Planning Board

a MEETING MINUTES PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING for May 5, 2021 A regular meeting of the City Planning Board will be held on Wednesday, Ma y 5 , 2021 at 6:30 PM via ZOOM (https://zoom.us/) at which time the Board shall consider the following: Please see the City’s Website (www.cmvny.com) for “ZOOM” Instructions: Meeting ID: 898 4047 0735 Password: 072289 Dial In: (646) 876-9923 ITEM #1 ROLL CALL Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo was requested by the Chair to act as chair until he was able to join the meeting. Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo called the roll: In addition to Chairman Selsey, attending were the following Commissioners: Mr. Thompson, Ms. Thompson-Njenga, Mr. Whites, Mr. Trolio, Mr. Zamor and Ms. Gleason-Boncardo. Also attending Marlon Molina, Deputy Commissioner, Shanitra Lockett, Land Use Counsel and Bob Galvin, Planning Administrator. Acting Chair Gleason-Boncardo man indicated that there was a quorum present and opened the meeting. ITEM #2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Acting Chair asked if the Commissioners had an opportunity to review the minutes of April 7, 2021, and were there any corrections. There being none, the Acting Chair asked for a motion to approve the minutes of April 7, 2021. Motion was made by Commissioner Whites, seconded by Commissioner Thompson and carried with a vote of 6 – 0. 1 The Chair joined the meeting and thanked Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo for acting as chair in his absence. ITEM #3 PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME The Chairman read the following: Case No. 6-2021 I North Fulton 14 (Section 159.63, Block 1001, Lot 7) Located in the RMF-15 Zoning District. Request for an extension of time. After reading the description of the application requesting an extension of the site plan, the Chair opened the public hearing. The Chair explained that the Applicant has an approved resolution for a site plan for the construction of an 8-story 220 unit independent and assisted living facility at 1 North Fulton Avenue. The resolution was last approved on September 11, 2019. A copy of the previous resolution has been provided to the Planning Board Commissioners. Applicant has provided a letter to the Planning Board requesting the extension dated March 15, 2021. SEQRA Determination: This action is a “Type II” action; therefore, ending the SEQRA. process. The Applicant, Eric Newman, described his request to the Planning Commissioners. He indicated that this additional extension is being requested since they have encountered disruptions as well as complications associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. There has also been a delay in review and approval of the plans by the New York Department of Health. He provided a construction schedule with a start date of 9/1/21. He also indicated that during the last 12 months he has completed the architectural and engineering drawings for the Building Department. The Chair asked if the traditional extension of 24 months is reasonable. Mr. Newman replied that it was reasonable for the completion of the project. The Chair asked if there was any public comment. There was none. The Planning Board discussed the time of the extension. They asked land use counsel, Shanitra Lockett, for her advice. She responded that the last approval was September 11, 2019, and although the plans were not signed until much later, it likely went into effect in September and expired September the following year. She indicated that the Code provides the Planning Board with the ability to waive the terms of the extension. If the approval commenced on September 10, 2020, and expired on September 30, 2023, this would essentially be 24 months from the estimated September start date for the project. The Planning Board discussed and agreed to authorize the drafting of a resolution with a term of 24 months. 2 Ms. Lockett indicated that theses resolution typically includes that extension of time shall apply retroactively to cover any and all lapse in time that may occur between the date the previous extension and the date that an extension is approved. . The Chair made a motion to close the public hearing and authorize land use counsel and staff to draft a resolution with a 24-month extension for the Project at 1 North Fulton Avenue for review and consideration at its June 3, 2021, meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo and carried by a vote of 7-0. New Public Hearing The Chair read the following: Case No. 5-2021 1 Wartburg Site Plan Application for Assisted Living Building at the Wartburg Campus (Section 165.42, Block 2160, Lot 1; Section 165.50, Block 2194, Lot 4; Section 165.51, Block 2194, Lot 5) The Chair opened the public hearing and adjourned the application to the Planning Board’s June meeting. The Chair indicated that the Applicant needs to confirm with the City that he is up to date on all required County and City taxes. The Chair requested a motion to adjourn the application to the Planning Board’s June meeting. This is the first adjournment of this application. Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo made the motion, seconded by Mr. Thompson and carried 6-1 (with Mr. Zamor abstaining). Continued Public Hearing The Chairman read the following: Case No. 3-2021 115 South Macquesten Parkway (Section 164.75, Block 1060, Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, and 29) Located in the Mount Vernon West – Hub Transit Oriented zone (MVW-H). Request for Site Plan Review. The Chair continued the public hearing. He stated that the Applicant has provided supplemental information for the EAF. Ms. Janet Giris, Applicant’s Attorney, appeared on behalf of the applicant, NRP Group. She introduced the team from JMC including Diego Villareale PE and James Caris, Project Manager. She summarized the application to date. The Planning Board has already assumed lead agency for the environmental review of the application. The supplemental information provided is to demonstrate how the project conforms to the to the Findings Statement adopted by the City Council evaluating the environmental impacts of the proposed MVW TOD zoning. The document details the public benefits of the proposed project. Some of these benefits include the creation of 300 temporary construction jobs and 12 permanent jobs, increased real estate and retail sales taxes, exceed open space requirements, community space, mixed income range of workforce housing, identify and target inflow and infiltration improvements to sanitary sewers. The 3: 1 ratio is in line with Westchester County Planning recommendations. Also addressed is the planned landscaped promenade along South Macquesten Parkway. The document provides specific information on trip generation and impact on the area’s intersections. 3 Mr. Jonathan Gertman, VP for NRP Group, started the Power Point presentation outlining the supplemental EAF information and the City Council’s Findings for the MVW TOD zoning. Mr. Steve Horton, Grandview Consulting, stated that the proposed project meets the goals and design parameters of the form-based code enacted by the City Council. The Site generates approximately 10 percent of the total impacts of the zone based on the DGEIS and the Findings (FEIS) approved by the City Council. Mr. Horton indicated that the Planning Board had conducted a site visit of the project area. He spoke about the community center. The proposed retail space along South Macqueston Pkwy will activate activity on the street. Retail space is approximately 4,800 sf and will be a Food Hall or restaurant space. There will be 8.380 sf of recreation community space and 2,143 sf for a community non-profit. Mr. Gertman discussed the project’s form-based design which will be a Tower on Podium format. The grade drops 10’ between Grove and South Terrace. This allows the second tower on South Terrace to be lowered to 9 stories and 60’. The tower on South Macqueston will be 12 stories where 15 is allowed. There will be solar panels on the roof with a large open space courtyard. The Project provides almost an acre of open space ( 42,818 sf) where 40, 950 sf is required. Mr. Gertman provided an overview of the supplemental EAF information provided to the Planning Board. It includes responses to the agency letters including Westchester County Planning, the City of Yonkers and the MTA. The following were provided: Fiscal Analysis public school children generation and impacts on the CMV School District, enrollment trends, sanitary sewer/water and the enhanced landscaping on the Macqueston Parkway median. Mr. Gertman summarized the presentation re-capping the number of jobs, public school children generated and fiscal impacts on the school district and City and student enrollment trends. He also provided information on income and rent levels. The income level in the development can go up to $113,200 with the average being $63,500. The rents can go up to $2,900 with the average being $1,531. The tax credit program is being funded through NYSHCR providing mixed income housing with income ranges from 40 percent to 90 percent of the County’s Median Income. The proposed bedroom mix includes 10 percent - studios (32 units), 42 percent – one-bedroom units (133 units), 43 percent – two bedrooms (135 units) and 5 percent – three bedrooms (15 units). Mr. Diego Villarealle of JMC went through the trip generation from existing uses and the projected trip generations generated by the development. He compared the information to the Maser Traffic Study counts in the DGEIS. He provided a table of intersections with new trips being allocated to each intersection. the proposed redevelopment results in an additional 16 trips during the peak weekday AM hour and a reduction of 82 trips during the peak weekday PM hour compared to the existing uses on the property. During the peak weekday AM hour, the net additional 16 trips represent 1 additional trip every 3.75 minutes compared to the existing uses. During the peak weekday PM hour, the reduction of 82 trips represents a reduction of 1.33 trips every minute compared to the existing uses. The total number of new trips expected to be generated by the MVW – TOD zoning based on the Maser Study in the DGEIS was 1,460 tips in the am peak 4 and 1,493 in the pm peak. The net trip generation for this development represents a total of 1% of total trips developed by the DGEIS. Mr. Villareale discussed the sanitary sewer capacity. They conducted flow monitoring studies for the sewer lines adjacent to their development. This was done in conjunction with City DPW and the City Engineer. The capacity analysis confirmed sewer capacity for the proposed development. The development also has the advantage of being less than 100’ from a direct connection to the 78” County trunk line. This provides for utilizing only 100’ for City lines before directly connecting to the County trunk line. The Applicant is committed to repairing the city sanitary sewers in the area at a rate of 3x the impact of the proposed project flow. This will result in a net decrease in sewer flow for the sanitary sewers in the area. Applicant will work with the DPW and City Engineer to identify specific repairs and improvements to accomplish this 3:1 improvement. Mr. Villareale also reviewed the prosed enhanced landscaping on the Parkway median in front of the property. Mr. Plummer discussed the sustainability elements of the project and the emphasis on minority contractors and the proposed youth facility and connection to non-profit partners. He mentioned that they were meeting with a community-based company looking at the Food Hall in the retail space. He also mentioned the burying of the utility lines on South Macqueston and South Terrace. This will increase the value of properties along South Terrace. The Chair asked about the origin of the school district enrollment numbers. The applicant answered that these are NYS Department of Education Report Card statistics issued annually for the entire school district as well as individual schools. Mr. Zamor asked for an analysis of enrollments and capacity at the Hamilton School on Oak Street which is the closest school to the development. He also asked about the median rents. Mr. Gertman responded indicating that the highest rents can go up to $2,900 with the average being $1,531 and the lowest at $700. In response to a question about the traffic impact on the Yonkers intersection mentioned in the City of Yonkers GML letter, Mr. Villareale responded that this was included in their initial supplemental information. He indicated that development’s impact resulted in a net reduction at this intersection with no adverse impacts. Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo asked about the scoping of the sanitary sewers. Using the diagram of the sewer lines and the County truck line in the vicinity of the development, Mr. Villareale indicated what was scoped. He described the flow motions before entering the County trunk main. They will determine with DPW the need to do video inspection. DPW has a list of improvements in this area that the applicant will coordinate with DPW. In response to comment that there is no plan for the area, Ms. Giris explained that the DGIS reviewed and accepted by the City Council provided the existing conditions and impacts of the zoning on the entire area. The City Council reviewed the FEIS and approved the impact analysis and mitigations in their Findings Statement. The form-based code and design parameters complied with the vision of the City Council and were approved. The Chair asked Mr. Plummer to review the development’s policy of public usage for the proposed recreation facility. 5 Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo stated that she was in support of the potential Y-Cop partnership at the site. She asked the Planning Administrator to resend the following items to the Planning Board members: 2011 draft Comprehensive Plan, Zoning text of the MVW-TOD zoning, Findings Statement of the City Council, the DGIS for the MVW-TOD. Public Comment - there were five public comments supporting the project. One of which specifically focused on the investment in youth programming and activities. There was only one negative comment that did not support the overall TOD zoning in the area. Commissioner Whites asked about set asides for minority contractors and local businesses. Mr. Gertman mentioned the NYS requirements related to their NYS funding: Minority business (MBE) are 20%; WBE are 10% and Veterans are 6%. The Planning Board discussed their next meeting wihich will be June 2 nd for the work session and June 3rd for the regular meeting. The Public Hearing was continued. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS City Council Recommendation – Rezoning Petition The following petition was heard by the Planning Board at their April meeting. The Petitioner is now returning with new information in response to comments and recommendations by the Planning Board. The Chair read the following: The Armory Terraces, 208 N. Fifth Avenue – 8-story senior living facility; waivers and variance required. (Section 165.54, Block 1103, Lot 10) The Chair indicated that the petitioner had returned to the Board with the Pro Formas requested by the Planning Board at their April meeting. He requested Pat Cleary to present to the Board members and indicate the status. Mr. Cleary indicated that the applicant did a good job in producing the two documents for the 73 units and the more zoning compliant 41 units. He indicated that the next step is to retain a real estate consultant to analyze the documents. Mr. Addesso, the Petitioner’s Attorney, stated that retaining a consultant is beyond the scope of the recommendation to the City Council. He would like to know who will pay for this. He believes that this is an unnecessary cost to the petitioner. The Chair indicated that the Board cannot come to a conclusion on density without backup analysis on the documents. He is not comfortable with making a recommendation based on the documents that he sees without additional analysis. He polled the board members to see if they are comfortable in making a recommendation. 6 Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo stated that we are trying to make a fair assessment. Mr. Addesso stated that he did not know the cost. Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo indicated that if the developer is not willing to make the assessment, that is on him. Mr. Addesso asked if density is the remaining issue. Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo asked Mr. Addesso to have his client clean his property. Mr. Addesso said that he would pass it on to his client to take care of. Mr. Cleary felt that the analysis would not be an expensive proposition. It would provide the board with a good understanding of the project. Need to know the margins for senior living project in the area. Chair indicated that the results of the analysis would be shared with the City Council. Chair asked Pat to speak with consultant to analyze the numbers for the next Planning Board meeting. Mr. Addesso asked the chairman for a copy of the letter to the Planning Board from the neighbors. 1 Bradford Road (Section 165.66, Block 2204, Lot 1&4) The Chairman explained that the applicant for 1 Bradford Road has reached a settlement agreement with the City Council. The City Council is referring the zoning text and map amendment related to 1 Bradford per the City’s Stipulation of Settlement with the applicant. The Planning Board is familiar with the application having reviewed it several times previously for the City Council and conducted a site visit. Michael Zarin, special counsel for the City Council, has provided all submitted materials and a short memorandum electronically to the Board. Max Mahalek, the Attorney for the City Council, summarized the settlement indicating that there are permitted and not permitted actions allowed in the Park District. He described these actions for the board members. Kathleen Bradford for the Stagg Group made a PowerPoint presentation for the Planning Board. The applicant showed the decorative gate and the site plan. The ivy wall will cover the easterly concrete wall as recommended by the Planning Board. Parking lot light poles will not exceed 10’. Specifications for the wall mounted lights have been provided on the plans. Photometric of footcandle dispersion across the site has been provided especially toward the Wilson Woods property. 7 The applicant described the daycare facility and parking. This parking is separated from the rest of the parking. It is in front of the building. There are 130 parking spaces on site. Plans show the railroad which is the property line. Fire apparatus maneuverability has been shown on the plans. Applicant described the traffic flow on site and that there are six box trucks and two tri-axle trucks on site. These are parked at the rear of the building adjacent to the railroad tracks. The pallets are also stored in the rear out of sight. These are used for storage of box-shrink wrapped materials. These materials are carried to the site where they are unwrapped for use. The pallets are not used to store loose materials. The construction vehicles leave the site around 7 am and return at 4 pm. There is no fabrication outside of the building. Sam Schwartz, the civil engineering firm, developed the stormwater management system using cultec infiltration chambers. Previously there was an onsite dry well for drainage. Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo indicated that applicant has completed addressing the list of Planning Board comments. She raised a complaint about rodent infestation from a nearby neighborhood. She provided the neighbor’s information which was promised to be addressed by the applicant the next day. She thanked the applicant for listening to the concerns of the Planning Board and doing a good job of addressing them. The Chair agreed with Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo that the applicant has done a good job of addressing the Planning Board concerns. The pallets were reduced in number and concealed from view. He asked if there were any other questions or concerns from the Board members. There were no other comments from the Board members. Mr. Galvin, the Planning Administrator, mentioned that Deputy Commissioner Molina had a question about servicing the vehicles onsite and would rental vehicles be permitted as a use in the zone. Mr. Galvin asked the applicant if there was to be any rental vehicles onsite or were these all going to be the company’s vehicles. Applicant answered that there was to be no rental of vehicles on the site. He was installing an oil separator onsite to handle the changing of oil for the regular maintenance of his vehicles onsite. Mr. Galvin suggested that the Planning Board might suggest that the rental of vehicles and storage not be a permitted use in the zone. The Chair thanked him for raising the issue and asked for a suggestion on how to proceed. Mr. Galvin suggested that the Planning Board could authorize Mr. Cleary to develop a positive recommendation back to the City Council, detailing how the Planning Board issues were addressed. Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo asked if this meant that the applicant would need to return to the Board. 8 Mr. Galvin did not think that was necessary. His opinion was that the Applicant would not need to return to the Board to confirm the positive recommendation authorized by the Board. The next time that the applicant would return to the board would be for site plan review. Mr. Cleary and the Chair agreed. The Chair polled the board members who agreed to have Mr. Cleary provide a positive recommendation to the City Council detailing how the applicant has addressed the Planning Board concerns. The Chair asked Mr. Cleary to prepare the memo with assistance from Mr. Galvin. The Chair asked if there was any new business. There was none. With no further matters before the Commission, the Chair made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Thompson with vote of 7-0. Bob Galvin, AICP Planning Administrator 9