Planning Board Village of Tarrytown Regular Meeting September 22, 2008 7 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairman Friedlander; Members Aukland, Raiselis, Tedesco, D’Avolio; Counsel Shumejda; Building Inspector/Engineer McGarvey; Planner Geneslaw Secretary D’Eufemia
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity (HSA-UWC) – Jardim Estates East – Browning Lane Fordham University – 100 Marymount Avenue Jardim Estates – 60 Gracemere Lenika Realty, LLC – 132 North Broadway
Chairman Friedlander reported that the applicants for each of the above-noted applications have requested an adjournment until next month. No one appeared to address the Board on any of the applications. Board members unanimously agreed to continue the hearings at their October meeting.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – CRESCENT ASSOCIATES – 153-155 WHITE PLAINS ROAD
Mr. Richard Williams of Insite Engineering stated they were before the Board last month for the first public hearing for a proposed subdivision of the property. They are looking to subdivide an already approved site plan for the property at 155 White Plains Road. There are also two existing office buildings. They are not looking to change any part of the approved site plan. It is an administrative function to subdivide the building. They are making a submission to the Zoning Board of Appeals because several variances will be required because of the subdivision line being drawn.
Chairman Friedlander questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter. No one appeared.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the hearing be closed.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the following resolution be adopted:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the Village of Tarrytown hereby approves, subject to the condition(s) noted below, the application of Crescent Associates, LLC for a 2-lot subdivision plan approval for property at 153/155 White Plains Road, Tarrytown; one lot to consist of 280,738 sq. ft. and the other to consist of 271,238 sq. ft. The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 20, Block 2, Lot 2 and said property is located in an OB (Office Building) Zone given that:
(a) Site Plan Approval was granted on May 29, 2007, for the construction of a new office building at the site; and (b) An Environmental Impact Statement was prepared for the Site Plan Application which was granted on May 29, 2007, and the environmental impacts of the proposed building were assessed and SEQRA Findings were approved by the Planning Board; and (c) The applicant is seeking to subdivide the approved office building from the remainder of
the site; and (d) With the subdivision of an existing 12.7 acre parcel into two lots, the existing office building and appurtenances will be located on the proposed Lot 1 fronting NYS Route 119 and Lot 2 will front along Martling Avenue but will share access with Lot 1; and (e) Both parcels will be serviced by public water/sewer; and (f) The Approved Site Plan for the proposed building and appurtenances (to be located on Lot 2) were
designed to act independently from the existing infrastructure on the property (to be located on Lot 1); and (g) The proposed subdivision line preserves this independence; and (h) The storm water collection system for Lot 1 will continue to discharge south into the drainage system on White Plains Road – as illustrated on the approved Site Plan and, the storm water collection system for the proposed Lot 2 will discharge to the west into a proposed Storm Water Management Basin, and continue west towards the Old Croton Aqueduct parcel; thus the two systems will operate entirely independent of each other. (i) This subdivision approval is contingent on the actual construction of the approved office building on Lot 2 within five (5) years from the date of this Resolution, in the event that said office building has not been completed within five (5) years, the aforementioned subdivision approval will lapse unless renewed by the Planning Board. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the Village of Tarrytown hereby recommends that the Zoning Board of the Village of Tarrytown grant the following variances to the applicant:
(a) For Lot 1: Minimum Lot Area, Maximum Building Coverage and Maximum Site Coverage; (b) For Lot 2; Minimum Lot Area, Rear Yard Building Setback, Minimum Building Area Setback to Public Street Right of Way and Minimum Building/Paved Area Setback to Non-residential Zoning District, Required Loading Space.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, that the minutes of June 23, 2008, be approved as submitted. Ms. D’Avolio and Ms. Raiselis abstained. All others assented. Motion carried.
Mr. Aukland moved, seconded by Ms. D’Avolio, that the minutes of July 1, 2008, be approved as submitted. Mr. Tedesco and Ms. Raiselis abstained. All others assented. Motion carried.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, that the minutes of August 25, 2008, be approved as submitted. Chairman Friedlander and Ms. Raiselis abstained. All others assented. Motion carried.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – SLEEPY HOLLOW GARDENS – 177 WHITE PLAINS ROAD
It was noted that Board members visited the property.
Mr. James Staudt, attorney for the applicant, stated this is an application for site plan approval and a slopes permit for sixty additional parking spaces to be added in three different areas of the site. This is a 1940s apartment complex. It is common knowledge that by 2008 standards they are short of parking. They have 215 apartments and they currently have 242 parking spaces. This creates issues for the residents and the complex. Some of the residents of this complex have been parking at other complexes or on side streets, which has created safety issues for the Village. The selection of the three areas and the location of the parking spaces did not come about quickly or arbitrarily. It was the conclusion of an intricate process. The site was carefully reviewed to have locations that were
candidates for the parking.
Mr. Steve Grogg of McLaren Engineering stated they did take a long look at trying to find other areas where they could potentially put parking. The periphery of the site is wooded with steep slopes. They identified three areas. The first is when you come in the driveway, there is a small open area (17 new spaces); the second is in the courtyard area (21 new spaces); and the third is in the rear of the site where there is an abandoned playground area (22 new spaces). They looked at other potential areas but they tried to stay away from the underground utilities. The current parking ratio at the complex is 1.13 spaces per unit which is substantially below the 2.5 spaces required under the existing code. The sixty additional spaces will increase the parking ratio to 1.4 spaces per unit. They have shown
the slope disturbances that will be required. They have listed the areas of 15% to 25% and those over 25%. A lot of the areas classified as steep slopes are existing areas and grading that was done. There is a nice tree by Building 14 and they will build a tree well to protect that.
Mr. Grogg noted Mr. Yarabek, the Village’s Landscape Architect, in a memo dated August 20, 2008, made the following recommendations with regard to the layout plan:
a. This project, given the tight site parameters, is an ideal candidate for a modified parking stall dimension of 16’ deep with curb and minimum 3’ clear planter or drainage swale. b. Area 1 – Entry drive could be reduced to 20’ from 22’ to increase the 5’ buffer to 7’ from the building and not reduce vehicle back out movements. The connecting drive between the parking areas should be reduced from 22’ to 18’, increasing the right (northern) side planter. c. Area 2 – Reduce the width of the entry drives to 16’ wide and replace the proposed painted striping with a minimum 6’ wide interior tree island. d. Area 3 – Reduce the width of entry drives to 16’ to lessen the grade at down slope and increase the buffer to garage.
Mr. Grogg stated they could make these amendments if the Board finds them acceptable.
Chairman Friedlander questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter.
Ms. Carmen Rivera stated she has lived at this complex for 35 years. She questioned whether these new spaces would be free spaces. She stated she would object if they are proposing to charge a fee for the spaces. Mr. Staudt stated there will probably be a fee for the spaces. It is a $500,000 project and it needs to be financed. He stated currently there are 140 free spaces; 20 outdoor spaces which are charged a fee; and 82 garage spaces which also have a fee. Mr. Staudt stated there is a charge for 20 of the outdoor spaces because those were added after the original project.
Chairman Friedlander questioned whether someone could rent more than one space. Mr. Brian McCarthy, Project Manager, stated they can if a spot is available. He noted the garages are about $90 a month and the outdoor spaces are about $60 a month. Chairman Friedlander questioned what the rent would be for these 60 new spaces. Mr. McCarthy stated they would probably be about $75 a month.
Chairman Friedlander questioned whether there is a requirement that each apartment have a parking space. Mr. McCarthy stated there is not. The property was built in 1940 and was probably in compliance. Today there is a greater ratio. Chairman Friedlander stated it is possible some people won’t have a space but some people could have two or three. Mr. McCarthy stated they would be looking to rent the spaces to someone who currently does not have parking. He noted there are probably four spots currently available for pay – but those will be rented with the arrival of the winter season.
Mr. McGarvey questioned whether there is anything about parking in the lease. Mr. McCarthy stated there is not. There is no representation made that there is adequate parking when someone rents an apartment.
Ms. Raiselis noted when the Board visited the property she noticed a car parked on the grass, which she stated could be a hazard, especially if there was a fire at the complex. Mr. Staudt stated that was a unique situation. Mr. Staudt stated there have been comments about having one space per unit but at the last meeting a former member of the complex’s parking committee said that might not be fair. “What the owner has said is that he has not been able to find a way to make everyone happy but he is willing to talk to the tenants’ committee and he will be open minded if they can come up with something that is fair.” Mr. Staudt stated the building owner needs to amortize the costs. They can’t allocate one space per unit and then raise the rent to cover that cost because that is not
acceptable to the Rent Guidelines Board.
Mr. Tedesco expressed concern that a number of the garages might be used for storage, not parking, which does not seem right. Mr. Staudt stated it is difficult to search the garages. The sixty new spaces, however, will be that many more spaces for the complex. It won’t be sixty new cars coming in. If they don’t get rented for the price charged, then the price will have to be reduced. The operations of the business cannot be ignored. If there are cars parked in the aisles blocking fire trucks, that will have to be enforced – especially if these new spaces are available.
Chairman Friedlander reported receipt of the following E-Mail received on September 18, 2008, from William Krajeski, 177 White Plains Road, Building 15, Apt. 85D:
“Regrettably, I cannot attend the September 22, 2008, meeting of the Planning Board. Please allow this correspondence to be read into the record in my absence. I consider myself very qualified to comment on these matters since I have lived in the complex since June 1971. To recap, I did attend the August 25, 2008, meeting of the planning board where I voiced my concerns about the proposed solution to the parking problems at 177 White Plains Road and to get answers to my questions. I will restate those concerns here. Background – Parking problems only occur in the evening usually beginning after 7:30 p.m. when most tenants are returning from work. Anyone visiting the site during the day would not perceive a problem. Over many years I have observed some factors that contribute to the present parking situation that could be better managed. They include: 1. Abandoned cars on site. It usually takes considerable time for on-site superintendent to have abandoned cars removed due to the procedures they must follow before towing can occur. Recently, I counted six abandoned cars on-site wasting tenant parking spaces. Stronger enforcement of the towing policy by Samson Management is necessary. 2. There seems to be a growing
problem with a number of vehicles parking overnight that appear to be commercial types, small trucks, taxis, limos, etc. It was always my understanding that vehicles of this type were not permitted to be parked overnight in the complex. This is a matter that should be addressed by Samson Management. 3. There are rental garages that go unused every night because tenants coming into the complex often park in the first available space they find, closest to their apartment, rather than use their garage and walk to their apartment. Also, some tenants rent garages and use them for storage rather than the intended use. This is a problem that does not come with an easy solution other than written directives from Samson Management and constant reminders from on-site management. I believe this is a large contributor to the present problem and could only be sized if the superintendent were to do a spot check on a random basis to see which tenants were renting garages and not using them for their intended purpose. Proposed Solution – Samson Management proposes the addition of three areas that would be developed into additional parking for tenants. At the August 25th meeting, I first became aware of these plans. When I asked about the detailed plans I was told I could view them in the planning board records department in Village Hall. Later that week I did inspect the plans. Other tenancies who spoke at the August meeting focused on the proposed parking solution and how it could affect their lifestyle at Sleepy Hollow Gardens.
Everyone present seemed to agree that the present parking problems are difficult to live with but the proposed solution was not appealing. Concerns – I will confine my comments to the area which is planned for parking and is located between buildings #14 and #15 as I am a tenant in building #15: 1. Safety – Access to/from the proposed parking area between buildings #14 and #15 will necessitate a driveway cutting across the existing sidewalk near northeast corner of building #15. This sidewalk is very likely the most heavily used walkway in the entire complex. It serves as the main
entrance/exit for Sleepy Hollow Gardens residents walking out to White Plains Road for access to the bus stops or to walk to the nearby Bridge Plaza shopping area. Most importantly, this sidewalk area is THE gathering place for all of the school children awaiting their school buses each morning. This cycle repeats each afternoon. To place an active driveway at this location is a possible recipe for disaster as most in and out car activity to the proposed parking area could happen at a time when the school children are present. 2. Lifestyle – The present lawn area behind building #15 and adjacent to
building #14 would allow as many as 17 cars to be parked there under the proposed plan. The windows of the apartments that bound this proposed parking area are bedroom windows. The problems that could arise might include exhaust fumes entering bedroom areas, headlights beaming into bedrooms during the night, car noises at all hours (doors slamming, engines starting, alarms going off accidentally, etc.) There is also the risk of an out of control projecting into the building. A parking lot in this area can also increase the risk of crimes as it could shield the perpetrators from view. 3. Costs – Fee or Free. When I asked this question at the August meeting, it could not be answered at the time. Will these and the other proposed spaces be free to tenants
on a first come first served basis or will they be rented. 4. Maintenance – Presently, the placement of the proposed driveway is an area used by local management for the piling of snow that is removed from the current parking spaces. In addition, what are the snow removal plans for the new parking area? Summary – While everyone at Sleepy Hollow Gardens would agree there is a serious parking problem, I also believe that those who have taken time to review the proposed solution would also agree it has many shortcomings that should be addressed.”
Mr. Staudt stated he passed these comments from Mr. Krajeski on to the owner and he believed the owner responded directly to Mr. Krajeski. In regard to the towing of cars, they do not believe there are a lot of cars that need to be towed, but the owner has said those that need to be towed will be towed. On the parking of small trucks, taxis, etc., if those are tenants’ vehicles, the owner felt they are entitled to them the same as any other tenant with a car. On the issue of the pedestrians and school children, Mr. Grogg stated this is Area 1 where the Village’s Landscape Architect suggested reducing the parking stalls. The owner is agreeable to landscaping or a low fence to block headlights. With respect to the driveway, there is a sidewalk and a crosswalk would be striped and there would be stop
signs. The residents who will be parking here will likely be the residents of buildings 14 and 15. Those people are aware of the activities going on there. They are aware of the buses coming and leaving.
Chairman Friedlander questioned if this is the only place the school buses can pick up and drop off children. Mr. McCarthy stated the school buses pick up and drop off on Route 119. They do not come into the complex. The children go down on the sidewalks.
Upon inquiry from Mr. McGarvey, Mr. MCarthy stated if any of the existing free parking spaces are lost because of the creation of the new parking, the same number will be replaced with free parking. There will continue to be 140 free parking spaces at the complex.
Mr. McGarvey questioned whether it is the intention to construct all 60 new spaces at the same time. Mr. McCarthy stated it is.
Mr. McGarvey questioned whether the complex would consider renting some of these spaces to neighboring residents if they are not able to rent all the spaces to residents of the complex. Mr. McCarthy stated that is not their intention. They believe the sixty spots would be absorbed into the complex. Mr. Staudt stated, “It is not our intention to rent the spaces to third parties. It is not an issue.”
Upon inquiry from Ms. Raiselis, Counsel Shumejda stated in a multi-family district, there is a parking requirement – currently 2-1/2 spaces per unit. The overall count must be provided at the time the project is built, but there is no requirement for assignment of the spaces to particular units. He stated if the garages are being utilized for storage, that is not the intent of the zoning ordinance. The code enforcement officer can investigate that. Mr. McGarvey stated if someone knows a garage is being used for storage, his office should be notified and they can check on it. That is not the permitted use.
Chairman Friedlander stated as the Village reviews its zoning codes, they should look at having parking space assignment per unit in the multi-family districts as part of the zoning requirements.
Ms. Rivera stated she has a paid parking space. In the past there were signs posted and if someone illegally parked in her space, she was able to call the towing company and they came and had the car towed away. Those signs have been removed and now if someone is illegally parked in her space, she must call the management, and they do a poor job. There is a lot of bias as to how this is done. She also expressed concern that people with garages don’t always close the doors which creates hiding enclaves and subjects residents to risk from mugging – there needs to be better supervision. Ms. Rivera stated the free spaces currently in the square should remain free. The free spaces shouldn’t all be far away. “The tenants have always wanted one assigned parking space per unit.”
Mr. Geneslaw, Village Planning Consultant, stated based on his site visit and comments at the last public hearing, he felt one space assigned per unit would go a long way to solving the problem. He also agreed there should be additional landscaping as suggested by Mr. Yarabek. Mr. Geneslaw stated there is also the concern that if more parking spaces are created, some families will get additional cars because they will be able to park them.
Mr. McGarvey stated if there were a slight rent increase, maybe there could be one space assigned per unit. Mr. Staudt stated under the rent regulations none of this is simple. The sixty additional spaces will take sixty more cars. The market will absorb them. They have rent regulation problems and they don’t want to start charging for something they have not charged for.
Chairman Friedlander stated the applicant should advise the percentage of apartments with no parking and how many families rent two or three spaces. The Board needs to know if they create additional parking, are they doing something useful for people who don’t have parking spaces and maybe can’t afford the parking spaces.
Mr. Aukland questioned how they arrived at the number 60. Mr. McCarthy stated that is the maximum they could squeeze out of the property. Mr. Aukland questioned whether they know the demand for those spaces. Mr. McCarthy stated from the feedback they have gotten from tenants and the superintendent, fifty or so spaces should solve the problem. They are trying to maximize the number of spots.
Mr. Aukland stated at the last meeting there was a family who said they desperately need new spaces but the children don’t want their grass area taken away because it is a vital part of the complex. He questioned whether the spaces in that grass area could be land banked. The other spaces could be created and then the need for the additional spaces could be evaluated. Mr. McCarthy stated it will cost them more to create those spaces in the future. They would need to get a cost analysis.
Ms. Linda Stein Nussbaum question how long it is estimated this construction project would take to complete. Mr. McCarthy stated from the time the shovel goes in the ground they estimate it will be two to three months to completion.
No one further appeared to address the Board.
The Board stated for the next meeting the applicant should address:
1. An analysis of the paid parking spaces – outdoor and garages – and how those are allocated to various apartments in the complex. 2. The issue of land banking some of the proposed spaces. 3. How many garages are being used for storage.
All agreed to continue the hearing at the Board’s October meeting.
PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION – LAKE STEET CONSTRUCTION – PROPERTY LAKE AVENUE – 2-LOT SUBDIVISION
Mr. Richard Blancato, attorney for the applicant, stated this application is for a proposed two lot subdivision of a 0.6607 piece of property on Lake Avenue. One lot is proposed to be 15,989 sq. ft. and the other 12,791 sq. ft. The zone is R-7.5 which requires 7,500 sq. ft. per lot. Both lots have steep slopes and waivers would be required with respect to the steep slopes. There is an issue with the Floor Area Ratio. Because there are the steep slopes, the basements are for a large part out of the ground where the steep slopes exist so they are counted in the F.A.R. along with the garages. Based on the 7,500 sq. ft., the F.A.R. allowed is 2,925 sq. ft. If basements and garages were eliminated one house would comply and the other would be substantially under the F.A.R. The Village’s
current F.A.R. calculations are based on the zoning and not the size of the lots. That makes a big difference in this case where the lots are much larger than the zone. The applicant proposes to make drainage improvements in the area. It will affect these houses and help the drainage in the entire street.
Mr. Paul Petretti, engineer and surveyor, stated these are existing lots shown on a filed map. They are keeping the lot lines shown on the old filed map. It is an R-7.5 zone and both lots are significantly larger. Mr. Petretti stated they would be seeking a variance to eliminate the basements and garages from the F.A.R. calculations. They do not want to sink the houses. That would mean more rock excavation, which is not smart from an engineering perspective. They would extend the public sewer and water. There is no drainage in the street down to Sunnyside Avenue. If they run a drain line down, they can improve the drainage. They would run a full municipal type drain down the street. They would redo the catch basin at the intersection with Sunnyside Avenue. Mr. Petretti noted
his letter dated April 9, 2008, provides all the details. (This letter is attached to the Official Copy of these minutes.)
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board declares its Intent to be Lead Agency on this application.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board establishes an escrow account in the amount of $5,000 on this application.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Board sets a public hearing for October 27, 2008, on this application.
Mr. Tedesco stated the Board would like the applicant to provide the following for the public hearing:
1. On the Full Environmental Assessment Form the exact amount of steep slopes should be indicated. 2. Cliff line formation should be described. 3. Proposed tree removals and steep slopes should be shown on the site plan.
Mr. Aukland stated the Full E.A.F. needs to be amended in the areas referring to subdivision. The form submitted indicates a subdivision is not applicable. Mr. Aukland stated he would also like the applicant to submit justification for the variances being sought.
PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION – CLARFELD – 53 ROSEHILL AVENUE
Ms. Donna Clarfeld appeared on behalf of her husband, Robert, owner of the property. She stated they are proposing construction of a four-car garage. Currently there is no garage on the property. They have a permit for a three-car garage; however, they would like to increase that to a four-car garage. That increased size requires Planning Board approval since the garage would be connected to the house by an open arbor and that increases the footprint of the house by more than 25%.
Ms. Raiselis questioned how many trees will be removed. Ms. Clarfeld stated two pine trees, which have already been removed based on their plans to originally construct the three-car garage. There is an 18-inch maple tree which is up for discussion on the right hand corner of the property. They have reviewed this tree with their Landscape Architect and originally they were going to try to save it but he suggests it be removed because one side of it is already free of limbs. That tree will eventually come down on the new structure. Ms. Raiselis questioned whether any trees in the front of the property will be removed. Ms. Clarfeld stated they will not. Mr. Aukland stated the plans should be clarified to show that the two pine trees have already been removed.
Mr. Tedesco stated he would like to see the approved plans for the three-car garage. He stated one of his concerns with the plans submitted is the huge storage loft. “This is a fairly good-sized two-story building.”
Ms. Mary Ting, architect, stated the approved three-car garage was only 4 ft. shorter toward Rosehill Avenue. This proposal only adds 4 ft. It was previously the same type of structure. It was the same volume and height.
Upon inquiry, Mr. McGarvey stated no variances are required for the project. It is a 67,685 sq. ft. property in an R-10 (10,000 sq. ft.) zoning district.
Mr. Tedesco questioned whether the driveway would be modified. Ms. Ting stated there will be an additional piece of apron. Ms. Raiselis stated what exists and what will be changed should be shown on the drawings in color.
Mr. Aukland stated there should also be a steep slopes assessment. Ms. Ting stated there are none. Mr. McGarvey stated he did ask for a steep slopes plan and all the steep slopes are in the rear of the property.
Mr. Tedesco stated one of his concerns will be with the equipment that will come in to modify the driveway. “We want to make sure the large beech tree is protected.”
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board declares its Intent to be Lead Agency on this application.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board sets an escrow account in the amount of $2,500 on this application.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board sets a public hearing for its October 27, 2008, meeting on this application.
PRELIMINARY PRESENTATIONS
Creegan Properties, LLC – 109 Central Avenue Joseph Denardo – 188 Sheldon Avenue
Chairman Friedlander stated both of the above preliminary presentations have been adjourned. They will be on the Board’s October agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Aukland moved, seconded by Mr. Tedesco, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 8:50 p.m.
Kathleen D’Eufemia, Secretary
|
