Beacon City Planning Board

July 12, 2005

The Planning Board meeting was held on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 in the courtroom of the Municipal Center. A workshop took place at 7:00 p.m. and the regular meeting commenced at 7:10 p.m. with Chairman Jay Hibbs; Member Randall Williams; Alternate Members Anne Rapalje and John Gunn; Building Inspector Tim Dexter; City Engineer Art Tully and City Attorney Gerard Pisanelli in attendance. Members Vince Arquilla, Ed Sablinski, Tony Lassiter, Jay Sheers and Spring Attaway were absent.

Chairman Hibbs asked for corrections/additions to the minutes of the June 14, 2005 meeting or a motion to approve as circulated. A motion was made by Mr. Gunn, seconded by Mr. Williams to approve the minutes as circulated. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SENIOR HOUSING FACILITY, MEADOW RIDGE II, MATTEAWAN ROAD

Mr. Hibbs read the public hearing notice printed in the Poughkeepsie Journal on July 6, 2005 and opened the public hearing relative to an application for Special Use Permit approval for a senior housing facility, known as Meadow Ridge II, submitted by Hudson Valley Housing Development Fund Company, Inc., property located off Matteawan Road, identified on City tax maps as Section 6055, Block 03, Lot 266178.

Peg O’Leary from Hudson Valley Housing Development Fund Company explained this hearing is to renew the Special Use Permit previously granted for a senior housing facility on Matteawan Road. There is not a renewal process currently on the books therefore applicants must start from the beginning and continue through the entire process. The project continues to be 52 units of senior citizen housing consisting of one and two bedroom units.

Dennis Pavelock, 34 Judson Street, asked if any other proposals were prepared for this property. Ms. O’Leary explained their only proposal is for a senior citizen housing facility.

There were no further comments from the public and Mr. Williams made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Mr. Williams made a motion to recommend the City Council grant a Special Use Permit for the senior citizen housing project known as Meadow Ridge II, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 2 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION, 2

RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SUBMITTED BY THOMAS NINNIE, WILSON STREET

Mr. Hibbs read the public hearing notice printed in the Poughkeepsie Journal on

July 6, 2005 and opened the public hearing on the application for Subdivision of property

(2 residential lots) owned by Thomas Ninnie, located on 99 Wilson Street, identified on City Tax Maps as Section 6055, Block 81, Lot 575041.

Dennis Walden representing owner Thomas Ninnie, described the proposed two lot subdivision of property on Wilson Street. Zoning requires 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit and this is a 21,000 sq. ft. parcel. The property consists of very rocky terrain and the owner continues to remove rock to make it useful. One house has been constructed on the property and the owner wants to subdivide off a second lot.

Mr. Stolman asked if they had achieved the desired 30 ft. wide rear yard as discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Walden reported the owner has attained about 22 ft. behind the existing house and continues to remove rock from the other lot. He explained they may not be able to get any more than 22 feet due to reaching very hard rock that can’t be removed without blasting. Mr. Stolman recapped the history of this project. This applicant was before the board two years ago for this subdivision and subsequently retracted the application. He then got an excavation permit and obtained a building permit to construct a single family house on the lot. Now the subdivision application has been revived and the existing house has a very small back yard. Mr. Stolman believed a larger rear yard would have been required in the initial subdivision and felt the Planning Board still has jurisdiction over both lots.

Mr. Tully provided Mr. Walden with a written list of engineering comments regarding storm drainage, grading plan and drainage issues. The plan needs to be redone because contours are not readable and a cross section of both the existing and proposed house must be provided. Building elevations must be provided and elevations for the basement, first floor and garage must be accurately labeled.

Property owner Thomas Ninnie reported the owner of the existing house does not want a large yard so maintenance is minimal. This yard is larger than any other yard on the street and the rock is so hard it wouldn’t make sense to take any more out. Mr. Ninnie said he has been in the excavation business since he was a boy and this is the hardest rock he has ever seen.

Roberta Marsh, 98 Wilson Street, said she and her neighbors had concern about the ongoing rock removal and thought the plan called for two additional houses. She asked if the new house would be higher than the surrounding housing stock. Mr. Ninnie explained only one more house is planned and the new structure will be no higher than others.

With regard to the rear yard, Mr. Ninnie said he could create a stairway to the upper plateau behind the existing house to provide additional yard space if needed. Mr. Stolman explained that although 35 ft. is the minimum rear yard setback, good planning calls for a useable yard at least 30 ft. wide. Mr. Ninnie argued that not everyone wants a large yard to care for and he could have applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance to move the houses forward however opted to keep them in line with remaining houses. He again

offered to construct a stairway to the flat portion of property which is approximately 12 ft. higher than the house. Due to the number of outstanding items, the public hearing will continue at the August meeting.

ITEM NO. 3 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE

PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT, SUBMITTED BY JOHN GUNN,

47 SOUTH AVENUE

Since there were only four members present, Mr. Gunn could not recuse himself from the meeting and this item could not be heard at this time.

ITEM NO. 4 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN

APPROVAL, RESTAURANT FACILITY, 236-240 MAIN STREET, SUBMITTED

BY BEACON TERMINAL ASSOCIATES

Mr. Hibbs read the public hearing notice published in the Poughkeepsie Journal on July 6, 2005 relative to an application for Site Plan Approval for a restaurant facility, submitted by David Perlman, property located at 236-240 Main Street, identified on City tax maps as Section 5954, Block 27, Lot 872913.

Aryeh Siegel described his client’s proposal to change the use of the building at 236-240 Main Street into a restaurant. The parking lot behind the building provides most of the required off-street parking and a variance for the remaining spaces was granted in June. The drawing was revised based on comments made last month: the back up area for 5 North Walnut Street was shown, parking calculations for the adjacent building at 242-244 Main Street were provided and copies of the existing easement were submitted. The owner’s attorney is working on other required easements.

Mr. Stolman advised the application can be changed Site Plan Approval because restaurants do not require Special Use Permits in the General Business zoning district, thus there is no need for City Council approval. A note on the plan refers to “retail” hours of operation and should reflect “restaurant” hours. Note #3 mentions the parking lot is owned by Beacon Terminal Associates, LLC and they own more than one adjacent parcel, therefore reference should be made to the address, rather than owner. Sign dimensions are needed and only one sign per building is permitted.

Mr. Tully reported a sign on North Walnut Street is needed to identify the parking lot access. The applicant could work with adjacent owners to see if they would allow a sign to be placed on their property. Since three lots are essentially involved (5 North Walnut Street, 236-240 Main Street and 424-244 Main Street) all three should be made part of the application. The plan should clearly label access to the parking lot which is through an easement. Also, that easement is only 11 ft. wide and may not be adequate for two-way access to a 12-13 space parking lot that will now be used for restaurant patrons. The change of use expands the previous use and that increase should be addressed or re-evaluated. The pole located in the center of the parking lot makes turning difficult, if not impossible, therefore may need to be relocated. Mr. Tully said both dumpster enclosures appear to be blocked by parking spaces. Mr. Siegel explained the existing space shown for 242-244 is a loading space and will not be occupied by vehicles. The rolling trash bins are moved through the alley to Main Street for pick up. The plan will be clarified to show how the arrangement will work. Mr. Siegel reported the handicap parking spaces are ADA compliant because they are 8 ft. wide and are located next to the 8 ft. loading zone. Mr. Tully advised that maintenance provisions must be made part of the easement agreements.

Mr. Hibbs asked Mr. Dexter if emergency vehicles typically have access to the rear of buildings on Main Street. Mr. Dexter said the majority of buildings in that portion of Main Street do not have rear access. He explained most emergency response vehicles are no larger than typical delivery trucks, with the exception of the tower ladder. A Fire Department evaluation can be requested for consideration.

There were no comments from the public and Mr. Williams made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Discussion regarding the 11 ft. wide parking lot access continued. Mr. Tully explained that although the easement has been used for many years, it originally accessed a parking lot behind a single family house and this proposal creates a new situation. Consideration must be given to solving a potentially unsafe situation with two-way traffic in and out of the site. Suggested solutions included obtaining another right-of-way through the adjacent property, increasing the existing easement by 5 ft. from 246 Main Street, providing valet parking, or seeking another parking variance so the lot is not used for customer parking. Much debate took place and both Planning Board members and the applicant were frustrated with the overall parking dilemma for new businesses on Main Street. Mr. Tully reminded members that his position is advisory only and that the Board should make their own objective determination. After a great deal of discussion regarding the situation and hardship it creates for the restaurant proprietor, the applicant was advised to explore solution possibilities and return to the August meeting in hopes of having a full board (7 members) present for a vote.

ITEM NO. 5 PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF PROPOSAL FOR SUBDIVISION,

6 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SUBMITTED BY PAGGI, MARTIN & DELBENE, LLP,

(PROPERTY OWNED BY BEACON TERMINAL ASSOCIATES), 989 WOLCOTT

AVENUE

Ernst Martin of Paggi, Martin & DelBene, presented two preliminary conceptual subdivision layouts for a two acre parcel situated at 989 Wolcott Avenue that backs up to Iris Circle. The property has an existing structure, shown as Lot #3, which the applicant is proposing to preserve. Both conceptual layouts provide six residential lots served with municipal water and sewer services. The only substantive difference between the two layouts is how access is provided to Lot #4. In the first concept, Lot #4 gains access over the existing driveway on Lot #3. In the alternate layout, a common driveway would serve Lot #5 and Lot #6 and extend into Lot #4, leaving the existing driveway for Lot #3 unmodified. In each case, Lot #5 and Lot #6 will be accessed from a common driveway accessed from the paper street off Iris Circle.

Mr. Stolman explained the City Council recently adopted amendments to the City’s subdivision regulations and no more than two homes can be served with a common driveway. A private road would need to be created if three houses share access and a homeowner’s association for maintenance must be created. Mr. Stolman questioned the layout with respect to front yards that would be effectively facing rear yards. Additionally, he noted the rear yards cannot not face Wolcott Avenue. Mr. Ernst explained they had considered a cul de sac layout but it would take a substantial chunk of green space away from the development. They had hoped to create a more rural feel, different than the average setting. The house style has yet to be determined but consideration was given to a cedar, rustic or a more classical look set apart from the everyday venue. Mr. Hibbs explained the City’s architectural review approval process and mentioned surrounding housing stock is taken into account, specifically if something is “too similar” or “too dissimilar” in nature. He noted the housing stock on Iris Circle is very conventional. The applicant said they had considered smaller housing that uses space economically with less significant building footprints to provide more usable space. They had not given a great deal of thought to landscaping at this point but considered hiring a professional. Mr. Hibbs explained the Planning Board must also consider the environment that will be created, as well as housing aesthetics so thought must be given to surrounding conditions. One of the biggest issues is to deal with is how this development will be separated, yet combined, with the existing development. Much debate and discussion took place regarding the layout. Additionally, adequate sight distance from the existing driveway on Wolcott Avenue must be a consideration. Mr. Tully explained that when the River Knolls subdivision was originally done, the paper street stub off Iris Circle was left for access to the property, therefore the existing driveway could possible be eliminated. He advised the applicant to expand the proposal to show neighboring properties on both sides of Wolcott Avenue and Iris Circle. A cul de sac layout should be presented for review purposes. Mr. Hibbs noted the proposal meets lot requirements but other factors should be considered.

ITEM NO. 6 PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF PROPOSAL FOR SUBDIVISION,

2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SUBMITTED BY PAGGI, MARTIN & DELBENE, LLP,

97 VERPLANCK AVENUE

Ernst Martin of Paggi, Martin & DelBene, presented a preliminary conceptual two lot subdivision plan for property located at the intersection of Verplanck Avenue and Melio Bettina Place. The approximate 1,500 sq. ft. parcel has the remains of a burned out house and garage which will be removed. Lot #1 would be provided with access over the existing driveway on Verplanck Avenue and Lot #2 would be accessed from Melio Bettina Place. Both lots will be served with municipal water and sewer services via a 25 ft. utility easement connecting on Melio Bettina Place.

Mr. Tully pointed out that similar to the previous proposal, this layout shows the rear of Lot #2 will face the front yard of Lot #1. He suggested shifting both houses so they front Verplanck Avenue to eliminate that situation. The sight distance from Melio Bettina Place onto Verplanck Avenue is also a concern therefore a sight easement area will need to be created so shrubs or plants are not placed near the curb. A common driveway from Bettina Place could provide access to both homes and located over the utility easement. Since Lot #2 is on the corner, attention should be given to the house elevations on Melio Bettina and Verplanck Avenue.

ITEM NO. 7 REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CITY PLANNER REGARDING DEIS

COMPLETENESS, WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, SUBMITTED BY SCENIC

HUDSON LAND TRUST, INC. AND THE FOSS GROUP BEACON, LLC, LONG

DOCK BEACON

Lawrence Linder of the Foss Group Beacon, LLC asked that the agenda appropriately reflect both Scenic Hudson and the Foss Group organization as applicants for the project. Mr. Stolman prepared a memorandum outlining their review of the proposed Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for consideration. Mr. Linder questioned a comment on Page 4 of the document that referred to Transportation (Chapter 10 of the DEIS). He requested clarification on traffic impacts related to other projects in the area that may generate additional traffic. Mr. Stolman explained the comment referred to the new Metro North parking lot currently under construction because some reference of that construction should be made. Although not in the information loop, Mr. Stolman heard Metro North had plans for a transit-oriented development. Mr. Linder reported they have very little information on Metro North’s grand plan, they only know that there are proposals but no money at this time for development Mr. Stolman asked that they reference some type of development in Metro North’s plans for the future. Mr. Linder said it is their intention to address these comments quickly and in time for next month.

A letter to the Town of Fishkill Common Council, Planning Board and Zoning Board was drafted regarding the designation of Lead Agency and signed by Mr. Hibbs for distribution by the applicant. The Town of Fishkill owns the land under the Hudson River which is involved as part of the related subdivision. Had the applicant realized earlier in the process, the Town of Fishkill would have been included in the designation of Lead Agency circulation documents. Through no fault of everyone, this will address the addition of a new agency being involved. The Town of Fishkill will be added to the distribution list from this point forward.

ITEM NO. 8 REVIEW REVISED APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL,

64 SENIOR HOUSING UNITS, SUBMITTED BY BEACON COMMUNITY

FOUNDATION (ST. FRANCIS PROPERTY), CONKLIN STREET

Project Architect Mike McCormack of Liscum, McCormack & VanVoorhis, introduced Bill Brickelmaier from Insite Engineering, and Dan Leary of Cuddy & Fedder, LLC. The vacant 8.55 acre parcel is located northeast of St. Francis Hospital and is owned by Beacon Community Foundation. The proposed senior housing project consists of two buildings with a total of 64 units. The site will be accessed over an easement through the St. Francis property. The 80 vehicle parking lot is located adjacent to the buildings that are placed in an L-shape at the northeast corner of the site. A small maintenance building is located next to the emergency access road that leads to Conklin Street. The Federal Wetlands on the southern portion of the site were re-flagged and the easement area was worked out with St. Francis Hospital. A proposed walking trail will lead a hill to provide a scenic view. A recreation area is located between the two buildings adjacent to the rear retaining wall. Mr. McCormack reported a variance was granted to permit more units per building than allowed by zoning regulations. In response to neighborhood reaction and to provide a better layout, the original 74 unit proposal was reduced to 64 units.

Mr. Stolman believed there was some misunderstanding with respect to the existing zoning of the property. A proposal was before the City Council to rezone the property to RD-5, but he was unclear whether that had been made official. Mr. Stolman will look into it but either way, the proposal is within the requirements for the RD-5 zoning district. The wetland report must indicate who performed the study. The last paragraph was unclear because it indicated that as a result of the analysis, the wetland area may not be regulated by Army Corp of Engineers. Clarification is needed because typically there is some sort of jurisdictional determination. Mr. Stolman informed the applicant that a photometric illumination contour plan is needed. Dimensions, building heights, colors and materials need to be provided on the elevation drawings. The sign location is shown but sign details must be submitted. Notes regarding emergency access maintenance should be provided on the plan rather than on a separate letter. Mr. Stolman emphasized the importance of maintaining the emergency access during the winter months. Mr. Tully said the emergency access must be paved for easier maintenance, and gates should be placed near Conklin Street and near the top. The type of gate must be reviewed by the Fire Department to ensure safe access in an emergency. Mr. Dexter reported the Building Department inspects all emergency access sites after snowfall to be sure they are plowed and typically one violation notice rectifies future issues. He asked that they be sure the low area doesn’t pond and that the access road is not too steep for the fire truck.

Mr. Stolman noted the application materials do not define the senior citizen use, i.e. will it be 55 and over, what regulations are being followed, are children permitted, etc. A letter delineating restrictions and defining age limits will be submitted. Fair housing standards must be followed. The landscape plan must be better defined. The floor plan for the A2 unit shows a “study” room about the size of a bedroom, therefore the Planning Board must make a determination whether to count it as such so parking requirements can be accurately determined.

Mr. Tully provided the applicant with a list of his engineering comments. More details on construction, drainage, grading, etc. are also needed. If the water main proposed through the site is to be private, a water meter pit should be provided after the tie-in location on the existing main. If the pump station force main is to be privately owned and maintained, it should be clearly noted.

Mr. Gunn asked if the elevation drawings were conceptual in nature. Mr. McCormack explained they will provide colored rendered elevation drawings. The buildings will be brick, white plank with architectural grade shingles.

After some discussion regarding outstanding issues and the overall approval process, Mr. Gunn made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of August, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. Mr. Gunn, Ms. Rapalje and Mr. Hibbs voted in favor of the motion; Mr. Williams voted against the motion. Motion did not carry (3-1), therefore the applicant will return for further review at the August 2005 meeting.

Mr. Stolman asked if they had considered whether parking spaces will be assigned or not. If they are not assigned, he felt there should be a designated visitor parking area. Although the City Council typically assumes Lead Agency status with Special Use Permits, the Planning Board will refer the project proposal to Dutchess County Planning for their comments.

Miscellaneous Business

City Council request to review and comment on proposed Local Law amending Chapter

223-24.3.B – Artist Live/Work Space

Mr. Stolman explained the City Council is considering amending the Artist Live/Work Space law to change the renewal procedure so it is similar to the accessory apartment law where permits are renewed by the Building Department. Currently, the City Council holds the authority to re-approve Special Use Permits for artist live/work spaces every two years and a public hearing is required. This is different than accessory apartments which are inspected and renewed every two years by the Building Department without City Council involvement or a public hearing. After some discussion, Mr. Williams made a motion in support of the proposed change, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried. A memo will be sent to the City Council.

Certificate of Appropriateness

Certificates of Appropriateness: 155 Main Street & 167 Main Street - Facades

Members reviewed proposed colors and materials for building façades at 155 Main Street and 167 Main Street. After careful consideration, Mr. Williams made a motion to accept the subcommittee’s recommendation and issue Certificates of Appropriateness for both proposed building façades, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Certificate of Appropriateness: 149 Main Street – Façade

Mr. Dexter explained that when the Planning Board reviewed and approved the Site Plan layout for 149 Main Street, a separate vote to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness was not taken. Therefore as a housekeeping matter, Mr. Williams made a motion to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed building façade, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Architectural Review

Single Family House – 41 Cliff Street

Mr. Dexter explained that at the last Planning Board meeting, members reviewed and denied a proposal for a new single family home at 41 Cliff Street because it was too dissimilar to neighboring homes in the area. Subsequently, the applicant hired attorney who requested a written response as to why the proposal was denied. At the same time, Mr. Dexter worked with the applicant in an effort to come up with a design that would work for everyone. Based on comments made at the initial review, a new elevation drawing was created for review. Mr. Hibbs was not sure who should prepare a written response because the situation never arose before. City Attorney Pisanelli said he would need to review details with the City Engineer and Planner before preparing a written response. Mr. Dexter suggested a review of the new proposal and if found unacceptable, specific information as to why it is not preferred could be provided. Members reviewed the new proposal. Mr. Hibbs explained adjacent houses are single story and this house reaches up almost three levels from the ground. If the garage were not proposed under the house, the structure height could be reduced. After a great deal of debate, members felt they would need to perform a site visit and meet before creating notes needed to prepare a written letter of response.

Single Family House – Verplanck/Willow

Mr. Hibbs recused himself from this discussion because he has worked closely with the applicant on other matters. Architect Philip Speranza said he grew up in Rockland County and as a child spent time on the Hudson River. He lived in Virginia, New York and Spain and approximately one year ago returned from abroad. For the last eight months he has been looking for a place to live and recently made an offer on a house on South Street. That offer fell through and he found property for sale on the corner of Verplanck Avenue and Willow Street. The rocky site presents a challenge to develop so rather than blast away the rock, he is proposing a house that steps up the hillside thus requiring minimal excavation work. The narrow site has a 16 ft. rock outcropping and the house with hipped roofing would work into the natural landscape. A preliminary proposal was previously submitted and as a result of comments received, Mr. Speranza submitted revised drawings for review. Consideration was given to the garage appearance on Verplanck Avenue, porches, roofing, overall scale and how the proposed structure would relate to others in the area. Mr. Speranza presented an overview of the changes and provided an extensive description of element details of the design. After a lengthy discussion and review of the proposal, members felt that the proposed structure was too dissimilar to the neighborhood due to building scale, massing and roof lines in relation to the context of the neighborhood.

Single Family House – Delavan Avenue Lot #8

A proposal reviewed at the last Planning Board meeting was denied because the house appeared to be too similar to neighboring properties. After reviewing the revised proposal, members felt the scale of the space between the garage door and second floor window should be reduced by adding a transom over the door or some other architectural element.

Single Family House – Academy Street

This proposal is for a two story house in a neighborhood of predominantly single story homes. After much discussion with the applicant, members felt they should revisit the neighborhood to get a better feel for the existing housing stock.

Single Family House – Mountain Lane

The proposed house on Mountain Lane will be on the mountain side and located approximately 150 ft. from the road. After a lengthy discussion and review of the proposed elevation drawing, the Board felt that the front elevation of the first floor garage needed to be revised by adding some type of architectural element to reduce the scale of siding where only two small windows were provided.

There was no further business to discuss and Ms. Rapalje made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.