Planning Board

MEETING MINUTES PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING for September 8, 2021 A regular meeting of the City Planning Board was held on Wednesday, S ep tem b er 8, 2 0 2 1 , at 6:30 PM in person in the Memorial Room on the Second Floor in City Hall at which time the Planning Board considered the following: ITEM #1 ROLL CALL The Chairman introduced himself and indicated that the regular meeting of the Planning Board is being held in person. Applicants and members of the public are permitted to attend and make public comment via in person attendance. We request that those who are attending in person, please wear a mask regardless of vaccination status. The meeting will be live streamed via Facebook: CMVNY. The Chairman called the roll: In addition to Chairman Selsey, attending were the following Commissioners: Mr. Trolio, Ms. Gleason-Boncardo, Mr. Whites, Ms. Thompson-Njenga, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Zamor. 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 at 6:30 pm. The Chair indicated that the public comments for the applications before the Planning Board will be kept to no more than 3 minutes. The Planning Board will also accept written comments which will be made part of the record of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chair asked if the Commissioners had an opportunity to review the minutes of August 4, 2021, and were there any corrections. There being none, the Chair made a motion to approve the minutes of August 4, 2021, seconded by Commissioner Whites and carried with a vote of 5 – 0. City Council Recommendation – Rezoning Petition 1 The Chair read from the Code in regard to the City Council request for recommendations pertaining to rezoning petitions. In accordance with Article XI-Section 3 of the Zoning Code, “If any amendment is to be considered by the City Council, it shall be referred for review and report to the Planning Board, the Corporation Counsel and any other board (ARB), agency or official of the City which the City Council deems appropriate. The Chair read the description of the request for a recommendation for Item 3.1 The Armory Terraces, 208 N. Fifth Avenue – 8-story senior living facility; waivers and variance required. (Section 165.54, Block 1103, Lot 10). The Planning Board took no action on this application at its August meeting. The Board has asked for assistance for the legal counsel from Michael Zarin’s office who have indicated that they will be available to assist in drafting a recommendation reflecting the divergent views of the Board members ( as has been done before). The owner is present at this meeting. The Chair introduced Applicant’s Attorney, Mr. Jack Addesso. Mr. Jack Addesso, Applicant’s Attorney explained that the applicant has been before the Planning Board for four months. Applicant has provided the additional information requested by the Board. At the last meeting, there was a 2-2 vote with no action taken. He indicated that a recommendation needed to be made to the City Council within 30 days after the referral has been made assuming that the Bard has all of the information provided. Mr. Addesso stated that a recommendation needs to be made reflecting the feelings of the board members whether you like or dislike the project. Ms. Shanitra Lockett, land use counsel, clarified that the Planning Board has at least 30 days. Mr. Addesso agreed with the land use counsel. He then asked if Mr. Cleary or Mr. Zarin were on the meeting. The Chair indicated that they were at the last meeting and stated that they would assist in preparing a recommendation reflecting the Board’s different views. The chair continued that in regard to the referral, the Chari made a motion to make a positive recommendation to the City Council but not at the maximum number of units that the applicant is searching for and somewhere in the area of approximately 50 units. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo and carried by a vote of 7-0. Mr. Galvin, the Planning Administrator, indicated that staff will request that a formal recommendation be prepared by the legal consultants. The Chair read the description for the second referral from the City Council regarding Item 3.2 Sammy Properties, Inc. 505 Gramatan Avenue – 8-story senior living facility w/56 units; waivers and variance required. (Section 165.30, Block 1019, Lot 14) 2 The Chair indicated that Pat Cleary, AICP is the planning consultant for the City Council. In this capacity, he has provided the Planning Board with a memorandum on 505 Gramatan Avenue. The subject property is located at 505 Gramatan Avenue on the corner of East Cedar Street. The Site is 18,785 square feet in area and supports an existing 1-story brick building (the Fleetwood Pharmacy) and associated off-street parking. The site marks a transition on Gramatan Avenue from the predominantly commercial/retail character to the north, and the multi-family residential character to the south. Applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and construct in its place an 8-story senior housing building containing 56 dwelling units supported by building amenities including a pool, spa, gym, walking track, community room and terrace area. The ground floor would support a 2,123 square foot retail space and a 2,293 square foot restaurant, with a drive-thru window. 52 off-street parking spaces are proposed in two levels with separate access driveways on Gramatan Avenue and East Cedar Street. It appears that the Fleetwood Pharmacy is being incorporated into the ground floor of the building based on the drawings submitted. The subject property is located in an eligible area for the Senior Citizen Floating Overlay Zone. It requires the waivers and variance outlined in Mr. Cleary’s memo. Mr. Addesso appeared before the Board and introduced Mr. Ralph Tedesco, the project’s architect who will describe the project and answer any of the Board’s questions. The City Council is being asked to map the project into the senior citizen overlay to be able to develop the project. It is a senior housing market rate project with no subsidies. This is the first senior housing development on the north side of Mount Vernon and in the Fleetwood area in which there are a large number of senior citizens. Mr. Addesso went through the waivers and variances including the parking requirements. The parking provided is 53 spaces which will be provided in the underground parking garage on-site. He said that mitigating this is the proximity to the train station (approximately 500 – 600’ distant with buses stopping in front of the building. Many municipalities have parking ratios of 1 or 1.2 spaces per unit in these transit areas and for senior citizens. Additionally, the parking for the retail and restaurant space can be provided in the Fleetwood garage. If the City Council approves the overlay, we will be back before this Board for site plan review. Mr. Tedesco described the surrounding area and described the building’s architecture and materials. He spoke about the balconies and ground level retail activity. He indicated that they have not changed the entrance and exit from the site. There is no left turn onto Gramatan Avenue. The bedroom mix is 5 studios, 35 one-bedroom units, and 16 two-bedroom units. Total number of units is 56. The Cedar Street side provides the opportunity to enter into the residential entry and lobby. He showed the plans for the project describing the lighting and impervious surface. There will be 5 tanks collecting water to mitigate runoff as well as an oil/water separator. The designs came from the City Engineer. Units range from 700 – 900 sf The 8th floor is unique in that it has a 1.300 sf penthouse and amenities including a pool, walking paths, outside porch fitness center, community room. He showed the shadow studies. He reviewed the renderings with the Board members. 3 The Chair asked about parking and the lot at 42 Broad Street. There is not a lot of parking left in the area. Parking is problematic. He asked about valet parking. Need plan B for parking if there is an issue with parking. Mr. Addesso indicated that the Planning Board will not be making a recommendation this evening. We will look at options for parking. The applicant will provide answers to their questions at the next meeting. Chair explained that this is before the City Council which will be holding public hearings on the rezoning application. If it is approved and comes back to the Planning Board for site plan review, there will be public hearings held by the Planning Board. He indicated that the Planning Board will accept written questions and statements from the public which can be directed to Mr. Galvin, the Planning Administrator. Mr. Galvin, the Planning Administrator, provided his city email address and indicated that he would send any comments to the Planning Board as well as the applicant to be addressed The Chairman read description of 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 indicated that this is a continuation of the public hearing on the site plan for the project. The Project was initially submitted by the Applicant on February 4, 2021; additional materials were submitted by the Applicant on April 22, 2021, April 30, 2021, and May 26, 2021. The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Application on March 3, 2021, and continued on May 5, 2021, June 3, 2021, August 4, 2021, and September 8, 2021. Based on review of the entire record, the Planning Board directed the Planning Administrator to complete Part 2 of the Full EAF. As indicated in the Part 2 of the Full EAF, the Planning Board has identified several potential small impacts of the Project on Land, Aesthetic Resources, Historic and Archeological Resources, Transportation, Noise, Odor and Light, Human Health. The Planning Board has also identified positive impacts of the Project and has determined that the Project complies with the Findings adopted by the City Council in connection with its adoption of the MVW District regulations and the design standards set by the MVW zone. In cases involving applicants for funding or approvals, the lead agency must decide the significance of the action within 20 calendar days of its receipt of an EAF and application and other reasonably necessary information, or within 20 calendar days of its establishment as lead agency, whichever comes last. Essentially, the Board should decide of significance as early in the process as possible. Public comment has been provided by Mr. Ferrandino in a letter dated July 30, 2021, which has been provided to the Planning Board. Applicant has provided supplemental information for the EAF. The supplemental information provided is to demonstrate how 4 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. A draft Negative Declaration has been prepared by the Planning Administrator and reviewed by Land Use Counsel for the review and consideration of the Planning Board. If the Planning Board approves the Negative Declaration, this will close out the SEQRA review. The Planning Board can then continue their site plan review and consider any potential conditions before finalizing their review. Mr. Steven Horton, Grandview Consulting introduced himself as the co-developer of the Project and introduced the rest of the team present this evening. He repeated the description of the project, highlighting the 4,00 0sf of retail space and sales tax revenue, the open space that exceeds the Code requirements, the burying of the Power Line with an investment of over $1 million and the 3:1 mitigation of the sanitary sewers in co-ordination with DPW and the City Engineer (which will be paid for by the Applicant, and the SWPPP which will be approved by the City Engineer and filed with the City including a stormwater maintenance agreement as Applicant’s responsibility. Applicant responded to the considerable public comment at the Board’s August meeting. These included impacts of construction on neighboring businesses. Mr. Horton read a letter from the Executive Director of Y Cop indicating support for the Project. He also read letter from 50 business entities in Mount Vernon and the surrounding area. Provided supporting letter from Roth Windows (55-year-old business) which has become primary window vendor for 42 Broad Street. Mr. Kenneth Plummer highlighted the youth facility and retail space being supported by Mount Vernon residents. He read supporting letter from CEO of Unitex, the largest family- based health services provider. The Chair asked about the AMI numbers and raising the bottom level from 30% to 40 or 50%. The Chair indicated that the Project needs to be built with median mix of housing income levels Mr. Plummer indicated that they have heard the concerns of several Planning Board members and have seriously considered elevating the lower end to a higher income. After a long discussion, the Applicant believes that the income band can be adjusted to 40% - 90% and eliminate the 30% level. 5 Commissioner Thompson- Njenga asked Mr. Plummer to explain the form-based code zoning and history behind the MVW rezoning in Mount Vernon West. Mr. Plummer described the basis of the zoning and how it is applied. Described the DGEIS process with the City Council and how the zoning represents the City’s vision of the area. He also described the experience in New Rochelle which has gone much quicker in implementing the zoning and has already reached their planning and development goals. . Public comment – Mr. Ferrandino has submitted several planning memos regarding traffic which the Applicant has not addressed. He indicated that the thresholds of the City Council’s Findings are not viable. They are negating the industrial area in the MV West area. He spoke about expedited reviews in the Code which do not address the outlined topics. The Chair asked Mr. Ferrandino to sit down and allow other members of the public to speak. He will be asked to come back. Public – Ms. Feldman – spoke about Beacon Company (she works for the firm). The company will be impacted and will leave the area. She expressed concerns about being able to operate during construction. The Company employs 40 people with a very diverse work force. Applicant needs to provide a new traffic study. The development impacts their industrial island. Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo asked Ms. Feldman why it matters if the company was included in the overlay zone. There would b no change in activity. She indicated that the zoning has already been passed. There was no correspondence to the City Council from the firm when the zoning was changed. Commissioner Zamor asked Ms. Feldman the basis for her opposition to the Project. She indicated that it essentially was that the area is too congested and that the new development would increase that congestion and impact their business. Jonathan German, VP of NRP Group addressed the Planning Board. He indicated that RPG had reached out to David Mesh and had never heard back. He indicated that RRG had provided a breakdown of the unit mix and income levels to the staff, the Planning Board and the public. He went through the additional information provided to the Board at the request of the Planning Administrator. JMC updated the trip generation and impacts on the intersections within the last several months. The Chair asked the Applicant’s Attorney up to discuss the form-based code and information provided . Ms. Giris spoke about how the application conforms to the form-based code. She spoke about the how the application has met or exceeded the Findings of the City Council upon the enactment of the MVW zoning code. Finally, she briefly the Applicant’s additional 6 studies and information provided to the Planning Board which were over and above the information included in the City Council’s Findings. Public – Mr. Ferrandino spoke about the traffic analysis and traffic improvements. He stated that there has been no adequate traffic impact done by the Applicant. Commissioner Zamor asked Mr. Ferradino to provide an outline of the issues. Provide the Board with specific issues. Mr. Ferrandino replied that he should ask the Applicant to address the concerns. Mr. Ferrandino finally left the meeting abruptly. The Chair asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Zamor indicated that the Applicant should get a letter from the School District regarding the impact of the Project. The Chair mentioned the claw back provisions regarding any possible IDA Plot to keep the school district whole. Commissioner Zamor stated that the Applicant should respond. Commissioner Whites indicated that there have been a number of issues raised during the site plan review. The Applicant has provided the Planning Board with additional information addressing these issues. The Board has been reviewing the application for approximately 7 months. He suggested that the Planning Board can close the public hearing at this point. Commissioner Zamor indicated that we can do a deeper dive into the stormwater and sanitary sewer issues. He also spoke about neighborhood flooding. He asked if the Youth Facility would be permanent. What happens if it goes away. He also suggested that an appropriate drop off area be arranged for the kids. Shanitra Lockett in response to a question from the Board indicated that the public hearing was noticed for site plan review and not SEQRA. The Chair made a motion to adopt the Negative Declaration for the Project at 115 South Macquesten Parkway, seconded by Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo. A roll call vote was made: Voting Yes: Chairman Selsey, Commissioner Gleason-Bonacardo, Commissioner Whites, and Commissioner Thompson. Voting No: Commissioner Thompson-Njenga, Commissioner Zamor and Commissioner Trolio. The motion carried by a vote of 4 – 3. Commissioner Whites made a motion to close the public hearing for the site plan for the Project at 115 South Macquesten Parkway, seconded by Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo and carried by a vote of 4-3. 7 The public hearing was closed The Chairman read the description of the following: 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 indicated that this is a continuation of the public hearing. The Chair indicated that the Applicant has submitted larger images of the Sight Line Plans from its Independent Living Site Plan application. This additional submission is to address comments about the visibility of the Independent Living Building from off-site. The submitted plans show the views from four (4) locations as well as the approximate distance from the view position to the face of the IL building. The views have been provided with photographs of the existing Spring and Winter conditions which has been bound in a booklet entitled “Wartburg Independent Senior Residences.” This is not new information but rather larger images of the details in the Site Plan previously submitted. Applicant in response to the City Council’s comments and concerns has previously lowered the building height of the Independent Living Building to 8 stories. It now conforms to the 90-foot height limitation in the zone. The Independent Living facility is a 210 unit building as compared to the 218 unit building previously reviewed. SEQRA Determination: The City Council as lead agency for the remapping of the Wartburg property in the RMF-SC zoning 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 were provided to the Planning Board. The City Council’s Negative Declaration has been provided for the Planning Board’s review. Note that the Planning Board has previously reviewed these projects which are similar in scope to those previously reviewed. The Planning Board has conducted 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. A proposed resolution was prepared by the Planning Administrator for the review and consideration for the Planning Board. The proposed resolution includes that the Planning Board reviewed both the Assisted Living and Independent Living facilities and evaluated their cumulative impacts, reviewed the Full EAF (4/1/21), confirmed the findings made by the City Council in their resolution filed 1/28/21 and determined that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts that would rise to the level of significance required for a Positive Declaration. The draft resolution includes as a condition the 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. The Chair read portions of the draft resolution. 8 William Null, Applicant’s Attorney, addressed the Planning Board and indicated that the design has not changed. Commissioner Zamor stated that he does not believe that the Project has any real benefit. The Chair asked if there was any additional comment from the public. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed. The Chair made a motion to approve the site plan for the resolution for the Wartburg – Independent Living Building at the Wartburg Campus, seconded by Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo and carried by a vote of 6-1. The Chair read the description for the following: Case No. 8-2021 434 Gramatan Avenue (Section 165.38, Block 1162, Lot 2) in the RMF-15 zone The Chair indicated that this is a continuation of the public hearing. The Applicant, CPD Group, is seeking site plan review for the 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. The C-Store renovation/conversion will also require a special permit. The footprint of the existing building is not being expanded and will have 1,030 sf of net retail sales area. The property is an existing gas station located at 434 Gramatan Avenue between William Street and Fleetwood Avenue, across from the Westchester Gardens apartments. Specifically, the applicant is proposing a new 24’ x 52’ canopy proposed above the fuel pumps. The proposed canopy will not encroach upon the adjacent sidewalk which will be reconstructed around the property. Applicant appeared at the ZBA work session on August 17, 2021. The members of the ZBA had a favorable review of the area variance for the canopy and authorized the development of a Findings of Fact in support of the area variance. However, the Findings of Fact for this application was held over to the ZBA’s September 20, 2021, to allow for the noticing of the public hearing for the application. Applicant appeared at the ARB meeting on August 25, 2021, and discussed an updated gable roof design for the C-Store. The ARB approved the canopy and C-Store application for a certificate of appropriateness on August 25, 2021. Applicant has provided this updated roof design to the Planning Board. Applicant has prepared a Narrative describing how the application meets the standards of the special permit in the RMF-15 zone. SEQRA Determination: On June 2, 2021, the Planning Board determined this to be a Type II action. Mr. Kirkpatrick, the Applicant’s Attorney, addressed the Board and provided a Narrative describing how the application has met the standards of the special permit (§267-28 (K). 9 Mr. Kveit, the CPD Project Manager, went through the history of the application including the ARB and ZBA. He described the updated gable roof on the convenience store and showed the renderings of the store from various viewpoints. Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo suggested that the Board authorize the staff to prepare a draft resolution for the Board’s review. The Chair asked if there was any public comment. Public – Member of the public complained how many more convenience stores are going to be built. We don’t really need any more. Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo indicated that the site was in severe disrepair. She then explained that the public notice and sign posting were provided for this application. This is why the meeting is a public hearing which allows the public to comment on the application. Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo made a motion to authorize staff to prepare a draft resolution for 434 Gramatan Avenue, seconded by the Chair and carried by a vote of 7-0. The public hearing remains open. The Chair read the description of the following: Case No. 11-2021 1 Mount Vernon Avenue (Section 165.69, Block 1069, Lot 7) in CB (Commercial Business) with MVW-Corridor Overlay The Applicant is seeking site plan/special permit approval for Proposed Gas Station Renovation with 1 new underground storage tank (UST) and two gas pump islands and Conversion of Auto Repair to Convenience Store at 1 Mount Vernon Avenue. SEQRA Determination – The proposed action is a Type II action based on 617.5(c)(18) “reuse of a residential or commercial structure, or of a structure containing mixed residential and commercial uses, where the residential or commercial use is a permitted use under the applicable zoning law or ordinance, including permitted by special-use permit, and the action does not meet or exceeds any of the thresholds in section 617.4 “ The Chair indicated that Shahin Badaly, Applicant’s Engineer, will present the application and review the drawings with the Planning Board. Mr. Badaly reviewed the project drawings. The subject property is approximately 8,000 sf lot in the CB zone. He went through the location of the site, striping for the parking lot, the new gas pump islands and the conversion of the small auto repair to a convenience store. The C-store will be 842 sf while the remainder of the garage will be 1,998 sf. The required parking is 11 spaces with 13 spaces being provided. The site is 100 percent impervious surface. The exterior renovations will require ARB review. Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo suggested water retention tanks to address runoff from the site. 10 Commissioner Trolio suggested that he provide landscaping with 4’ buffer including Schip Laurel, flowering plants and street trees. There is only one other gas station in the area approximately 1 ½ blocks distant. Commissioner Zamor indicated that the lighting should use color temperature between 3000 – 3500 kelvin. He also would like to see a photometric plan showing the 0.1 fc on the adjacent streets to prevent glare. He would also like to see security cameras provided. The Chair opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing remained open. The Chair read the description of the following application: Case No. 9-2021 19 South 10th Avenue (Section 165.69, Block 3052, Lot 32 in the RMF-6.75 District. The Chair indicated that this is a continuation of the public hearing. Applicant is Tom Abillama, the architect. Applicant is seeking site plan and special permit approval for the adaptive reuse of former school building for 33 studio units for Veterans. Supportive services will be provided on-site. Domiciliary care facilities are allowed by special permit in the RMF-6.75 zone per §287-28B. The building is a 3-story structure with lower level and sub-basement. The existing building is the former Mount Carmel elementary school. The building has been vacant for a number of years. There is no expansion of the building’s footprint and no changes to the exterior of the building. Applicant will be providing street trees along the front of the building. Applicant will be addressing the following issues that were raised at the Planning Board’s August meeting. These included: on-site Security and design modifications, off-street parking, back up off-street parking alternatives, and information on the ownership and management entity and funding sources. SEQRA Determination – At the Board’s August 4, 2021, meeting, the Planning Board determined the proposed action to be a Type II action based on 617.5(c)(18) “reuse of a residential or commercial structure, or of a structure containing mixed residential and commercial uses, where the residential or commercial use is a permitted use under the applicable zoning law or ordinance, including permitted by special-use permit, and the action does not meet or exceeds any of the thresholds in section 617.4 “ Mr. Jack Addesso, the Applicant’s Attorney, spoke about the issues that were raised at the last meeting. The plans have been revised to reflect the entrance through one main door. There will be a private 24-hour security in the main floor. Parking – a lease agreement has been negotiated for 15 spaces. The term of the lease is 30 years with two five-year options. This will be deed restricted and recorded in the County Clerk’s Office. A copy of the lease agreement has been provided. Any changes to parking would need to come back to the Planning Board under the special permit. Presentation on funding will be made at the next meeting . The Applicant now owns the property. A Narrative from Mr. Abillama covers all 11  of these changes as discussed, this evening. A discussion ensued about the renewal of the special permit and terms of the renewal at three years. Commissioner Zamor asked about the fee for special permit application. The Planning Administration the fee is $500 for the application. He also spoke about the sidewalk and street trees. He suggested that the exterior lighting not exceed the color temperature of 3,500 kelvin. The Chair indicated that the applicant would return with additional information. The public hearing remains open. The Chair read the description for the following application: Case No. 10-2021 65 West Second Street (Section 165.77, Block 3067, Lot 23 in the RMF-6.75 District The Chair indicated that the public hearing remains open. Applicant is Tom Abillama, the architect. This proposal was reviewed by the Planning Board at its August meeting. The City Council added a text amendment to the RMF-6.75 zone with specific standards for the special permit. The proposal is for an 8-unit townhouse development on a 13, 160 sf corner lot around a central courtyard with 16 parking spaces. The specific standards include: 1) principal buildings shall be separated by a minimum of 18’; 2) minimum of 2,100 of lot area per dwelling unit; 3) useable open space building coverage of 500 sf per unit; 4) open space shall have a minimum dimension of 15’; 5 ) streetscape improvement plan required addressing improvements to sidewalks, public utilities, street trees, street furniture, and similar improvements. The City Council issued a Negative Declaration for the proposed text changes and specifically referenced the proposal indicating that there were no significant environmental impacts related to the proposed 8-unit townhouse development. There is no GML requirement to circulate the proposed action to Westchester County Planning. Based on the comments at the Planning Board’s August 4th meeting, the Applicant has revised the plans to reflect the special permit standards in the approved text amendment approved by the City Council. Applicant will review how the project meets the special permit conditions. SEQRA Determination – This is an unlisted action under SEQRA. The Planning Board is lead agency for the site plan review of the proposed action. The City Council issued a Negative Declaration for the proposed text changes and referenced the proposed 8-unit development. Note that the Planning Board has previously reviewed this project and provided recommendations to the City Council. Mr. Jack Addesso appeared for the Applicant. He indicated that the plans have now been revised to comply with the standards of the special permit for townhouse development in the RMF-6.75 zone. The architect has provided the ordinance and special use standards on the plans together with a Zoning Compliance Table showing how the project now complies 12 with §267-18 (B). The architect also revised the stormwater plans to include 26 cultec chambers to attenuate runoff from the site. Commissioner Zamor indicated that he still had a density issue. The Planning Board had recommended six units as part of their recommendation. A general discussion ensued on the special permit standards enacted by the City Council. The Planning Administrator indicated that the City Council had discussed the six units and the eight units in their SEQRA review and found that there was not a significant environmental impact between the 6 unit and 8-unit developments. The City Council provided a minimum requirement of 1,600 sf of lot area per dwelling unit. The plan in fact provides 1,645 sf per dwelling unit. The architect explained how he redesigned the project to meet all of the special permit dimensional standards. Commissioner Gleason-Boncardo made a motion to authorize staff to prepare a draft resolution for the townhouse development at 65 West 2nd Street, seconded by the Chair and carried by a vote of 7-0. The Chair read the description of the following application: Case No. 12-2021 219 West Third Street (Section 169.21, Block 3014, Lot 32 and 23 in the CB (Commercial Business). The Chair indicated that this is a new public hearing which was opened this evening. Mr. Tom Abillama, the architect, is representing the owner, Gyory Partners. City Council referred the Applicant’s proposal for self-storage to the Planning Board for their review. The Planning Board reviewed the proposal and recommended a special permit with specific conditions in selected zones including the Commercial Business zone. The Planning Board recommended the specific standards including the design of self-storage facilities to mitigate impacts on surrounding uses as well as to ensure the presence of ground level streetscape with high-quality retail on the ground level. The text amendment was approved by the City Council on June 23, 2021. Proposed Project - Applicant proposes to demolish the existing warehouse building and construct in its place a 5-story building containing 5,000 square feet of retail space on the ground floor, and 53,760 square feet of self-storage warehouse space on the 2nd through 5th floors. Sixteen at-grade parking spaces are proposed, accessed from a new curb cut onto S. 13th Avenue. An additional one-way travel lane is proposed behind the building from S. 13th Avenue to S. 14th Avenue that will provide access to a potential drive-thru window for the retail space. The Project occupies two separate lots which will need to be merged if the application is approved. With this initial review, the Planning Board should request a Project Narrative and zoning compliance table which describes in detail how the application meets the specific standards and parking requirements of the special permit. The Board should also request the following: a) Detailed landscape plan including planting/tree schedule, street furniture, etc. 13  b) Provide parking lot drainage plan and details for review by City Engineer and DPW. c) Lighting Plan, Utility and sewer information for review by DPW. d) Parking lot layout showing accessibility and widths of car and van spaces, width of access aisles and routes through the parling lot; location of handicapped spaces, and loading spaces, retail drive and signage in the parking lot. SEQRA Determination - The proposed action is an unlisted action under SEQRA. The Planning Board is lead agency for the site plan/special permit review of the proposed action. Note that the Planning Board has previously reviewed this project and provided recommendations to the City Council. The Planning Board can authorize a Notice of Intent (NOI) for Lead Agency to be distributed. It will need to be referred to Westchester County Planning under GML (General Municipal Law). Mr. Jack Addesso presented the application and provided a brief history noting the review and recommendation of the Planning Board. He introduced Tom Abillama who will review the drawings with the Board. Mr. Abillama described the landscape plan and spoke about the street trees along the front of the building. He asked about the setbacks to the building. He described the lighting and pointed out the bollard type lighting. He also described the parking lot layout The spaces meet the required width and provided handicapped spaces as well as two loading docks. He pointed out the retail drive thru. Signage needs to be added to the parking lot plans and provide left turn restrictions on exiting traffic. Security cameras will be installed as well las exterior cameras. Commissioner Zamor asked where the open space area is and asked about the placement of the trees on the property and not at the curb. He said that the additional plantings near the building would help to soften the massing of the building. There was discussion between Commissioner Zamor and the architect on the landscaping the lighting plan and keeping the color temperature of the lighting at 3,500 kelvin. He asked for photometric plan. The architect took copious notes to revise the plans for the Planning Board for the next meeting. The Planning Administrator spoke about the quality of the retail tenants which would allow a fifth floor to be added to the building. Michael Joy, the developer, came up to the podium and addressed the retail component. He indicated that they are increasing the interior height of the retail space to attract high quality retail tenants. The design features with the glass and double columns and landscape quality will have an impact on the type of retail that can be attracted. Planning Administrator indicated that the Planning Board should ask staff to send out a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Board to declare itself Lead Agency for the Project’ s SEQRA review. 14 The Chair requested the staff to prepare the NOI for the Planning Board to be Lead Agency for this unlisted action. With no further matters before the Commission, the Chair made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Trolio with a vote of 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM. Bob Galvin, AICP Planning Administrator 15