Beacon City Planning Board

April 8, 2008

A Planning Board meeting was held on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 in the courtroom of the Municipal Center. The meeting commenced at 7:00 p.m. with Chairman Jay Sheers, Members Randall Williams, John Gunn, Spring Attaway, Jim Svetz and George Mansfield; Alternate Member Liz Strianese, City Engineer Art Tully; City Planner Chan Timmis (in for David Stolman); City Attorney Richard Wolf; and Deputy Building Inspector Dave Buckley. Member Anne Rapalje joined the meeting at 7:40 p.m. and replaced Liz Strianese as a voting member after the second item of business.

Chairman Sheers requested a moment of silence to pay tribute to Dennis Walden who passed away last week. His many years of dedicated service to the City of Beacon as a surveyor and former member of the Planning Board will endure well into the future. The Board’s prayers and thoughts are with his family.

Ms. Attaway made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 11, 2008 meeting as submitted, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Item No. 1 Public hearing on application for Subdivision, submitted by Michael Benzer, 71 Maple Street

Jon Bodendorf of Hudson Land Design reported an area of “land-banked” parking was added to the plan, re-grading was done around the houses to promote better drainage to the yard drains, and erosion control measures were separated to clarify the plans. Driveway turnaround areas were reduced as requested.

Mr. Timmis noted new 6 ft. stockade fencing was added to the plan and encroaching structures will be removed. Sidewalks were considered however will not be required because others are located sporadically along the street and would not connect to others.

Mr. Tully reported all lot sizes and house dimensions comply with zoning but they are at exact minimum which leaves no room for error during construction. He suggested slightly reducing the size of each structure to avoid that situation. Discussion took place regarding creating a barrier between Lot #1 and #2; the applicant suggested planting white pine trees and Mr. Tully recommended fencing. Mr. Benzer explained he does not intend to sell Lot #2 right away therefore preferred to wait. Mr. Tully explained something must be decided now, whether the house is built or not. He felt fencing would provide more space for a yard, as well as provide a barrier between the commercial and residential use. A note must be added to the plan that installation of a fence is subject to the issuance of a building permit and would be the purchaser’s responsibility. Otherwise, the applicant would be required to install the fence prior to selling the lot.

Mr. Tully reported the fence along the rear, yard drains and sewer lines must be installed and completed by the applicant so it is not the responsibility of individual owners. Completion of these items could be made conditional so they are done prior to issuance of any building permit, otherwise completion of these improvements should be required by the applicant with a bond posted to cover the necessary work. Mr. Bodendorf explained maintenance agreements for drainage will be drafted and the noted conditions added; they will also be added to the deed and on the subdivision plat. A note will be added to the plan indicating additional parking spaces will be constructed if the Building Inspector determines it is needed in the future.

No one from the public wished to speak and Mr. Williams made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

After reviewing the environmental assessment form, Mr. Williams made a motion to issue a negative SEQRA declaration, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Ms. Attaway 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 conditional final subdivision plat approval subject to the conditions outlined by board consultants, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Item No. 2 Continue public hearing on application for Subdivision (two residential lots), submitted by David Verdile, 19 Crescent Drive

Mike Bodendorf described his client’s proposal to subdivide a .35 acre parcel of land at 19 Crescent Drive into two lots. One lot will contain the existing single family home and a new house will be constructed on the other lot. In response to comments raised at the December 2007 meeting, several changes were made to the plan. Grading was revised, the driveway was relocated to further minimize site disturbance, proposed erosion control measures were increased to minimize sediment transport during construction, and drainage calculations were provided to demonstrate that off site impact to adjacent property owners will be reduced by approximately 50%.

Mr. Timmis noted the existing hedge will be removed as a result of relocating the driveway, therefore asked that landscaped screening or fencing be added to each side of the property to provide privacy for both owners.

Mr. Tully reported they reviewed the drainage study and found it to be acceptable. Due to the addition of drainage structures and revised grading, the off-site surface drainage will be reduced as a result of the project. Additional information is needed for access to the front and rear of the building. The front door, front sidewalk, rear door and rear sidewalk must be shown on the plan, as well as any proposed deck or patio. Mr. Tully advised the applicant to consider raising the building so the footing drain can be tied into the existing storm drainage system in Crescent Drive. That will allow gravity feed connection rather than the presently proposed sump pump. He asked that they consider replacing landscaping along the property line where the hedge will be removed. Lastly, the roof leader connection to the catch basin in Crescent Drive should be increased from 4-inch to 6-inch piping.

Johnna and Tom Kelly, 20 Heaney Drive, reported they have been to the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board regarding this application. Ms. Kelly was pleased at the efforts of the City Engineer’s office and impressed that certain changes were made to protect their property. She explained, however, they continue to question who will be responsible should a problem with drainage arise. Ms. Kelly reported water currently drains from that property to the perimeter of their lot and affects the neighboring property. Ms. Kelly expressed concern that water drainage may take a new direction as a result of excavation and construction. She said a suggestion was made that the City could install a drain pipe around perimeter of the property. Ms. Kelly expressed concern with protection of their privacy. They installed a B-Dry system at a cost of $10,000 to keep water from entering their basement however the work is guaranteed for the life of their home only if the amount of water runoff does not increase due to new construction. Ms. Kelly made an appointment with Mark Day, a civil engineer from Wappingers Falls, to look and review plans for the proposed house which will cost at least $575. They could not get an appointment with Mr. Day until April 21^st therefore requested postponing a decision until that that consultation has taken place. Mr. Tully offered to meet with Mr. Day to review the plan if arrangements were made with his office. Mr. Kelly felt the applicant should pay for this third party engineering review. Although he didn’t want to stop the applicant, Mr. Kelly felt someone should be on their side to protect their investment.

Mr. Sheers felt the Kelly’s request for more time should be accommodated since they are working out the issue in good faith and in a timely manner. He recommended the board consider continuing the public hearing one more month. Ms. Attaway made a motion to continue the public hearing providing the City Engineer has time to review comments drafted by the Kelly’s engineer, seconded by Mr. Williams. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Tully offered to meet with Mark Day if needed.

Mr. Kelly asked if the City would be installing a new drainpipe around the property. Mr. Tully explained that was only a suggestion and is no longer warranted due to substantial changes made to the plan.

Ms. Rapalje joined the meeting at 7:40 p.m. and Ms. Strianese remained in attendance as a non-voting member.

Item No. 3 Continue review of application for Site Plan Approval, new retail/apartment building, submitted by FIR Properties, 416 Main Street

Aryeh Siegel explained that as suggested, the plan for a new building at 416 Main Street was revised to include a third story which adds two more apartments. Discussion took place about making the entire ground floor retail rather than creating an apartment in the rear portion. Mr. Siegel explained they looked into that possibility however the additional cost prevented them from making a change. Without an apartment on the first floor that is handicapped accessible, an elevator would be required to meet ADA requirements. Mr. Siegel reported they are on the May 2008 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda for parking variances needed due to creation of the additional residential space. After considering Mr. Siegel’s request to forward a positive recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Williams made a motion to remain neutral, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Item No. 4 Continue review FEIS for Long Dock Beacon, hotel/conference facility, submitted by Foss Group Beacon, Beacon Waterfront

Hillary Smith, senior planner at Matthew Rudikoff Associates and representing Long Dock Beacon, attended the meeting to receive final comments from the planner relative to their review of the proposed draft Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Mr. Timmis provided written comments and emphasized the need to expand on transportation concerns.

Mr. Tully reported they are awaiting response to comments provided a letter dated March 10, 2008 which outlined their review comments. A cursor review of proposed storm drainage was done and comments regarding the overall design parameters were provided.

Ms. Strianese had several questions based on her review of the plan. She asked for an understanding of the “interpretive stations”. Ms. Smith explained it is signage that will provide information about historical and natural resources. The environmental demonstration area is a Scenic Hudson planned aspect of the project and initially the thought was to provide an area to display examples of innovative products or techniques. Scenic Hudson will operate the green house area, not the hotel operator. “Zip” cars are being considered by the hotel operator for their customers but investigation continues on use of a “green” bus that runs on CO-2. A zoning amendment must be considered by the City Council to allow office space on the first floor of the hotel. The type of permeable surface proposed for the parking lot was unknown but it will consist of more than gravel. The exterior of the building was changed from glass to wood cladding due in part to public input, cost, design, and aesthetics.

The land under the building will be excavated to make the building appear to protrude more into the river. Excavation will not be deep and it will not affect the estuary. That was a building design change made in response to concerns by the Army Corp of Engineers and DEC.

Ms. Strainese questioned the meaning of “439 direct full-time equivalent construction jobs”. Ms. Smith explained all part-time hours are considered to determine a full-time equivalency. Not all construction work will be full-time positions. With regard to the possibility of making a portion of the roof green and whether it would be visible, Ms. Smith was not sure whether that aspect of the plan was finalized. A green grass roof is favored but design costs and maintenance are factors that must be considered. The applicant is trying to achieve a LEED-GOLD status for the project. The location of the public information area within the hotel is still under consideration.

The only work currently taking place is the park area known as Beacon Point. Site grading and Brownfield cleanup is underway which has already received the proper permits. Ms. Smith was not sure if the concrete slabs were to be removed.

Mr. Sheers expressed concern for traffic control measures for the overall project. He also noted the appearance of the building in the computer driven pictures is somewhat obscured therefore asked that the design include something to break up the overall size. Mr. Sheers advised the applicant to inform the board secretary by April 29^th if they wish to be placed on the May agenda.

Item No’s. 5 and 6 Continue review on application for Subdivision, 5 building lots, submitted by Clark Gebman, Liberty Street and; continue review on application for Subdivision, 10 building lots, submitted by Clark Gebman, Stone Street

Mr. Gebman was not in attendance therefore these applications were not discussed.

Miscellaneous Business

Mr. Timmis advised members that every application must go through the SEQRA process, and early on the Planning Board typically assumes Lead Agency status. However he felt review of long or short Environmental Assessment Form should be the responsibility of consultants. They will review the technical items that must be considered with each application and then make the board aware of any concerns.

Architectural Review

442 Main Street – Certificate of Appropriateness – colors only

Lauren White presented her proposal to repaint the front façade of 442 Main Street. She is seeking to create a more traditional color scheme using Benjamin Moore Victorian era historical colors. The building is located in the historical overlay district therefore a Certificate of Appropriateness is required. Ms. White explained no construction will take place, only painting of the existing façade. She reported the owner Barbara Smith has approved the change. The colors proposed are Benjamin Moore paints – Audubon, Russet, Black, and Pismo Dunes. After considering the proposal, Ms. Attaway made a motion to approve the color scheme, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Judson Street – Single Family House

Builder Paul Bernasconi presented elevation drawings for a new single family house designed by Architect Joel Trace to be constructed on Judson Street. After reviewing the proposal and comparing surrounding housing stock, Ms. Rapalje made a motion to approve the proposal as submitted, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

101 Mountain Lane – Single Family House (revised)

Modular home dealer Ed Morrison explained he is building a modular home for the applicant and at last month’s meeting members conveyed concern for the proposed front porch. Since then, pictures of other houses in the area were taken to get an idea for the type of porch that would fit in appropriately. Members reviewed the photos and discussed various options that could be incorporated into the proposed house. Mr. Morrison asked for permission to order the modular unit if an agreement on the porch design could not be reached since that portion is constructed on site. After a lengthy discussion, Ms. Attaway made a motion to approve Plan A-2 as presented, seconded by Mr. Williams. All voted in favor except Mr. Gunn who abstained. Motion carried 6-1.

Committee Reports

Conservation Advisory Committee

Ms. Attaway reported she attended last month’s Conservation Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting and spoke to chairman Tom Baldino several times regarding their roll in the approval process. She asked that Planning Board agendas and minutes be sent to them in order to improve communications between the two groups. The CAC will also provide a copy of minutes from their meetings. Ms. Attaway will be attending their meetings to understand the tasks they undertake. She provided a copy of the law governing the CAC to members for review. Mr. Baldino explained their goal is to preserve open space as much as possible and encourage developers to be environmentally friendly, i.e. drainage, sloped areas, clearing, etc. Mr. Williams asked if such comments could be documented in writing so issues are clearly understood. Discussion took place regarding protection of very small lots and of the need to look very closely at houses being built on them. She feels there is little strength in that area now. Mr. Williams asked if our professionals are deficient or lacking in that area. Mr. Gunn felt it was not an inadequacy rather than legislation that may be lacking. Ms. Attaway felt areas where the CAC’s advice would be beneficial should be identified. Mr. Williams suggested seeking advice from our professionals to focus on better explained what they have done in terms of review. Mr. Sheers said more focus has been given to environmental review which provides opportunity to become more involved in these issues. Mr. Baldino explained the CAC is not an ad hoc committee and they are on the verge of becoming a board that carries more status and clout. He feels that type of power can help protect environment.

Traffic Safety Committee

Mr. Mansfield asked that Planning Board agendas and minutes be sent to the Traffic Safety Committee members. He feels sharing information between committees will improve communications and provide a better understanding of the overall scope of a project.

Main Street Parking

Mr. Svetz believed the law waiving fees for Main Street parking was either at the last stage of approval or was actually passed by the City Council. A committee has been formed to map parking and signage, etc., on Main Street.

Comprehensive Plan

The City Council is considering several zoning changes outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and forwarded them to the Planning Board for comments. This item will be placed on the next agenda for discussion and comments.

Architectural Review Committee

In an effort to streamline the approval process, a lengthy debate took place about the possibility of holding alternate meetings of the Architectural Review subcommittee. Mr. Buckley explained this was done previously but it became nearly impossible to get three members together prior to the Planning Board meeting due to time and employment constraints. Setting a specific time and date was considered but after discussing specific details of the meeting, it was discovered that it may be too difficult to get applicants and members together in a timely manner because applicants must make presentation to the board directly. Mr. Buckley explained a meeting of the subcommittee would be beneficial only if their review and recommendations are acceptable to remaining members; otherwise going over each application at a subcommittee meeting and then again at the Planning Board would be counterproductive. After some discussion, it was determined that Mr. Gunn, the subcommittee chairman, and Mr. Buckley would work out a solution.

Communications

Two letters regarding the recent approval of a single family house on University Road were submitted. They criticized the architectural review process that has since been changed to require a deadline on submissions.

There was no further business to discuss and Mr. Williams made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.