Planning Board

a MEETING MINUTES PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING for June 2, 2021 A regular meeting of the City Planning Board was held on Wednesday, J u ne 2 , 2 02 1 at 6:30 PM via ZOOM (https://zoom.us/) at which time the Board shall considered the following: ITEM #1 ROLL CALL The Chairman opened the meeting and called the roll: called the roll: In addition to Chairman Selsey, attending were the following Commissioners: Mr. Thompson (arrived at 7 PM), Ms. Thompson-Njenga, Mr. Trolio and Mr. Zamor. The Chair indicated that Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo had recused herself during her primary running for a position on the City Council and Mr. Whites was excused. Also attending Marlon Molina, Deputy Commissioner, Shanitra Lockett, Land Use Counsel and Bob Galvin, Planning Administrator. The Chair indicated that there was a quorum present and opened the meeting. ITEM #2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chair asked if the Commissioners had an opportunity to review the minutes of May 5, 2021, and were there any corrections. There being none, the Chair asked for a motion to approve the minutes of May 5, 2021. Motion was made by Commissioner Zamor, seconded by Commissioner Trulio and carried with a vote of 4 – 0. ITEM #3 PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME The Chairman read the following: Case No. 6-2021 I North Fulton (Section 159.63, Block 1001, Lot 7) Located in the RMF-15 Zoning District. Request for an extension of time. 1 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 appeared at the Board’s May meeting requesting an extension of time for 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. This resolution was approved After hearing the application at the May meeting, the Planning Board authorized the Planning Administrator with the Land Use Counsel to prepare a resolution for the extension of time for review and consideration at this June meeting. The draft resolution had been prepared and provided to the Commissioners for their review. Commissioner Zamor requested that the draft resolution be read into the record. The Board’s Land Use Counsel read the resolution including the conditions at the meeting. The Chair asked if there was any discussion from the board members. There being none, the Chair made a motion to approve the extension of site plan approval commencing from September 10, 2020, and expiring on September 30, 2023 for 1 North Fulton Avenue. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Trulio and carried by a vote of 4-0. 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 made a presentation and read her letter into the record. She described the project and indicated the supplemental material provided at the request of the Planning Board. The supplemental information included demonstrating how the Project meets all of the Findings made by the City Council. This is a requirement of the MVW TOD code. Project will not exceed any of the established thresholds established by the City Council in their Findings Statement. At the request of Commissioner Zamor, applicant has provided student enrollment information for the Hamilton Elementary School at 20 Oak Street. She ended by stating that the consultant team was present to address any questions. Mr. Diego Villareale PE from JMC described what was meant by the 3: 1 mitigation related to the sanitary sewers around the site. He provided drawing indicating the proximity of the County trunk line to the proposed site. He described the applicant’s short connection to be tied into the trunk line and described a number of improvements to the City’s existing system that would be accomplished through the project. The 3:1 mitigation means that 50,000 gals go into the existing sewer on a daily basis. Applicant will be required to mitigate over 150,000 gal per day which will result in less sewerage flowing into the system today. It would reduce sewer flow into the existing system by 100,000 gals which is the required 3:1 2 mitigation. The City Engineer will provide a list of priority improvements required to be done by the applicant. These include sealing off manholes to cut off added flow into the system and after video inspections, the relining of sewer pipes through a cured in place process. Mr. Villareale described the information provided for the Hamilton Elementary School. The information is provided by NYS Education Department through their NYS Score card reports. The student enrollment appears to be consistent with the school district. Hamilton experienced a 14.8% decline. Enrollment has stabilized to 413 students instead of the 475 students. Projected student generation from the development that could attend Hamilton are approximately 17/18 students. Commissioner Zamor indicated that the statistics include only K – 6th grade and does not consider that the school will add the 7th/8th grade as part of a school district wide elimination of middle schools. Ms. Giris pointed out that the total number of projected school children are reflected in the expanded EAF provided to the board. Commissioner Trulio asked about the mixed income nature of the project. Mr. Gertman, VP for the NRP Group, indicated the income range extends from 40% to 90% of Westchester County’s median income level. The financing for the project is tax credit deal funded by NYS HCR. The project is targeting households with incomes from $63,200 to $113,000 in current year dollars Rents would run from $15,00 - $2,900 per month. Applicant discussed the income levels and the range of rent levels at each level. There would be approximately 10 – 15% of the units at the higher end. Income levels average 60% (or $63, 200) which is 50% higher that the City of Mount Vernon ($48,000). Applicant indicated that they could provide a work sheet making this clearer for the Planning Board members. Mr. Steve Horton spoke about the number of City residents that have rented in the recent buildings in the MVW area. He indicated that 50% of the applications for these buildings have come from City residents. The Chair indicated that he wanted city residents to benefit from these developments. projects. He wanted to return to Commissioner Zamor’s question on the Hamilton School. He asked about the addition of the 7th/8th grade and when it would take place. Mr. Horton described the school district reorganization with the elimination of middle schools, addition of Stem school and elementary schools will have pre-K – 8th grade. The Hamilton School had a 7th grade in the 2020/2021 school year. It is anticipated that Hamilton will have both the 7th grade and 8th grade in the school in the 2021/2022 school year. The Chair asked about the IDA and their preference for local contractors which are City residents. 3 Ms. Janet Giris indicated that the Planning Board has held public hearings on the proposed development since February and reviewed the SEQRA environmental impacts for approximately 6 months. She requested that the Planning Board authorize their Planning Administrator to prepare a Neg Dec for the review and consideration of the Planning Board at its next meeting. The Chair polled the Board which authorized the Planning Administrator to prepare a Neg Dec for review at their next meeting. Commissioner Zamor abstained. Public hearing was continued. The Chairman read the description: 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 a new public hearing on the application. He explained that the Applicant has submitted a site plan application for the 5-story approximately 50,000 sf memory care, Assisted Living (AL) building with 48 units located in the southeast area of the Campus where the Berkemeier Auditorium was previously located. The AL site replaces the existing auditorium and would have its own new parking with 26 at grade parking spaces. The AL project is the same as the prior plan approved by the Planning Board. The Applicant’s Attorney, William Null from Cuddy & Feder, indicated that the plans being presented are the same as those previously reviewed by the Planning Board for a rezoning recommendation to the City Council to the RMF-SC floating/overlay zone. He indicated that the City Council adopted a Neg Dec for the two projects. The Tax Assessor’s Office has merged all of the lots into one taxable lot. The AL building is the same which is a 5-story, 48-unit facility. The ARB reviewed the application and provided a certificate of appropriateness for the assisted living facility on May 26, 2021 with no conditions. Mr. Null introduced the Wartburg team. The architectural firm for the assisted living facility is KDA, the traffic engineer is Steven Maffia, PE from Ferrandino & Associates, Perkins Eastman, the architect for the Independent Living facility, McLaren Engineering and Dr. David Gentner, the President of the Wartburg Resident Community. Mr. Null indicated the Traffic Study conducted by Ferrandio & Associates has been updated. The proposed AL and Il facilities are designed to fill a gap in age restricted living. The IL living represents a pipeline for more residents for other housing options and serves as a cost center for Wartburg’s charitable care programs. The architects for the assisted living facility made a PowerPoint presentation showing the site plan and views of various buildings on the site, exterior elevations. Architects showed the floor plans. Mr. Null discussed the concept for buildings centered around the green and discussed the proximity of buildings to each other and how they relate to each other. He also showed the aerial view from the south and the landscape plans. The AL building is 5 stories and 66’ 4 high. The maximum height allowed is 90’. The tree removal plan shows 19 trees being removed with plans for adding 30 replacement trees. Steve Zaskey, PE from McLaren Engineering Group described the site plans and traffic circulation plan. There is no access through Bradley Avenue. There are 16 parking spaces required for the AL Living facility with 28 spaces provided. The stormwater plan, utility plan and lighting plan was described. Mr. Null asked if there were any questions. The funding deadline for the assisted living facility has been set for December. The Chair asked what is the estimated time for construction. Mr. Null responded 14 months. The Chair then asked about ARB approval. Mr. Null responded that the ARB approved both the assisted living and Independent living facility on May 26, 2021 with no conditions. Mr. Null indicated that the Planning Board should treat the assisted living and independent living facility as two separate applications. The Independent living facility was 9 stories which was reduced to 8 stories at a height of 89.5’ in response to comments from the City Council. Both facilities are all part of the 34 acre Wartburg Campus. The Chair sked if there was any public comment. There was none. The Chair made a motion to close the public hearing on the Assisted Living Facility, seconded by Commissioner Trulio and carried by a vote of 4 – 0. The Chair made a motion to approve the Assisted Living Facility as presented, seconded by Commissioner trulio nd carried by vote of 4-0. There was a discussion on the sequencing of the construction of the two facilities. Both buildings will not be built at same time. Mr. Zamor stated that there was time limits in the code for the approvas for the builldings. Mr. Null indicated that ths was an unusual circumstance for the campus. The different buildings are all part of the Campus Master Plan. They will not be disruptive of the surrounding community. Mr. Zamor stated that there was no exception for the extended time for site plan approval in the code. You can get approval for 1 - 2 years and come back to the Planning Board to check on it. Mr. Null indicated that theey can come up with the financing and have detailed plans ready. Applicant can come in for a request for an extension of time. Deputy Commissioner Molina promoted Richard Rosen from Perkins eastmand for the Independednt Living application. 5  The Chair read the description: Case No. 7-2021 2 Wartburg – Independent Living Building at the Wartburg Campus (Section 165.42, Block 2160, Lot 1; Section 165.42, Block 2160, Lot 1; Section 165.50, Block 2194, Lot 4) The Chair explained that the Applicant has also submitted a separate site plan application for the Independent Living facility (IL). The Applicant in response to the City Council’s comments and concerns has lowered the building height of the Independent Living Building to 8 stories and conforms to the 90- foot height limitation in the zone. This is a 210 unit building as compared to the 218 unit building previously reviewed. The Technical Updated Traffic Memorandum dated March 5, 2021 supplementing the EAF addresses this revision by evaluating a range of units from 195 units to an upper count of 220 units. The final proposed unit count of 210 units falls within this range and results in an estimated increase of approximately 3 units from the 195 units at the bottom of the range. This was presented at the Planning Board meeting. SEQRA Determination: The City Council as lead agency for the remapping of the Wartburg property in the RMF-SC zoning after evaluating the proposed projects issued a Negative Declaration. The City Council did a full and coordinated review of the proposed Unlisted action and considered the positive recommendations of the Planning Board and the ARB. The Long form EAF for both projects have been provided to the Planning Board. Additionally, the City Council’s Negative Declaration has been provided for the Planning Board’s evaluation. Note that the Planning Board has previously reviewed these projects which are similar in scope to those previously reviewed. The Planning Board will conduct site plan review for both applications and evaluate their cumulative impacts. After the Planning Board’s review, the Board can confirm and adopt the findings made by the City Council in their resolution filed 1/28/21. The Planning Board can also consider conditions to any site plan approval including submission of a “staging and construction plan” to identify the location of construction equipment, construction materials and debris on the site and minimize disturbance to neighbors. This plan shall be submitted prior to any site disturbance or the location of construction equipment on the site and prior to issuance of a building permit. There are other conditions related to landscaping and maintenance as well as a stormwater management agreement to be filed with City Clerk’s office. The plans will also be provided to the Fire Department for their review of access for fire safety and emergency vehicles. Mr. Zaleskey, PE from McLaren Engineering reviewed the civil drawings. He showed the traffic circulation into the parking garage and the main entrance drop off. He described the grading plan, the stormwater management plan and lighting plan with 12’ high poles and dark sky compliant cutoff fixtures with no spillover. There are 129 parking spaces in the new parking garage. He showed sightline views from the site plan. Mr. Richard Rosen, P.E. from Perkins Eastman showed views of the 8-story building and the overall site plan. He highlighted the location of the proposed building in the northeast corner of the Campus. He showed the drop-down grade into the entrance to the parking garage. Landscape 6 trees designed to shade and screen the garage. Green roof placed on the garage to assist with stormwater management. He showed views from the south west toward the proposed Independent Building. The building has balconies set into the structure which breaks up the massing of the building. He showed views of the topography and how the garage nestles into the slope. He described the nearby buildings that blend in. He also showed the west elevation and floor plans. There is a paved outdoor space with café. He showed the main level and two levels of the parking garage. The Independent building borders the Cross County Parkway with increased landscaping and trees to screen the building from the highway. The Chair asked the applicant to put up the shadow study. Mr. Null indicated that the Shadow Study was done for the 9-story building but there is little change to the 8-story building. Commissioner Zamor stated that the shadows do not affect any other buildings in the community. The Chair asked for questions from the board members. Commissioner Trulio does not think that the height does not fit in with the rest of the buildings on the Campus. Mr. Null explained that they had explored design changes previously with the Planning Board . These design changes would have required an expansion into the open space with subsequent loss of open space on the Campus. The facility is not fully visible from outside the Campus. The reduction to 8 stories keeps open space on the Campus. Importantly, it does not increase the impervious surface on the site. The Chair indicated that timing language would be a concern. Mr. Null indicated that the ordinance has a maximum time for 2 years and would need an extension from the Planning Board. Other conditions could be included in the resolution. The Chair asked Deputy Commissioner Molina if there were any members of the public that wished to comment or ask questions. There was no public comment, and the Chair made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Thompson-Njenga and carried by vote of 4-0. The Chair made a motion to approve the site plan for the Independent Living facility as presented and that the Applicant will need to come back to the Planning Board for an extension of time after the allowed time expires, seconded by Commissioner Trulio and vote of 3-1 (Commissioner Zamor abstained). The vote failed since the necessary quorum was not attained; at least four affirmative votes would be required to reach the necessary quorum for a vote for approval. 7  Mr. Null indicated that they would return at the next meeting to present to a full board. The Chair rad the description: Case No. 8-2021 434 Gramatan Avenue (Section 165.38, Block 1162, Lot 2) in the RMF-15 zone The Chair explained that the Applicant, CPD Group, received City Council approval for a text change to allow a gas station and accessory convenience store in the RMF-15 zone by special permit from the Planning Board. The property is located at 434 Gramatan Avenue between William Street and Fleetwood Avenue, across from the Westchester Gardens apartments. The subject property contains a one-story, 1,939 square foot Mobil service station and snack shop. The gas station has 3 service bays and three gas pumps with 6 fueling stations. Large curb cuts access the property from all three surrounding roadways. The CPD Group is now seeking site plan and special permit approval for Proposed Gas Station Alterations and the Renovation/Conversion of the Existing 1,939 sf Building from motor vehicle repair/snack shop into a Convenience Store with 1,030 sf of net retail sales area. The existing footprint of the building will not be expanded. A new 24’ x 52’ canopy is proposed above the fuel pumps, which would be replaced and upgraded. An area variance will be required from the ZBA for the canopy which will encroach into the front yard setback. One corner of the canopy will be directly above the property line and the other corner on Gramatan Avenue will be approximately 2.7’ from the property line. It is unclear if the underground fuel tanks will also be replaced. A new sidewalk, dumpster and mechanical equipment enclosures are also proposed. The Planning Board will need to review stormwater management, landscaping, lighting, impervious coverage and compliance with the conditions of the special permit. A Traffic Study was submitted in support of the application, prepared by Klein Traffic Consulting, LLC. The project is proposed with seven parking spaces and six fueling positions for a total of 13 parking spaces, where 13 parking spaces are required by the local Ordinance. The Applicant’s Attorney, John Kirkpatrick, described the process of the rezoning rsulting in a special permit with spcific standards in the RMF-15 district. The Planning Board was involved in recommending the special permit approach. Thomas Kviet, the project engineer, showed the floor plans for the convenience store. He indicated that the tanks are 20 years old with no need to replace. The proposal is to formalize the parking are on the site. He showed photographs of other C-Stores in the area. Commissioner Zamor asked why the flat roof instead of a peaked roof. The surrounding area in Fleetwood is a Village area and has a neighborhood character that would fit in with a peaked roof. The Chair recommended the peaked roof for the convenience store. The house in back of the gas station is Victorian style with a peaked roof. 8 Commissioner Thompson-Njenga agreed to make recommendation to the ARB. The public hearing was continued. City Council Recommendation – Rezoning Petition 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 Patrick Gilpatric had been retained and has provided his review of the Pro Forma. Mr. Gilpatric reviewed his analysis with the Planning Board and the applicant’s architect. The Planning Board decided that the consultant’s review should be presented to Mr. Kahn, the owner, for his comments before finalizing the Board’s recommendation to the City Council. This matter was continued to the next Planning Board meeting. Proposed TOD EAST Zoning Ordinance Recommendation – City Council Request The Chair explained that this is a request by the City Council for a recommendation regarding Proposed TOD East - Zoning Ordinance. Nicholas Alexander (developer’s team) described the project envisioned for the TOD East neighborhood. The project would be market rate and the proposed zoning would be an overlay zone. John Kirkpatrick, the developer’s Attorney, described the market rate building. The TOD East Neighborhood Study prepared by BFJ Planning provides a neighborhood context for any development. The Overlay zone is an opt in zone. Several sites have been identified and reviewed in the Neighborhood Plan. Mr. Frank Fish, BFJ Planning, presented a Power Point describing the TOD East Development Neighborhood Plan and the overlay zone. He described the TOD East area which is centered on the Metro North East Station. The surrounding area has been expanded to include a wider neighborhood. He defined the boundaries of the neighborhood: Park Avenue to North Fulton; East Prospect down to the Metro North tracks. Mr. Fish explained the density concept - higher density would be closer to the Metro North Station; further away the proposed zoning regulations recommend scaling down density as one moves away from downtown to the east towards the lower density 9 residential Neighborhood east of N. Fulton Avenue. . Mark Alexander (developer) presented his background and what projects he has worked on in Mount Vernon. The redevelopment of the TOD east area represents an opportunity for significant improvements to streetscape, sidewalk, new landscaping connectivity and lighting. He spoke about his site and potential project at 55 Elm Street in the TOD East Neighborhood. He went through the conceptual rendering for 55 Elm Street. In addition to this site, there are many other soft sites which have been identified that could be redeveloped. He also mentioned 42 Broad as an example of key redevelopment project for the city. He also showed examples of new landscaping and streetscape on East Prospect with new development and active pedestrian flows. A range of building types can be incentivized to fit into the neighborhood. The Chair recommended that the Planning Board should have a special meeting to discuss the project in more detail. Commissioner Zamor agreed. A special meeting date was set for June 16, 2021. Planning administrator was asked to arrange it. Proposed MX-1 Zoning Ordinance Recommendation – City Council Referral The city received an inquiry from Mr. Ferrandino alleging the process of referring the MX-1 zoning code amendments to the land use boards was not followed according to the City Code. The Chair read the land use counsel’s memorandum. There was a brief discussion. Commissioner Trulio indicated that he was not on the Planning Board at this time and, therefore, could not opine on it. The Chair indicated that this would be continued with a full Planning board at its next meeting. With no further matters before the Commission, the Chair made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Zamor with vote of 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM. Bob Galvin, AICP Planning Administrator 10