs. condominium. 12. The Applicant has indicated during the sub-committee meeting process that a potential location for a fire/ambulance/police substation could be the lower level of the proposed parking garage just off of Beekman Avenue and adjacent to the proposed train station. The Village should have some general indication of what that would look like, conceptually. Further, the Applicant may want to explore a design concept that would have residential units built along the face of the parking garage, providing a screen to the balance of the parking facility and potentially to capitalize on views given existing elevation. Additionally, the potential for a free standing "civic" building should be considered. Said building would be provide support facilities such as a kitchen and bunkroom and be designed to serve future potential full time/part time paid fire and ambulance personnel. 13. As part of the site development and construction subcommittee, there is an opportunity to replace the existing Beekman Avenue Bridge with a bridge designed to handle heavier loads necessary for site construction purposes. This also presents an opportunity to create a gateway feature as part of the new bridge design. The Applicant needs to provide precedent examples of bridge designs for the Lead Agency's consideration and indicate how the bridge replacement will be factored into the construction-phasing plan. Community Facilities Schools: 14. What happens to the proportionate share of the school tax load between Sleepy Hollow and Tarrytown as a result of the proposed development? The Superintendent indicated that it fluctuates every year depending on changing market conditions. The District's �total tax levy is approximately S35 million. The GM project will potentially result in approximately S6 million in school tax revenue, which is a major portion. This effect will provide some relief for residents, but will also likely increase Sleepy Hollow's value and could affect the municipalities' proportions. The extent of this effect needs to be evaluated. The recent bond referendum passed by the School District included improvements that are expected to be complete by fall 2008. Another proposal will come out over the next couple of years for the other two schools at the primary school level. This will allow the District to get a sense of the magnitude of Lighthouse Landing (i.e., number of units) and take that into account in it's planning. The potential impact of the closure of the Morse School and its reuse needs to be evaluated as it relates to the Beekman Avenue corridor. The Applicant should consider the previous efforts of the Village regarding the reuse of Morse School, including parking and commercial reuse of the building. The Superintendent noted anecdotally, that local trends indicate increased family occupancy of condos, which might not necessarily be included in schoolchild generation figures. There was also a question as to whether there is pricing sensitivity (more expensive units do not produce as many schoolchildren). For example, Wyldwood (recently approved townhouse development in Tanytown School District) has only 5 students. The Applicant noted their own experience with high end, smaller units in Port Imperial and Jersey City has been that the units produce very few kids. The Applicant provided examples of buildings with approximately 300 units and 2-5 kids, generally non-school age. Surveys of these types of units, and developments such as the Tallyrand Crescent community located on the south side of Route 119 in Tarrytown should be included as part of the evaluation of anticipated impacts. The question was raised whether new taxes would provide suitable mitigation, or is other mitigation required? The District indicated that with the improvements it is doing now, the capacity should be sufficient for the interim. In two years, the District can look and see what else they need to do. The District indicated that it felt confident that there will be enough new tax revenues to cover what they are doing now, and what they expect to do in two years. Can Kingsland Point Park provide a second emergency access? Road may need to be upgraded and should be evaluated. What other potential upgrades would be needed to: enhance emergency access by ambulance, fire and police; and, to assist in the evacuation of the site in the event of an emergency. The FEIS should also consider water route for evacuation. Fire Department noted that it is looking for location for docking/storage of �its rescue boat. Fire Department will provide boat specifications to the Applicant so they can try to incorporate. The garage area under the grocery store has a 22' clear height at the lower level. Village would like to move a company down to Lighthouse Landing, plus boat storage and lowprofile vehicle. Department noted that apparatus bays should be sized to accommodate new vehicles. Existing firehouses don't have living quarters and can't accommodate residential volunteers who would potentially live at the firehouse in shifts full-time. The Department feels it would be prudent to consider bunkhouse and meeting room in new firehouse or community service building. There needs to be an evaluation of whether the Village should move a fire company down to the project site, or create a new company and the attendant impacts on Village fire fighting requirements and insurance regulations. To serve the new development effectively, the Village has indicated that it wants to have a full company, specialized equipment and the necessary accessory space for support at the site. The Applicant notes that the potential space identified for a fire substation not be viewed necessarily, as just a garage. It could have a masonry face and be sheetrocked and finished out inside. The Applicant will provide a conceptual floor plate. The Village is requesting an alternative design be included with the FEIS that incorporates a free standing building that would be designed to support the requirements of a new substation. The Applicant noted that garages will be sprinklered and have standpipes. It was further noted that the current design has changed from the original proposal in that the project now has individual garages and bigger floor to ceiling heights. The Applicant claims that in approximately V2 the garages, normal fire equipment will be able to access the specific parking facility. There needs to be an evaluation, based on site plan revisions, as to the necessity for specific pieces of apparatus to serve the site. The Police Chief indicated that the project would require two posts, one to patrol the residential portion and one to patrol the commercial portion. The Chief indicated two posts would be adequate to handle commuters from new train station. However, the Applicant has indicated they would be providing their own security service. Would fulltime security service affect the need for municipal police service? How would a full time security service interface with the Police Department? The Police Department participates in a joint marine unit (Zodiac-type boat) that has a seasonal staffing effect. Can this use be accommodated on-site? Given the new development and enhanced connections to Kingsland Point Park will the Department need to send additional bike patrols to the newly created open space and �(ban Kingsland Point Park? area? 24. Should park rangers be considered for this expanded waterfront There needs to be an additional evaluation as to the presence of a Police substation, either for a full-time or part-time office. The Chief has indicated that a full time substation would have the two posts and a desk officer reporting there. A part-time substation would not need lockers, since staff would use the Village's existing facility. For seasonal/special events, the Police Department indicated that it would like some place for officers to gather to receive assignments and take breaks. The design of part-time substation could be incorporated as part of one of the proposed open space outbuildings/information center in the vicinity of the lighthouse. The Applicant should coordinate with the Village and the Police Department regarding more specific details. Ambulance: 25. The Ambulance Corps noted an approximately 15% annual increase in calls over the past years. The Corps indicated that they currently meet the needs of the Village and provide many mutual aid calls to other surrounding municipalities and is one of the last volunteer services in the area. Average 3-5 minute response time. Existing facility is just basically a garage, although it is well located for accessibility of volunteers to ambulance and accessibility of ambulance to incidents. The Corps expect calls for service would increase approximately 30% with the new development. This needs to be confirmed based on existing ratio of calls for service vs. population. 26. The Corps noted national trend of decline in volunteerism, which suggests it is not unreasonable to see a partial pay emergency service in the future. The Ambulance Corps has access to reports that identified staffing costs for full time and part time service. Current ambulance corps budget is approximately S50,000, switching to a professional service would be a major change. Given the anticipated demands on the Ambulance Corps, the Village needs to better understand the cost implications of going to a part time and full time ambulance service to cover the Village, including the establishment of an ambulance district. 27. The Ambulance Corps noted that there were a number of variables related to Ambulance Corps facilities: whether to split ambulances or centralize, adequacy of facility. Whether the Village goes to a paid staff or not, it would make sense to keep an ambulance with the fire apparatus, so that they could cross-staff and handle EMT calls. These issues need to be outlined in greater detail in the FEIS. �Public Works: 28. The DPW is currently in space that is inadequate for their needs and a new facility is needed, particularly as a result of the proposed action. There is an opportunity, as indicated on the conceptual plan, to relocate the DPW facility to the East Parcel. Could the school district be accommodated, in a limited way, as part of the proposed expansion of the DPW facility? The Village needs to be provided with a clear evaluation of the subsurface conditions under the East Parcel in the vicinity of the proposed DPW facility location. 29. The issue of snow removal was discussed. A designated snow emergency road needs to be identified. DPW can probably stockpile snow on the east parcel and open space areas at Lighthouse Landing. 30. The DPW indicated that to handle sewer, street and open space maintenance they would likely require 10 additional personnel and three trucks. The Department requests that the pathways and esplanade be designed to handle a pickup truck. 31. Trash pickup and recycling will need to be detailed, including the use, general location, and specification of compaction dumpsters. Pickup for individual townhouses units will need to be detailed. The Applicant needs to provide some additional details as to garbage collection for the retail establishments, including the proposed restaurants and other food establishments. 32. The Applicant needs to confirm that the main thoroughfares will be owned and maintained by the Village and that the private areas are essentially just the rear drives providing access to the townhomes. 33. The Applicant needs to provide additional details relative to water metering. Typically townhouses will have one meter and apartment building will have one meter. How will the mixed-use commercial buildings along Beekman Place be metered? Other Community Facility Issues: 34. Is there sufficient space on the site, or in the proposed community center or proposed theatre to include space for a community facility to be shared by various local Village organizations? 35. The Applicant has, to date, and in the opinion of the Lead Agency proposed limited public water dependent uses as part of the proposed plan. In an effort to address this issue, the Applicant needs to explore: a. onsite amenities such as a boat house in the vicinity of the cove area between KPP and the GM site, creation of a wharf/pier that �could be used during the site development process and then turned over to the Village for use as a fishing pier or dockage for excursion ferries, interpretive/support facility for the 1883 Lighthouse, and replacement of a portion of the existing rip-rap with bulkhead to accommodate a potential area for transient boat tie ups; b. efforts to promote water dependent uses off site such as at Horan's Landing where the Village may need some assistance in disposing of dredged material; and c. exploring with the County and the Village improvements to Kingsland Point Park such as: the creation of dingy docks that would support a potential mooring field for transient boat traffic, restoration of the beach area and expanding the parking to serve the park facility. Further the Applicant should explore further the concept of the temporary use of the existing bathhouse at KPP for project offices (construction, sales) and then turning it over to the Village for park support activities. 36. The NYSDOT has prepared a preliminary report on the feasibility of reusing the existing pedestrian overpass connecting DeVries Park with KPP. In an effort to enhance and promote future water related access to the KPP beach the Applicant should explore the repair and restoration of the existing pedestrian footbridge. Site Development and Construction 37. The Applicant needs to further explore additional measures to minimize the amount of truck traffic that will be required during the construction period. During subcommittee discussions, the Applicant indicated that it would not likely be feasible to utilize barges or the railroad to bring in much of the construction materials. An explanation of the factors that limit the feasibility of these alternatives should be included in the FEIS. Those materials that could be supplied effectively by rail or barge also need to be identified. Who owns the rail sidings located in proximity to the East and West parcels? 38. It was noted during discussions that using barges would require building a wharf out over the riprap. Contact should be made with the ACOE and DEC to discuss what permitting issues are involved, as this type of structure could have potential for adaptive reuse, after construction is complete, as a valuable water-dependent use and public amenity. The Applicant needs to confirm and verify the location of the Federal channel needs to be confirmed with the appropriate sources (ACOE and or the Coast Guard) and through a survey instrument. 39. In order to accommodate construction vehicles, the Beekman Avenue Bridge needs to be upgraded. The Applicant should describe the extent of the upgrade required, the anticipated timing to complete as part of the overall project, and potential traffic or utility impacts from this construction. Ownership of the bridge also needs to be definitively determined. The Applicant should also identify height or other Metro-North related issues �with the bridge reconstruction. Is it possible to construct a new bridge next to the existing bridge and then roll over to minimize disruption? Potential design features to create a more appealing and distinctive gateway should also be discussed and provided. A construction routing plan needs to incorporate potential disruption to the Beekman Avenue Bridge. 40. What steps will the Applicant take to encourage local contractors and skilled workforce as part of developing and implementing local programs for hiring initiatives? 41. Significant portions of the waterfront open space are proposed to be improved in years 4 and 5. The Village is interested in the opportunity to provide at least a rudimentary open space connection and access along the River from Horan's Landing through to Kingsland Point Park, as early as possible. It is suggested that the installation of buffering and plantings near Kingsland Point Park also be incorporated into the earliest stages of construction (year 1). Year 2 should be the completion of the open space area at the adjacent to and in the vicinity of the extension of Beekman Avenue with the balance (with the exception of the plaza area in front of the hotel by year 3. In this way the completed riverwalk component is open to the public as soon as possible at the end of the year 3 construction cycle. 42. The Applicant needs to provide an indication as to why the hotel and accompanying plaza could not be completed as part of the year 3 construction phasing. 43. The construction of the public works facility should occur in Phase 1 fit into the proposed construction-phasing plan to enable the orderly relocation of the DPW onto the East Parcel. 44. The Applicant should provide details relative to current ownership of the viaduct and describe the condition of the viaduct leading to the east parcel and any repairs that would be necessary for it to serve as an access for DPW trucks, construction vehicles, etc. The Applicants should undertake improvements as pait of the Phase 1 construction activity and discuss the benefits of undertaking the improvements prior to commencement of improvements to the Beekman Avenue Bridge. Further, the Applicant needs to consider other mitigation relative to site construction impacts to the community, such as installing recreation amenities on the East Parcel as part of the first phase of the development and constructing the public works garage, thus permitting DPW's relocation and expediting the redevelopment of the old site on River St. 45. Given that the Village is seeking to relocate its DPW facilities to the east parcel, the soil bearing capacities on this parcel should be investigated to ensure the viability of constructing new buildings in that location. Is there the potential for capture and use of energy production from methane from the East Parcel? �46. The Applicant has indicated that they could set up a concrete batch plant on-site. This could help limit the impact from large numbers of trucks arriving in a concentrated period for big pours, and reduce the amount of regional truck trips. An on-site asphalt plant would not be viewed as favorably by the subcommittee since it has more significant dust and noise impacts. The Applicant needs to identify impacts related to the operation of such construction-related operations as a concrete batch plan and rock crushing. 47. The NYSDEC has approved a conceptual remedial plan for the site. When will a detailed plan be prepared and how does the environmental cleanup factor into the timing of the site development? The Village also refers to the technical review prepared by Roux Associates and separately transmits to the Applicant that report for review and comment. 48. The Applicant expects that replacement of 30% of the piles will be required. The potential impacts from this pile driving activity should be more fully evaluated relative to hours of operation, noise and length of operation. 49. A county trunk sewer runs across the project site. The Applicant has indicated that the sewer, which will pass under/through buildings, will be framed out with a clear area around to provide full access. Is this a typical and reasonable solution to this issue? Does the County have any comments or concerns with this solution? 50. The Applicant should indicate how the construction-related timing would affect the installation of Beekman Place. Certain portions of the adjoining development (buildings 2, 6 and 8) are scheduled to be constructed in years four and five. Is it correct in assuming that the foundations for these buildings will also act as the foundation for Beekman Place? Fiscal & Socio-economics Impacts 51. As currently proposed, the project contains 1,122 rental units (including senior buildings) and 440 ownership units. The Village Board feels that the ratio of rental to owneroccupied units should be adjusted to include more ownership units. Economic impacts associated with the ownership/rental change needs to be documented. 52. It does not appear that the fiscal analysis presented in the DEIS used the non-homestead tax rate for rental units. The Applicant should present the fiscal results using the nonhomestead rate and with the conversion of some apartments to condominium units. �53. The cost projections utilized in the DEIS should be refined by coordinating responses from the department heads regarding equipment and staffing needs to relevant standards (e.g., police officers/capita, calls to service/capita). 54. The analysis employed in the DEIS is based on a per capita/worker average of current General Fund expenditures. The Village Board notes that the Village is currently functioning with a relatively austere budget and provision of services related to the loss of revenue from the GM site. The methodology employed might not accurately capture a more accurate picture of Village service costs. Cost estimates from comparable communities should be factored into the analysis of the cost to service the new development. 55. Given the Village's concern with respect to taxes and jobs, the Applicant should explore in greater detail the ability to incorporate some flex office, live/work lofts, business incubators uses to provide tax ratables and potential employment opportunities for area residents? Further, the Applicant should prepare a matrix of the alternate uses that could be accommodated on site and provide anticipated impacts of each, to the extent known. 56. During subcommittee discussions, the Applicant indicated that a Master Association would be providing landscaping maintenance. What other services would the Master Association provide the new development and residents? Would a master association preclude the potential use of a business improvement district for the Beekman Place area? 57. The Village is concerned that the proposed development may not have a positive impact on the balance of the Village's commercial district given the proposed removal of onstreet parking, the increased traffic congestion which could impact the pedestrian environment and the potential competition of uses. What impact will the development of this project have on the upper Beekman Avenue corridor? It is noted that the ERA report contains several recommendations that could help strengthen and organize the existing Beekman Avenue businesses. The Applicant should identify how these recommendations could be incorporated. The Village would request that the Applicant consider providing assistance relative to preparing design plans for improving the appearance of the Beekman Avenue corridor as it is a gateway to the new development, provision of additional off-street parking, and help form and partially fund a merchant's association. 58. The Village is currently in the process of reviewing a 65-unit affordable senior housing proposal. Since some of the need for senior housing will be satisfied by this other project, the Lighthouse Landing mix should be adjusted to include a different mix of affordable units, with more non-senior households. �(o33 59. The Applicant should indicate if, and for what elements of the project, a PILOT is being considered. How would this potentially affect sales tax projections? 60. The Applicant should provide examples of the contemplated commercial tenant mix for Beekman Place and provide examples of how they have incorporated such tenants into other projects. Fast food uses are not in keeping, in general, with a historic Hudson River community and should be restricted or eliminated from any future retail mix. Zoning ordinance codifications to effect this change should be considered. 61. With the now contemplated inclusion of 5 or 6 new restaurants, plus other stores, including national retailers, the potential effects of the proposed development on immediate and secondary market area (basically the inner village and Tarrytown) should be examined more closely so that the Village has a better understanding of potential impacts. 62. The Applicant needs to work with the Village to provide locations of on-street parking meters and an analysis of the project revenues. Additionally, revenues for the proposed commuter lot should be projected and allocated to the Village as a potential positive economic impact. Traffic and Transportation 63. Since one of the major reasons for increased traffic is the significant density of the Development, the Applicant should consider ways to decrease density in a beneficial manner so as not to deteriorate significantly tax revenue generation. This concern is discussed elsewhere by other Committees but is reinforced by the comments made at the Traffic Subcommittee hearing. One alternative discussed was a recommendation to see what happens to traffic analysis if some apartment units are substituted with townhomes (maintaining the same s.f. of development, but fewer units). Traffic Mitigation Measures and Parking Impacts: 64. Traffic improvements at selected intersections in the Village of Sleepy Hollow would result in the loss of 26 parking spaces (approximately 10 at the Beekman/Route 9 intersection and 16 at the Beekman/Pocantico/Cortlandt intersections). However, recommendations included use of full-length tapers and discussions with NYSDOT suggest these could likely be reduced, which would reduce the loss of on-streel parking along the Route 9 section. Because on-street parking is at such a premium, particularly in the inner-village, any loss of parking will need to be replaced on at least a one for one basis. The Applicant needs �(p2M to evaluate how improvements could be made while eliminating as few parking spaces as possible. The Applicant indicated that they are willing to help provide or finance, but are limited in what they can do relative to the ability to acquire property for parking. The Village would potentially need to help identify and acquire land that could be used for parking in proximity to the lost spaces if that is the direction taken. As an example, the area along the Route 9 frontage for the High School was identified as a possible area for parking expansion and should be evaluated. 65. The Applicant's traffic study also included recommendations for problematic intersections within Tarrytown (Rt. 9/Neperhan, Rt. 9/Franklin and Rt. 9/Rt. 119). Recommended improvements include similar measures (restriping, turn lanes, etc.) that could result in loss of parking spaces at certain Tarrytown intersections. What kind of coordination has there been between the Applicant and the Village of Tarrytown regarding anticipated impacts and proposed mitigation? We encourage continued discourse among the Sleepy Hollow Board, Applicant and the new Tarrytown Board to develop mutually agreed upon traffic mitigation matters. Railroad: 66. The traffic analysis used estimates that 40% of peak hour trips will be via rail. This appears fairly conservative based on survey data from other comparable developments and results in a calculation of approximately 195 train commuters from Lighthouse Landing during the peak hour. However, the Applicant should provide additional background as to transit-oriented developments and how the proposed development could be further enhanced so as to further reduce potential vehicle trips. 67. The commuter lot indicated on the plan is sized at 400 spaces. Metro-North would like to see even more (up to 1200 spaces) due to existing and anticipated demand along the Hudson Line. The Applicant and Village felt that this would draw additional, potentially undesirable traffic and would be unfair for the Village to provide for the Hudson Line's entire parking need. Who would ultimately own and maintain the commuter lot? It was noted that users of a commuter lot would likely be diversions of existing traffic and wouldn't be adding more volume to Route 9. There is the possibility that operation of Route 9 to the south could be improved with commuter lot at Lighthouse, however this still needs to be confirmed. I'arking: 6S. There was general concern with the limitations of parking along Beekman Avenue and that the potential removal of on-street parking would create issues with the businesses in that area. Sub-committee members described alternative concepts: to provide parking at �(53C I the Morse School; remove some of the Beekman Avenue sidewalk width to allow for the ability to maintain and or increase parking; and utilizing the area behind the stores along Beekman Avenue to create more parking. These alternative design approaches need to be evaluated further. Development Parking: 69. I I It was noted that the development provides approximately 1.5 spaces per unit. Should the Applicant provide 2 per unit, or conversely would it be better to try to limit parking to a more commuter-oriented focus with 1 car per unit? The parking areas for the mixed-use portion can also potentially be used as a shared parking resource for residents/guests although there needs to be more details provided, such as how would the retail lots operate - municipal lots, metered, permits, Applicant owned? Miscellaneous: 70. Following up on recommendations in the Village's Linkage Study what is the potential for a trolley loop system linking other local attractions and the Sleepy Hollow, Tarrytown downtowns? What volume would be necessary to support? Has Westchester County offered any opinions as to its feasibility? 71. In the event a shuttle system is used, can the Lighthouse Landing shuttle be an electric vehicle? Applicant has discussed with GM and it remains a possibility that they may produce a vehicle that could be used. Who will be responsible for operating the shuttle? What would be the hours and days of week for its operations? 72. What is the effect to the level of service at the intersection of Beekman Avenue/Route 9 if Hudson Street is made into a one-way eastbound? 73. The Applicant has indicated that several of the intersections will need to be monitored in the future, after the project is complete. Who will be responsible for the monitoring? What happens if, during the course of time, or at full build-out the intersection in question fails, or is severely impacted? Next Steps - Community Outreach Regarding next steps, the Applicant has indicated that they are looking for guidance and direction from the Village regarding alternative planning concepts for site layout. It is suggested that the Applicant work together with the Village, its staff and consultants to begin shaping an alternative design layout that better responds to issues raised as part of the environmental review process. �The sub-committee discussed different ways the Village could consider to broaden the outreach efforts, including use of cable television, notices in bulletins and newspapers. The Village Board would recommend that, after the close of the public comment period, a publication be prepared in a simple question and answer format that will address specific issues. The Village may also want to think about preparing incremental progress reports to keep the public updated during the balance of the review. It was also suggested that it might be useful to have issue oriented meetings every couple of weeks to allow for revisions to be made and further discussion. These meetings could also include representatives of the various involved agencies such as Westchester County, NYSDOT and NYSDEC. Efforts were made to engage the Village of Tarrytown in the past, given recent events, the Village should consider an approach that would allow for meaningful dialogue between both communities. Cc: Dwight Douglas, Village Administrator Robert Ponzini, Village Attorney Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Angela Everett, Village Clerk Joel Sachs, Special Counsel to the Village David B. Smith, Village Planning Consultant Andrew Tung, Divney Tung Schwalbe Mark Weingarten, DelBello, Donnellan, et al. Mark Chertok, Sive, Paget, et al. Bob Feder, Cuddy & Feder Planning Board Waterfront Advisory Committee Architectural Review Board Parking Authority DEIS Sub-committee Review members � 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 Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes & Resolutions-2005 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_TRUST_2005-03-29 Subject The topic of the resource Board of Trustees Minutes-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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