The Planning Board meeting was held on
Chairman Hibbs asked for corrections/additions to the minutes of the
ITEM NO. 1. CONTINUE REVIEW OF APPLICATION
FOR SUBDIVISION, (5
RESIDENTIAL LOTS), SUBMITTED BY BEACON TERMINAL ASSOCIATES,
Project engineer Ernst Martin presented a revised subdivision plan based on comments and concerns presented at the last meeting. Topography information for adjacent properties was added, grading was redesigned, and work continues on architectural information and drainage details.
Mr.
Stolman explained sight distance measurements for
Mr. Tully said the plan was a work in progress
because there are a number of items that need to be addressed, primarily with
regard to drainage and grading. The
applicant suggests dedicating the site drainage and sewer facilities to the
City for maintenance and will require City Council action. The City’s private road legislation requires
the formation of a Homeowner’s Association for ownership and maintenance of the
road and utilities; any other direction requires consideration and approval by
the City Council. More information is
needed for the proposed retaining walls as well as information on grading
around proposed homes. Plans indicate
the retaining wall along the front of
Engineer and they would make a recommendation. Mr. Tully explained the City has taken over privately installed sanitary systems but storm drainage has typically been the responsibility of the Homeowner’s Association.
Mr. Sheers
was aware the applicant reduced the maximum number of lots allowed in the
zoning district however felt
Mr. Stolman said the front of the house on
Mr. Tully questioned the landscaping plan which presents a proposed line of trees only 3 ft. high which won’t provide much seclusion. Site architecture should be explored to see if some of the retaining walls could be reduced or eliminated.
Mr. Hibbs suggested the applicant schedule a meeting with board consultants to discuss finer details of the plan. Additionally, plans need to be referred to the Fire Department to be sure emergency access and turnaround area is adequate.
Mr. and Mrs. Blair,
ITEM NO. 2 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR
SUBDIVISION, (2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS), SUBMITTED BY ANTOINETTE MCDOWELL,
Dennis
Walden described his client’s proposal for a two lot subdivision of a 17,662
sq. ft. parcel located on the corner of
Mr. Tully asked for more information on where water from the roof drains will discharge. Discharge from the sump pumps must also be directed away from the street; preferably drainage should discharge into the City’s storm drainage system. Mr. Walden reported the closest storm drain is quite a distance away. Mr. Tully explained water discharged onto the street can create icing conditions so an alternate plan should be investigated. The sewer connection location is estimated therefore a note should be added to the plan indicating the location will be verified prior to the issuance of a building permit.
There were no comments from the public and Ms. Rapalje made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Sheers made a motion to grant a negative SEQRA declaration for the proposed two lot subdivision, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Gunn made a motion to grant preliminary subdivision approval, waive the public hearing for the final subdivision plat based upon the fact that the preliminary plat and final plat are substantially the same, and grant final subdivision plat approval subject to fulfilling outstanding consultant comments and correcting the parking area as discussed, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
ITEM NO. 3 CONTINUE REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR
SUBDIVISION (2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS), SUBMITTED BY DAVID DELEO,
Dave DeLeo reported the two lot subdivision plan was modified based on comments presented at the last meeting. A check valve was placed on the footing drain line and a shallow swale was located along the north side of the property to direct drainage toward the catch basin. Mr. Tully said legal easement documentation has been submitted and is in the review process. Mr. Stolman had no outstanding review comments.
There were no further comments and Mr. Sheers made a motion to waive the public hearing for the final subdivision plat based upon the fact that the preliminary plat and final plat are substantially the same, and grant final subdivision plat approval subject to finalizing easement approval, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
ITEM NO. 4 CONTINUE REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL
USE PERMIT, (RESIDENTIAL OVER ARTIST LIVE/WORK), SUBMITTED BY GRZEGORZ
STACHNIK,
Aryeh Siegel explained this project received two variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals – one for parking and another for density. An image of the proposed structure was digitally imposed on a photograph of surrounding buildings for review.
Mr. Stolman asked if the adjacent triangular portion
of property owned by the Sauers’ would be part of the access easement. The applicant, Katarzyna Osielczak, explained
that portion of property is not needed so an easement was not obtained. Mr. Stolman expressed concern about vehicles using
the area to turn around therefore felt an easement should be secured. Ms. Osielczak explained a curb will not be
installed and the property will only be used as a visual extension of their
property. She feels no one will drive on
the Sauers’ property because there is ample room for exit and entry where
pavers and pavement will be put in. Mr.
Stolman understood the Sauers’ are agreeable to the situation however he
expressed concern that the situation between owners could change in the
future. Discussion turned to the width
of parking spaces in the parking garage.
Rather than listing the width as 10 ft., it was listed as 9 ft. + 1 ft. Mr. Stolman asked for a copy of the survey
and easement documentation. The survey
provided on the plan and should signed by the surveyor on the final plan. Mr. Dexter reported emergency vehicles would
service the building from
The building is located in the Historic District and
Landmark Overlay Zone therefore a Certificate of Appropriateness must be
secured. Mr. Hibbs explained architectural
review will be an important part of the overall approval. This project is unique in that it will be the
first new building constructed on
Mr. Stolman read through the City’s Historic Preservation law, specifically Section 134.5(A) which outlined criteria for approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness:
(1)
The historic or
architectural value or significance of the structure and its relation to the
historical character of the surrounding area.
(2)
The relationship
of the exterior architectural features of such structure to the rest of the
structure and to the surrounding area.
(3)
The general
compatibility of exterior design, arrangement, texture and material proposed.
A lengthy
discussion took place regarding the appearance of the building’s façade and side
elevations. All members provided their
opinion but generally felt the side of the building looked too modern relative
to the nature of adjacent buildings. Features
should be indicative of buildings on
ITEM NO. 5 CONTINUE REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR
SUBDIVISION, (2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS), SUBMITTED BY
Mr. Stolman reported the sight distance issue was resolved and a back up area from the garage over the easement was provided. The plat should indicate who easements are in favor of rather than just being numbered; legal easement documents must be provided. Mr. Restivo indicated the information requested was on the plan. The revised plan had not been reviewed by the consultants because it was delivered to the secretary a few days before the meeting. Mr. Restivo reported his attorney submitted legal easements to the City Attorney for review. Mr. Tully explained they received a letter from Eugene Ninnie citing the changes that were made, however it was not accompanied by a map. The map and documents must be checked to see that the information matches up. Mr. Stolman asked that the plat show what area is being paved and precisely what pavement is being removed.
After some discussion, Mr. Sheers made a motion to grant preliminary subdivision approval, waive the public hearing for the final subdivision plat based upon the fact that the preliminary plat and final plat are substantially the same, and grant final subdivision plat approval subject to fulfilling outstanding consultant comments and review of revised plat and easement descriptions as discussed, seconded by Ms. Strianese. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
ITEM NO. 6 CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF APPLICATION TO AMEND
SITE PLAN APPROVAL, CENTER FOR COMMUNICATION & LEARNING, SUBMITTED BY ST.
FRANCIS HEALTH CARE FOUNDATION,
Ms. Rapalje recused herself from this item because she was a former employee of
St. Francis. Jason Barlow, Vice President of St. Francis Hospital and architect Mike McCormack attended the meeting to seek project approval. Mr. Barlow explained they will be replacing the modular buildings currently used for the preschool program with a new building. The proposed senior housing facility adjacent to this project has been abandoned and the property is back on the market for sale. Mr. Barlow requested the board to consider granting approval for this project and if the other property is sold in the future, the new owner would be made aware that a traffic study will be required. They don’t anticipate any additional traffic from the preschool operation since the use currently exists and is in operation. A few more children may attend but they will come in on the same number of buses. Mr. Barlow reported the traffic study that Beacon Community Foundation had done for the 64 senior housing units had anticipated a 2% growth factor and determined there would not be a significant increase in traffic congestion after build-out.
Mr. Sheers explained additional development has taken place in the area since the original approval for this project. When the senior housing project was also before the board, it was agreed that a traffic study of the area would be appropriate for both applications. Traffic study information was presented however board consultants felt it to be somewhat incomplete and requested additional clarifications. A lengthy discussion took place regarding data provided in the traffic study and questions listed in Mr. Stolman’s review memorandum. Mr. Stolman felt this applicant could apply information from the previous traffic study by adding accident history, providing a warrant analysis and listing projects included in the study. Mr. Barley asked that the responsibility be shifted to whoever buys and decides to develop the senior housing property. After a long debate, it was decided that an analysis comparing traffic volume figures before and after the preschool project build out must be done by a qualified agency.
The public hearing for this project was not closed therefore Mr. Sheers made a motion to continue the public hearing at the April 2006 meeting, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Overall, Board members felt the City Council should look into the area in question considering the increase in traffic and general heightened activity that has taken place on the route over recent years. A letter outlining the Planning Board’s concerns to City Council members will be drafted.
ITEM NO. 7 CONTINUE REVIEW OF
APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN
APPROVAL, FOR A WADING POOL IN THE
BY RIVER POOL AT BEACON, INC.,
Architect
Meta Brunzema introduced Allen Zollner, President of River Pool Beacon, and
described the river pool project proposed at
Mr. Hibbs
reviewed minutes from 2004 when this project was first before the Planning
Board and at the time the City Council’s support was unclear. Mr. Zollner reported they were before the
City Council twice since and a resolution supporting the project was passed in
2004 after River Pool addressed concerns for safety and cost. Safety concerns were addressed by
incorporating a written safety plan into the project which was accepted by the
Department of Health. With regard to insurance,
City Administrator Braun told Mr. Zollner the City’s insurance agent said the
pool would be covered by the City’s insurance at no additional cost. Mr. Zollner read the City Council’s
resolution dated
The required changing area will be a gazebo type structure divided into two rooms provided with benches separated by material drapes. The octagonal structure will then serve additional purposes when not being used as a changing area June through September. It will be dismantled and stored away in Scenic Hudson’s red barn during the winter months. The gangway leading to the wading pool would remain on the shoreline.
Mr. Lanari asked if there were plans to shield the
Port-o-San from boaters and had concerns for the view from both the park and
water. Mr. Zollner explained they have
discussed that issue and along with placing it near a tree, are considering
plantings to help conceal it. He
reported the lifeguard will be situated to the left or right of the access where
they can watch people in the pool, the water, waves and gangway. He or she will monitor the number of people
using the pool and the changing room. They
have not yet finalized hours of operation but believe the pool will be open
Questions arose regarding times when there is an overflow of visitors, i.e. where would they would park or wait for availability. Ms. Brunzema indicated there are benches and tables scattered throughout the park, and plenty of grassy areas for seating. Discussion took place regarding the need for Site Plan approval because the City does not typically need Planning Board approval for their projects. The City Council will be contacted to see how they would like the project to be handled.
Architectural
Review
Members reviewed the proposal for a new single family house and compared it to other structures in the neighborhood. After some debate, the board suggested the applicant consider eliminating the third floor, revise proposed siding materials at the first floor level, extend the covered front porch across the front elevation and add windows to the side of the house on the lower level. Mr. Dexter will review their suggestions with the builder and return.
Mr. Dexter provided colored photos and a site map of the street to show how the proposed house relates to those in the neighborhood. After members reviewed the presented information, Mr. Sheers made a motion to approve the proposed design as presented, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
There was no further business to discuss and Mr. Sheers made a motion to
adjourn the meeting at
carried.