Planning Board Minutes - February 8, 2005

Minutes

Regular Meeting of the Planning Board

Village/Town of Mount Kisco

Tuesday February 8, 2005

Meeting called to order at 8:00p.m. At the Municipal Building Mount Kisco, New York

Members Present: Joseph Cosentino

Anthony Sturniolo

Stanley Bernstein

Ralph Vigliotti

Doug Hertz

Joseph Morreale

Members Absent:

Staff Present: Nanette Bourne

Whitney Singleton

Michael Stein

Chairman Cosentino began the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Chairman Cosentino: This is the Planning Board Tuesday February 8, 2005 and this is a regular meeting.

Stanley Bernstein motioned to accept the minutes to be approved.

Anthony Sturniolo: Page 1 Line 55 should read : I to be inserted. On page 2 line 36 typo. Page 28 line 34-39 has that been accomplished?

Nancy Placona: Yes the plan was submitted for drawing and samples but has not gone before the ARB yet. It will be in their packets.

Nanette Bourne: Copies of that are included in your packet.

Anthony Sturniolo: Page 32 typo on line 10 the word should be approved. No further comments Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Cosentino: We have a motion by Mr. Bernstein and a second by Mr. Sturniolo.

Doug Hertz: One typo on page 27 line 23 should read David Sessions.

Board Polled: Dr. Morreale abstained, Mr. Bernstein aye, Mr. Sturniolo aye, Mr. Hertz aye, Chairman Cosentino aye.

David Menkin counsel for the applicant, JoAnn Pirraglia owner manager of Tuscan Oven

David Menkin: We are looking for the Planning Board's consent to let us go to the ARB to put Tuscan Oven's name on the two monument signs that are on the outside of the Mount Kisco Plaza and on the directional sign going up from Foxwood where you take a right into CVS. The Planning Board has retained jurisdiction over this sign matter.

Chairman Cosentino: It is because of the resolution.

David Menkin: That is right. So we have to come back to you to let us go on to the ARB.

Chairman Cosentino: I was always wondering why there wasn't a sign there. There actually should be. This is a conceptual and I don't know if my fellow board members have anything they would like to add to that.

Doug Hertz: I am just curious. I don't know the history of how the signs were adopted.

Chairman Cosentino: Going back the Planning Board had the jurisdiction of putting signs near Blockbuster, Staples etc. Actually I think the resolution said two or three major stores. Any other stores that wanted a sign have to come back here.Normally they would go to the ARB. On this particular application they have to come back here to get our blessings to go to the ARB.

Doug Hertz: How is it that there are four signs currently?

Chairman Cosentino: That is all that came in at the time and we have allowed that.

Doug Hertz: We have allowed more than three.

Chairman Cosentino: If they came back here we couldn't see any reason, they are not going to construct or add another pole. They are going to put the sign right on the present poles. Just to identify that Tuscan Oven is there.

David Menkin: In fact Joann told me today that she has received calls from drivers looking for Tuscan Oven. Tuscan Oven is the only restaurant on North Bedford Road that you can't see a sign where the restaurant is.

Nanette Bourne: To my recollection this was before the board many years ago and the board went out of the way to try putting the sign along the road.

Doug Hertz: Are we obligating the ARB to allow or are we recommending they hear the question?

Chairman Cosentino: We are recommending that they hear the applicant.

Whitney Singleton: You are saying you have no objection to their hearing the application.

Chairman Cosentino: It is only right to send them back there, because they have the jurisdiction over it. I don't have a problem with the application.

Anthony Sturniolo: I just wanted to make mention of the applicant that I was on the planning board when that shopping center complex was approved and one of the things the that the board at the time wanted was that leading up that you didn't see this wall of parked cars. I think that has worked well putting the plantings on that wall. I just wanted to remind you of that. Although you may wind up putting your sign there I don't think this board would want to entertain anything further down the road over and above the sign to make you a little bit more visible. The philosophy that we had when we approved it was to make that whole area of strip stores and its adjacent parking less visible. I can appreciate and understand your concern about where do you find the restaurant. We are not looking to make the berm smaller or chop trees down. I say this to assure you and counsel realize that as well.

David Menkin: Thank You.

Anthony Russo with ARKF

Chairman Cosentino: Ability Beyond Disability is not on the agenda tonight?

Nanette Bourne: They are on the agenda for the purpose of Anthony Russo to discuss the draft for the parking.

Chairman Cosentino: Is anybody here from Ability Beyond Disability?

Anthony Russo: No the applicant is not here tonight.

Nanette Bourne: We wanted some comments.

Anthony Russo: The memo I am referring to is January 31, 2005 draft memo. I will take you quickly through it and give you a summary. It is going to start in reverse order. On page 3 we met with the applicant back on January7th and there were three items that they were to supply to us and they haven't to date. One is a code compliant plan that provides 7 parking spaces on site. Both the south reconstructed parking lot and the north parking lot. If there is any issues in the north parking lot that aren't code compliant right now they would bring those spaces into code compliance. In addition to that they have provided an alternate parking plan which will provide parking somewhere between 58 spaces they currently have on site but something less than the 70 spaces which what they are required to provide by code. They'll provide the rational to you whatever number they come up with as to why they think that number is sufficient. That would require a waiver from the board. They are going to provide what is called an alternate parking plan. The code requires them to have 70 spaces they are going to come back with something less than 70 spaces to you. That is going to be based partially on the survey that AKRF did on the existing facility. It could be 62, 63 spaces and of course that would require a waiver from you if you agree with the number. I am not certain what the number is going to be because they haven't given us the plan yet.

I am just letting you know they haven't given the code compliant plan and they haven't given us the alternate plan. When they have to give drainage plan the village engineer has been in contact with the applicants engineer and that drainage plan has to look at the entire site, both south and north lots. These three items have not come in yet. They are referred to on page 3 as we waiting for the information from the applicant. I will take you through what we have to date. Page 1 is a quick summary of Ability Beyond Disability operation. Once they leave their current location on Lexington Avenue and come to the new facility in Kisco Avenue. Basically they are going to need 32 spaces when fully occupied and operational in the building. They are only partially in operation right now. Between January 6^th and 13^th AKRF conducted a survey on the weekdays of the existing parking lot both on the south and north side. During the 9:00am, 12:00 noon, 3:00pm and 6:00pm we observed a peak number of cars parked on each lot south and north lot.

Anthony Sturniolo: Anthony if I could interrupt you. What were the weather conditions during that time period in January?

Anthony Russo: Generally it was good. You had a little bit of rain it was cold. There was snow in the parking lot but it was pushed off the spaces. Everything was open.

Anthony Sturniolo: It was pushed off into snow storage areas?

Anthony Russo: Yes it was towards the back of the property or on the islands. We determined the week that we surveyed the business day was January 2^nd which was a Friday. At 12:00 noon Kisco Avenue building which were both the south and the north lots combined had peak occupancy of 29 cars. So 29 cars out of the 58 spaces were occupied. Utilization was 50%. That is 29 spaces at its peak during the week we surveyed of the 58 spaces they have on site right now. It was important to know during our survey there were two uses in the building that were not occupied. That is the Program Without Walls which is part of Ability Beyond Disability and approximately 2900 square feet of warehouse space. So we have to account for this space. Base on the information from the applicant the Program Without Walls would add another 2 parking spaces. The demand would be for another 2 parking spaces and if you can be conservative, assume that 2800 square feet of warehouse would be office use. Based on the village code that would generate the need for another 11 parking spaces. Out of 29 you add another 13 to it you get 42 spaces and our utilization goes up to 72%. It is possible in the future that they may have more active usage than what is currently on site and also maybe during our survey there was a corporate event that we did not capture.

Chairman Cosentino: On page 1 on your third paragraph this figure accounts for the 25 permit parking spaces obtained by ABD in the village for its staff. Explain that to me.

Anthony Russo: What we have on site is 32 spaces. They say that they have 25 spaces to use throughout the parking area that they are permitted to use. It doesn't have anything to do with what is going to happen on Kisco Avenue.

Chairman Cosentino: We don't want to incorporate this into the site.

The village is something different. We feel that if the square footage of the building calls for 70 cars this is what they should have on site. Not 58.

Anthony Russo: I am just giving you what I have now. I am not saying that is what it is. They will provide a plan to you that shows 70 spaces.

Chairman Cosentino: We will work with them on that. We want this to be utilized at 70.

Anthony Sturniolo: Does the 70 spaces require blasting of the rock behind to create more spaces?

Anthony Russo: From what I see and again having to submit formally it would require going quite a bit into the hill.

Anthony Sturniolo: Does the 70 spaces also provide and alternative to them cut the building size square footage wise and decrease the parking space.

Anthony Russo: That the 70 spaces will go into the rock.

Chairman Cosentino: Or they can eliminate some space inside.

Anthony Russo: That is another option.

Anthony Sturniolo: Really this part of the conversation is where we left off with them the time before and the time before.

Anthony Russo: Just because increasing our count by 20% again for more uses. We come up with a number of 50 which is 86% utilization out of the 58 spaces.

Chairman Cosentino: This count is solely not for Ability building. Yet our code calls for 70? Am I correct by saying that? The square footage of the building calls for 70 parking spaces?

Nanette Bourne: Yes.

Chairman Cosentino: It is office use now?

Nanette Bourne: You could ask them to give a breakdown of how the building is currently occupied. There is a couple different ways to evaluate the parking count. One is to consider the utilization of the building which would be office building and that would require approximately 70 spaces.

Chairman Cosentino: I think that is what we have to do for the simple reason if more offices moved in they wouldn't have enough parking spaces.

Nanette Bourne: That is right and that is why they were told to come in with a compliant parking. The second way that you asked them to evaluate parking was to look at and break down all of the square footage and how it would be deemed and to evaluate the demand and actually be used.

Anthony Russo: that is what the survey is.

Chairman Cosentino: I don't know about the rest of the board members but I think we should access this on office use. Office use the park count is 70 we should go for 70 and work from there. What I am trying to say is that I do not want to go from 70 down to 50.

Anthony Russo: We never recommending 50 we are saying based on the survey that you would come up with the type of mix that is in the building now.

Anthony Sturniolo: The ultimate decision is the planning boards predicated on various steps on experts such as yourself and Nanette input. That applies to any operation. It's the planning board's decision.

Anthony Russo: Part of the reason for the survey is if they come up with an alternate plan with something less than 70 you have some level of comfort about a number that is going on now.

Chairman Cosentino: We had a client that came before us for office and medical. It was beyond productive to give them just office when medical is more car use. So you really want to figure on medical because if the offices move out it becomes medical you want to have the parking that's available to them. This is the same thing, you're going to have offices there if they decide to move out it is not a life time lease.

Nanette Bourne: It would be somewhere between the demand that they have right now which is 50.

Anthony Russo: At 50 spaces right now. Somewhere in between 50-70 on an alternate plan.

Nanette Bourne: So you would be making a decision as to the appropriate number of parking spaces somewhere between that.

Anthony Sturniolo: Or at 70 spaces.

Anthony Russo: That is why we prepared 70 and what that involves.

Doug Hertz: If we are asking for 70 and there are 79? (Unable to make out entire comment)

Anthony Russo: That northern parking lot is partially shared by 120 and the adjacent building. It has approximately 21 spaces in that lot.

Chairman Cosentino: It's not a shared parking lot. Zumbach owns it. You have to be very clear on that. Zumbach owns their lot and has nothing to do with the car count.

Anthony Russo: When you are out there and unless you know the spaces are reserved for them.

Chairman Cosentino: For Zumbach.

Anthony Russo: When we put that information on here it is just so that if someone went out there they could see.

Doug Hertz: The lots being broken up we're loosing out of the count of 79 we are loosing 21 spaces.

Anthony Russo: That is correct.

Anthony Sturniolo: That is where the efficiency comes in at approximately 12 spaces per 70.

Anthony Russo: So they'll be back with the plans.

Joe Palumbo Architect, Jim Cuff President of the Ambulance Corp.

Chairman Cosentino: Next on continuing review is the Ambulance Corp.

Mike I want you to go over preparing them. They are here tonight for an extension of TCO and looking for our approval. They will also have to get to the ZBA.

Joe Palumbo: It should be noted in the agenda that we originally thought we would be on the February 15, 2005. We will be on the March 15, 2005 for the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Chairman Cosentino: Mike why don't you give us a brief run down.

Michael Stein: One of the first reasons they have to apply for this extension of TCO is they have a back flow prevention device they have to get the application in and get it approved and certified and tested. That doesn't really effect what changes the site plan. The reason why they will have to come back for the site plan is the changes to the site plan. The main one is the retaining wall along the northeast corner of the Ambulance Corp building. It is approximately 7 feet high, actually looking at it 92 inches on the as built. So it is about 7 1/2 feet tall. Whereas the approved drawings said 4 � feet. The detail of the drawing said 48-inch max or 54 inch max somewhere along that line. The wall that was actually constructed on site was much higher than that. They have a table here that goes over from what our note originally included. There seems to be several others, but they are relatively minor. Just grade changes of 6 inches, with basins. Some of the other things that we had noted were the pathway to the northern corner of the property coming out of the rear of the building. That originally was to be pavers. They put in concrete. They added a landscaping strip along the rear of the building where it was suppose to be a concrete surface from the curb to the building. Parking lot configuration on the southeastern corner that was pushed back to the other property. I think that was in conjunction with the village. The village did this. I just asked that they include it since they are going to be showing all the changes that were made. I just ask that you include that in so the village seeing everything that was done.

Chairman Cosentino: You want to see that in the site plan itself right?

Michael Stein: Right. Just because we're approving the final as built. I want it to reflect all the changes. I think the rest of it was relatively minor.

Joe Palumbo: Do you want me to discuss all his points?

Chairman Cosentino: We know what you need. The question is, are you working on it?

Joe Palumbo: We have to go to the Zoning Board for particular items. The 16 � foot parking depth. This was approved by the Planning Board. The rear aisle, which the original plans, showed 23 feet. The code is 24. Several professionals probably overlooked that. As you can see from the rest of site plan we had 25. We actually made it larger than the approval. So those two issues we have to go to the Zoning Board. I believe the other issues that Michael has brought up we will present documentation with regards to the retaining wall and the back flow preventor. The retaining wall which is an issue with regard to the height. It wasn't noted on the original plan stating it was a maximum of 54 inches high. We never presented it that way. The discrepancy is this is basically the line that if it was 48 inches high and we had always presented that it would be a long climbing wall. We are talking about this long pie shape that we want the board to look at. Similar in the rear it's a little bit more. The wall is a little shorter. The incline over 90 feet almost 100 feet of wall. We'll present those to the Zoning Board. We request from the Planning Board an extension of the TCO so that the Corp. could maintain operation. We would like to make note on the original TCO that item number 4. This would be contingent on Michael's approval that the Corp would not be allowed to really meet in the building. It would be just for service based on the fact of time we would be rectifying the drainage problems. The parking lot is certainly complete the drainage is complete and if the Planning Board would consider that we certainly would appreciate it.

Chairman Cosentino: Obviously we need the Ambulance Corp. I want the record to show that I am a member. The operation of the Ambulance Corp is needed. We've issued extensions on TCO's before. I don't think any of my fellow Planning Board members have any objection. I don't see why we shouldn't grant the extension.

Joe Palumbo: I would like to know the calendar. First of all look at the opportunity to extend this. With the Zoning Board dates.

Chairman Cosentino: 45 days?

Michael Stein: 45 days and then they can go for an extension. I don't think they have to come before the Planning Board for the extension.

Joe Palumbo: We don't go to the Planning Board because we are at the Zoning Board March 15, 2005. My understanding is the March 22. 2005 Planning Board meeting.

Chairman Cosentino: These are ZBA issues and engineering issues I don't see why you would have to come back here.

Joe Palumbo: We would have to come back on the final.

Chairman Cosentino: You would for the final. You'll have received ZBA approval by then. What time frame are we talking about?

Joe Palumbo: The next time we would come before you would be April 12, 2005. It would be 63 days. Two 45 day extensions would take us to May 9^th.

Chairman Cosentino: A TCO is 45 days they are going to need 60 days to comply because of the ZBA. Are they going to come back just for another one?

Whitney Singleton: A temporary CO is a 90 day period with the possibility of obtaining two 45 day extensions. Not more than two 45 day ebronsions.

Chairman Cosentino: So if they get a 90 day extension that would cover them.

Whitney Singleton: That is correct.

Michael Stein: Its not that they have to complete work on site. It's really more approvals right now.

Chairman Cosentino: So the 90-day extension would cover you.

Whitney Singleton: The extensions run from the date if issue of the TCO, not from tonight.

Jim Cuff: It expired February 4^th.

Whitney Singleton: When were you granted the TCO?

Jim Cuff: August 5, 2004

Michael Stein: The TCO was 90 days and then two 45-day extensions, which carried it to February 4^th.

Whitney Singleton: It would be an issue then what the length of the TCO was at the time it was issued which will often change since the date it was issued. I would be happy to talk with the applicant.

Chairman Cosentino: As long as we are protected on the time limit. I think it affects the insurance on the building.

Jim Cuff: We don't want to have any issues with operating out of the place or having our insurance carrier have any issues.

Chairman Cosentino: Whitney you will work with them on that?

Whitney Singleton: Sure.

Chairman Cosentino: Just keep in contact with Michael Stein. You are doing a great job.

Joe Palumbo: Thank you very much.

Dan Hollis counsel for the applicant

Dan Hollis: Last year Mr. Chairman on January 13, 2004 and at that time the board made a motion to declare yourselves as lead agency, you circulated that notice we've been in touch with the Town of Bedford. The only purpose I see that is on tonight is to indicate that there were certain reports from your consultants to our consultants, which we have received and taken them under advisement. We are working diligently to be able to be prepared when we come before you at the March 8^th meeting. We will be back on March 8^th to address with specificity each and every one of the concerns that the consultants for the village has addressed.

Chairman Cosentino: We received a letter from Robert Davis stating that Bedford has no say.

Dan Hollis: We wrote a letter to Bedford and I had taken that position with you earlier that they have reviewed provisions in their resolution not an approval. We sent it out to them on January 24, 2005 and have not received a response.

Chairman Cosentino: Can you check on that response Nanette? There is a lot of detail and it will take awhile to go over this. Mr. Sturniolo has some questions. Nanette do you have anything on this.

Nanette Bourne: No. I think Mr. Hollis stated that there are comments made by my office and by the Village Engineer. I think they are also working with some things with DEC. I recommend that they resubmit with the findings to those issues what you are reviewing on March 8^th is a more complete and up to date.

Chairman Cosentino: There are also many issues with the Village Engineer.

Dan Hollis: Right. We have Mr. Stein's letter and he's been in conversation with Mr. Fine our engineer and they are working to resolve all those issues in a way that Mr. Stein will be comfortable with. The question I have with regard to the March 8^th meeting the 15 day prior to that is the 21^st which is a federal holiday, the village is closed. How do you want the filing to take place? Can it be on Tuesday the 22^nd or must it be on Friday.

Chairman Cosentino: Is it the day before?

Nanette Bourne: We've actually been giving the day after.

Dan Hollis: The 22^nd. I'll make sure that it is in, hopefully even before that. If anything runs amiss I will have everything in on the 22^nd so we'll be here on the 8^th to discuss any issues that are still outstanding.

Doug Hertz: Mr. Chairman I was not on this board when this came before us I just wanted to state that I am a member of the club that you represent and that I don't believe there are any conflicts of interest.

Chairman Cosentino: So noted. Is there any other board member that would want to make comment? We are not prepared tonight to make any decisions.

Nanette Bourne: The applicant needs to refine.

Dan Hollis: We recognize that. I was surprised to see us on here but glad we were so we could give you this report.

Michael Stein: I did meet with Shore Depallo.

Whitney Singleton: The next scheduling of this application is for when? It says in your rules and procedures you have indicated that you do not want a continuing review at the regular meetings.

Chairman Cosentino: This has to take place at a work session.

Dan Hollis: Then it would be the 22^nd. That would give me a little more time to get the work done properly. So we will be on March 22^nd.

Thank you very much.

David Sessions from Kellard Engineering, John Slaker Landscape Architect, Erik Kaeyer Architect, Sean Coughlin, and Rich Stavridis with The Premier Collection

David Sessions: We have made a submission a couple of weeks ago to get on this agenda. We opened the discussion up to the board.There were some architectural questions and some esthetic questions. No site plan questions. I have explained we were working with Michael Stein and since then we have prepared and submitted a response letter to his memorandum and also a drainage study for his review. At the last meeting I think I suggested that perhaps at the end of this meeting we could talk about a draft resolution with site plan issues. I don't think there are any site plan issues.

Nanette Bourne: Michael are you comfortable with their additions that they submitted?

Michael Stein: I am just getting the package now.

Nanette Bourne: That is a significant bit of information regarding the site that you will be reviewing.

Michael Stein: I got the drainage report yesterday. I haven't looked at anything yet.

Nanette Bourne: I think it might be a premature for there to be a resolution to be drafted until comments are made.

Chairman Cosentino: WE need his information.

Nanette Bourne: Another question I have. I am still a bit confused about the height issue.

Erik Kaeyer: Michelle Robbins left a message for me that she spoke to Richard Stein about it. The building department basically felt that roof peak to average grade we have at the existing building, which has an average height of approximately 20 feet. The new building has an average height of approximately 32 feet.

Nanette Bourne: You are not contemplating any further height on the building.

Erik Kaeyer: Correct.

Nanette Bourne: As long as the height issue is not a concern.

Erik Kaeyer: There was a comment that we raised because we were concerned about the point that goes over 40 feet. The overall average is well under the 40 feet. From the roof the average grade.

Stanley Bernstein: Average?

Erik Kaeyer: The entire perimeter the average elevation of that that grade.

Stanley Bernstein: What is the average elevation from grade.

Nanette Bourne: I suggest that you take the site plan and walk them through. So they understand when they are looking at the building from Kisco Avenue what the height of the building is.

Erik Kaeyer: The existing building average grade is from the roof top to that grade (Viewing of site plan). That grade changes depending on whether your on the east or west side.

Stanley Bernstein: What is the grade?

Erik Kaeyer: It is 369.

Stanley Bernstein: Your average grade or is it at that point?

Erik Kaeyer: That is finished floor.

Stanley Bernstein: I want to know what grade outside the building is at that point. You average grade what does that mean?

Erik Kaeyer: The way it grades it goes back.

Stanley Bernstein: You don't have elevation for any of these grades.

Erik Kaeyer: We do right here. It is called elevation 369 per datum that is worked all this. It's called at zero elevation at 00 that is 369.

Stanley Bernstein: Now the 40 feet is taken from the 00?

Doug Hertz: You said the average height is 32.

Erik Kaeyer: From the roof down is the average grade around that new building.

Chairman Cosentino: I think what Mr. Bernstein is asking. From what point on the ground to what point on the roof.

Stanley Bernstein: Mr. Kaeyer, look at this grade. If you tell me it is 40 feet from here it is a hell of a lot different than if it is 40 feet from here. That is what I am interested in. You made a very pretty picture but that doesn't tell me the visual impact from the rest of the village. Unless I know what the top of that roof is going to be. If I had this datum number this 00, and I don't know what the datum 00 was given of Kisco Avenue. I could get a pretty good idea of what we are looking at. Right now you are not telling me anything.

David Sessions: We can open up the civil plans and look at the topography.

Stanley Bernstein: I want to get an idea in my mind what the visual impact is on this building.