Planning Board Minutes - March 1, 2005

Minutes

Special Meeting of the Planning Board

Village/Town of Mount Kisco

Tuesday March 1, 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: Michelle Robbins

Whitney Singleton

Michael Stein

Chairman Cosentino began the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Chairman Cosentino: This is a Special Planning Board Meeting Tuesday March 1, 2005.

1. Site Plan Compliance

Dan Hollis counsel for the applicant, David Sessions from Kellard Engineering, John Slaker from John Slaker Design Group, John Collins from John Collins Engineers, Al Rossi and Jodi Guterra from RD Management

Chairman Cosentino: This is the Mount Kisco Planning Board and it is Tuesday March 1^st. This is a special meeting on site plan compliance for Mount Kisco Commons 195 North Bedford Road. What we have here is a resolution for modification. We are going to go through this.

Dan Hollis: Before you do that Mr. Chairman I would like to say one thing. I just wanted to thank the board for scheduling this special meeting. I know this has been a long and arduous endeavor on everyone's behalf. I came into this late in the game. We are deeply appreciative for you taking an extra night out of your lives to come here and do this. We are appreciative of the efforts of staff, Mr. Singleton, Michael Stein, Richard Stein, AKRF, Michelle Robbins, Nanette Bourne, for helping us to work through the issues that we had, that we had to resolve.

Chairman Cosentino: Thank you. Why don't we go through this resolution? We will start with the top. We have some dates to put in. I guess we will do them after because we actually do not know what is going to happen. Whitney do you want to start with the first whereas?

Whitney Singleton: Sure.

Dan Hollis: I worked off of an earlier version, but in a meeting with Mr. Singleton I was able to take some of the comments specifically Mr. Sturniolo had last time. I also spoke with Ms. Bourne as well.

Whitney Singleton: What we are here to do is entertain the application for modification to the existing approved site plan. The site plan itself there was some deviations from what was being the originally approved plan. Whether they were due to field conditions or for whatever reason they were deviations. The applicant really is not in a position to correct those; given the fact that certain buildings have been erected based upon the elevations that are out there now. So what the applicant has done is submitted an amended site plan application. That was recently submitted and the fees were paid. They have also submitted an application for not this particular applicant, but the engineers and/ or construction people for Target have submitted an application for a Certificate of Occupancy. It must be a temporary certificate of occupancy since there are still outstanding site plan issues. Even if you adopt this there is still further work that needs to done on site. Pursuant to the village code any application for a TCO needs to be referred to your board to assess the degree of progress and make a recommendation to the building inspector to act or not act. Act favorably or unfavorable on a particular application. If your board entertains this application for amended site plan there will be a handful of outstanding items that have to be completed within the TCO period of 90 days. It is subject to two potentially 45 days' extensions. Again they will come back to your board if they seek a further extension. Your board has put conditions in this resolution of approval that will make sure that the outstanding items are completed within that period of time. If the applicant fails to complete those outstanding items within the 90 days or subsequently extended period of time the certificate of occupancy becomes null and void.

Chairman Cosentino: I was on vacation and Vice Chairman Sturniolo did a lot of hard work and put a lot of hard work into this. I am going to hand this over to the Vice Chair to run this. Because even though he kept in contact with I and he gave me correspondence he will know more about this than I will. He has spoken to individuals that I did not have privy of speaking to. So Tony at this point I am going to hand this over to you and I thank you in my absence of doing a wonderful job on this.

Anthony Sturniolo: I just need to bring us back to what happened on February 8^th when we were last together. On February 8^th this document again called a revised draft of planning board resolution of approval for modification to the approved site plan and the recommendation to authorize the building inspector etc. I need to establish for the record at the beginning six simple questions. At the February 8^th meeting when no vote was taken at that meeting was there a certification for a backflow prevention device?

Dan Hollis: That had been approved? No.

Anthony Sturniolo: At that point was there a sign on the back of Target's door for employee's entrances. An Entrance with a buzzer and a signal device on February 8^th?

Dan Hollis: No. Not on February 8^th.

Al Rossi: No buzzer on February 8^th.

Anthony Sturniolo: Again on February 8^th was there an application for a modification to the approved site plan?

David Sessions: On February 8^th no.

Anthony Sturniolo: Was the $300.00 fee paid for that application that was not there? Was the water and sewer connection fee of approximately $75,000 paid at the February 8^th meeting?

Dan Hollis: That might have been paid by then. It was paid on or about then, but I am not sure of that answer. I won't say for sure one way or the other.

Whitney Singleton: It was paid the following week.

Anthony Sturniolo: So it wasn't paid as of February 8^th.

Dan Hollis: I will accept Mr. Singleton's statement as being correct.

Anthony Sturniolo: These three sheets of paper which are the all inclusive modifications to the approved site plan that we are looking at and working off tonight. Were these available to the Planning Board at February 8^th?

John Collins: Except for the two items that were required it was available on the 8^th. Those two items were indicated with my arrows the employee parking across the back.

Anthony Sturniolo: But not in a hard formalized copy like this.

Dan Hollis: The drawing was available but these two you wanted some additions to it. So the additions were not there at that time.

John Slaker: There were no changes to the subsequent to the meeting. There was this modified landscape plan in the previous package. In order to make everything comply we re-dated it so everything is the same date.

Anthony Sturniolo: The board took no action on February 8^th basically because we are missing about six or seven major items. The applicant requested that the Planning Board convene a special meeting. This is the special meeting tonight to accommodate RD Management to accommodate the applicant and their chosen date. That really has no impact of consequence on the Planning Board but the chosen date of March 6^th for Target to open. We're here to accommodate that date right now. We were not in the position to make any decision on February 8^th because the applicant lacked most of the items that we just discussed. Having said that and with a positive eye let's move forward to where we are tonight to review this document and several others. The reason why I said what I did was I just wanted crystal clear in everybody's mind that this planning board was more than willing to work with the applicant. We encouraged the applicant to come to several meetings in December to go over this stuff. When we finally met on February 8^th there was a deficiency on the part of the applicant. That is why we are here tonight.

David shall we start with your presentation. What we now see in front of us and what was missing.

David Sessions: As far as the John Collins plan I believe John correct me if I am wrong the only variation from the previous plan on the current plan are the two signs indicating where the employee entrance is. Other than that this had been submitted previously.

John Collins: As well as the arrow has been extended across the back as requested with respect to the employee parking. The textual information refers to the discretion of the village manager in consultation with the Chief of Police for direction of the uniformed officers on the periphery.

Anthony Sturniolo: That whole paragraph is summarized in great detail which is the agreement between the village and Rd Management that, Dan, you have a copy of.

Dan Hollis: Yes a copy and signed.

John Collins: At the time that was prepared I didn't have the date of the document.

Anthony Sturniolo: In the back there was the grasscrete never proved to fulfill its expectations and dreams. Temporary crushed gravel was placed in the back. Then more was added because we noticed the deficiency in northeastern corner of it. That is going to be replaced at an appropriate time with gravel pave. We used the analogy of the people behind us (referring to the building across the street from Village Hall with some kind of porous surface. It will not be blacktop. So the question of the storm scepter at the far end of the property is a moot point. The police agreement also explains that although this is a generalization of where the off duty police are in John's drawing it could be two here one there or whatever. Or Preston Way whatever the discretion. The note addresses the agreement. The next plan is the planting.

John Slaker: Basically what we did, is due to the fact that when the retaining wall gets relocated and one large maple will have to be removed. What we tried to do was compensate for that loss by planting five additional shade trees along Rt. 117 in areas where I thought for the future of the village would be an appropriate place. Some of the existing trees that are in the state right of way are in very poor condition. As a matter of fact one on our property that was planted by the DOT is basically split in half. So we thought by planting the five Linden trees over there, it supplements the loss of the maple in the back. Then in addition I know your board was concerned about some of the views looking down on the rooftop of the satellite store so to try and fill in and supplement some of that open space. There are some big trees there. So you were limited on what we could do. We planted a number of arborvitae to plant in among the existing trees. It is one of the evergreens that have the best chance of survival in the shady conditions and not get overwhelmingly big. It is maintainable and won't spread out onto the sidewalk.

Chairman Cosentino: How many arborvitaes are there?

David Sessions: There are 12.

Chairman Cosentino: So 5 Linden and five arborvitae.

Doug Hertz: It 6 Linden on the plan and I see 6 on the plan.

John Slaker: That is correct.

John Slaker: Again since the last meeting all we did was re-date that same plan. So everything is dated the same date for your records.

Anthony Sturniolo: This is the proposed modification to the already approved site plan.

David Sessions: What we had done probably more than a month ago. Is we had submitted several plans. One plan was for the modification of the retaining wall in this area. Another plan was for the modification to the grass pave area. There was a third plan that talked about the crosswalk detail in front of Target. We had submitted those plans to be on the addenda for the February 8^th meeting. Subsequent to the February 8^th meeting you had suggested that we put all of that information onto one plan. Actually highlight all of the changes whether they were changes from the approved site plan that had already been built or proposed changes.

Anthony Sturniolo: This will be the plan of record.

David Sessions: What we have done we outlined all of the areas that changed and identified them as built changes. In other words changes that had already been done during the construction process. Also proposed changes. For example: We are now proposing to kick that retaining wall back. Those are all highlighted here. We have also included the retaining wall detail prepared by Paul Beck. The gravel paved detail. The proposed decorative fence along Rt. 117 and again the proposed modification to the retaining wall in this area.

Anthony Sturniolo: I may be jumping ahead, but as to the decorative fence along Rt. 117, we are also waiting for an engineering certification letter concerning that fence that is on top of the wall for the most portions.

Dan Hollis: I spoke to Mr. Singleton about that. I think the language we used is a little different than in the certification.

Whitney Singleton: It's proposed in here, that when we get to it, that a letter of suitable form from the village engineers and the village attorney shall be submitted by the applicant's engineer verifying that the fencing proposed on the northeast portion of the property will adequately mitigate. We don't have the exact language on that yet.

Anthony Sturniolo: That is addressing the question?

Whitney Singleton: Yes.

Doug Hertz: Didn't we also refer the fence to the ARB? In a general way?

David Sessions: That was submitted to the ARB the same day that these plans were submitted to the Planning Board.

Doug Hertz: Are you before them tonight?

Dan Hollis: I know they are in the other room but I think they are on the next meeting. The architect is handling that.

Jodi Guterra: The meeting that we were supposed to go was canceled because they didn't have a quorum.

Anthony Sturniolo: So his agenda is not addressing it?

Jodi Guterra: Exactly.

Dan Hollis: It was for an impression, not an approval.

Doug Hertz: I understand.

Anthony Sturniolo: We also discussed, in the back the pushing of snow into the wetland buffer. The damage to the fence I believe has been corrected.

Jodi Guterra: Yes it was repaired two weeks ago.

Anthony Sturniolo: The snow today this afternoon that was being moved from the back employee parking area. This goes from there to the gravel rock. Where is that snow going?

Jodi Guterra: There is that portions on the plan that where we were has the storage area. That is where they are putting the snow.

Anthony Sturniolo: David that is where?

David Sessions: Along the front southern parking spaces along Preston Way.

Jodi Guterra: We have been in constant communication with the snow plow contractor to make sure that it is being done.

Whitney Singleton: That plan in front of you is last revised 2/11/05 correct?

Anthony Sturniolo: Yes.

David Sessions: It is only a revised date not an actual date?

Anthony Sturniolo: Correct.

Doug Hertz: I have no specific questions on this. We have gone through each of these as they came in individually. I don't see any changes from what we looked at when they came in piece meal.

Anthony Sturniolo: At this point Mr. Chairman we can go through the revised draft planning board resolution of approval for modification to the approved site plan and recommendation to authorize the building inspector to issue a TCO. At the same time, Whitney, some guidance as to how we should address the applicant's formal site plan application that is this proposed modification.

Whitney Singleton: How should we address it?

Anthony Sturniolo: Can we discuss it as we are going through the resolution?

Whitney Singleton: As I pointed to Dan earlier. The application itself is obviously a requirement. Some substance of it has been discussed in a prior meeting. As far as going through the application there is a lot on there. Some of the modifications are really just relative to the wall and the deficient parking spaces and the amended landscaping plan. It's not a proposal relocation or modification of the building. It is more to make sure that there was application and a fee paid.

Chairman Cosentino: Then would you like to start with page one and work our way right through?

Anthony Sturniolo: Sure. On page one of the resolutions of approval we are talking about. Michelle looking at page one, the date of action needs to be filled in.

Whitney Singleton: Potentially.

Anthony Sturniolo: Potentially. I had Michelle ask Nanette to add the third tax map identification number. This is the last one that is underlined. I took that off the police agreement that Whitney had drafted. I am referring to 69.58-21.1. I am assuming that is correct?

Michelle Robbins: I will check that for you and remove the underline for the final.

Anthony Sturniolo: The first whereas that says on November 1, 2004 is that an accurate date?

Dan Hollis: The second whereas? It is on or about the time of the A&P. I would suspect that to be correct. The letter is the third and it appears to be correct.

Anthony Sturniolo: Is there anybody else with a comment or question on page one?

Chairman Cosentino: On page two there is a typo on 12.

Whitney Singleton: Can we go back for a moment? There is a series of typos Dave pointed out earlier. On the 1^st whereas 6^th one down. Cross out 1/28/05 and leave it 2/11/05. They were submitted that same date they were prepared. Correct David?

Dan Hollis: That was a Friday, correct.

Whitney Singleton: They were not submitted 1/28/05.

Dan Hollis: They were submitted to the Planning Board on 2/11/05.

Whitney Singleton: Not that we are to the date that should be deleted.

Chairman Cosentino: I think we need to start from the top. Are there any on page two staring at one? Does anyone have anything?

Anthony Sturniolo: A comment on one. That references correcting the 18-inch to 36-inch sump pumps. Then two is the compliance issue with the handicap parking spaces.

Chairman Cosentino: You are using the word sub pumps. The sub pumps are not the proper word.

Chairman Cosentino: I miss read it.

Chairman Cosentino: These are the catch basins. Am I correct?

Al Rossi: It is the sumps in the bottom of the catch basins.

Chairman Cosentino: They were originally 18 inches and were revised to 36 inches. Anything on two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve. Twelve is that lack of a grand opening?

Michelle Robbins: With acceptable grand opening and traffic management plan.

Dan Hollis: You are adding an acceptable in there.

Chairman Cosentino: Thirteen.

Michael Stein: Eliminate 13.

Chairman Cosentino: Fourteen.

Anthony Sturniolo: The light shield has been installed Al?

Al Rossi: Yes it has.

Chairman Cosentino: Fifteen.

Anthony Sturniolo: Fifteen we need to correct to read 7.4 feet.

Chairman Cosentino: The next whereas anything on that? Ok. One, two.

On two?

Doug Hertz: Mr. Chairman the language of two D.

Chairman Cosentino: Replacement of temporary gravel?

Doug Hertz: With the approved porous surface as the subject of this resolution. Do you want to say as referenced on the site plan? The subject of this resolution is well beyond.

Dan Hollis: Do you want to make a reference to this specific later paragraph that might be helpful.

Doug Hertz: Ok. It is referenced in a few documents.

David Sessions: On page 3 sheets 1 proposed modification.

Chairman Cosentino: Page three.

Anthony Sturniolo: Mr. Chairman on page two second whereas from the bottom. An application fee needs to be filled in and at the last meeting we talked about the dollar figure for the escrow.

Dan Hollis: We did that. It was $15,000 and change. We made that payment.

David Sessions: The application was $300.00 Whitney?

Whitney Singleton: Yes.

Chairman Cosentino: Page three.

Anthony Sturniolo: On number 11 at the top of three we need to fill in the date.

Chairman Cosentino: Anything else on three?

Anthony Sturniolo: Michelle in the box where it starts one two three, we should add numerically 4-10. Then Dan I have a question about 9 and 10. Do you have the correspondence with you again?

Dan Hollis: I turned them in. I turned them when we were here last. If you need further copies I`ll provide them if Michelle doesn't find them we'll get further copies.

Anthony Sturniolo: If you could just double check that you did.

Dan Hollis: They were the only ones I had that night.

Chairman Cosentino: Page four. This is a form of a question. The site work was completed as built drawings. Does this including the satellite complete? Do we have the complete as built drawings on that?

Whitney Singleton: I don't know if that is accurate but it is already in the code. When we get to another section that will be covered.

Chairman Cosentino: I have never seen it actually.

Whitney Singleton: The requirements are: built certification for the entire site.

Dan Hollis: The satellite will be merged into the as built for the remainder of the site.

Whitney Single ton: I don't know whether there is a certification of the satellite.

Chairman Cosentino: is there a certification on the satellite building itself?

David Sessions There was an as built survey done for the satellite building which I believe was submitted to the village.

Al Rossi: Yes it was way back when. At least a year ago it was submitted.

Chairman Cosentino: Can we check on that?

Whitney Singleton: We are amending the site plan now.

David Sessions: In fact an as built was conducted on the entire site. On which these current drawings omit. Obviously there will have to be another one once the wall is completed.

Chairman Cosentino: Anything else on four?

Anthony Sturniolo: Yes Mr. Chairman. A couple of things. Going back to be it therefore now resolved the bold paragraph in the middle of the page. The last line that's in bold, last revised 2/11/05. Is that date correct?

Dan Hollis: Yes. It is just dated.

Anthony Sturniolo: On number 6 on page 4. I would like to add the words: “all village application” and then continue on with engineering planning etc.

Chairman Cosentino: I have one more question just for my own information and nothing else. How many tables and chairs are there for the eating part of Target? Mainly the Starbucks.

Jodi Guterra: I do not know the answer to that.

Dan Hollis: 34 for the whole area.

Chairman Cosentino: On a whereas the required parking for the proposed use of 806 spaces, 250 spaces for the first 50,000 square feet 556 parking spaces for the balance. A total of 139,150 square feet. Was this considered a restaurant use of 34, which is a higher car count for the restaurant part?

Dan Hollis: I do not know how that was done when the parking analysis was made.

Whitney Singleton: The answer was that and we'll see this in a resolution in prior resolutions. It talked about the appropriateness of having a uniform parking count for the entire use of the site. As opposed to a parking count based upon individual users.

Chairman Cosentino: Now I see why. For any other restaurant in the village of Mount Kisco we have a higher count for automobiles.

Whitney Singleton: It is one per 75.

Chairman Cosentino: So we are saying if the restaurant was included in the count how many more cars would we have needed?

Whitney Singleton: I do not know the square footage designated.

Dan Hollis: it is not tables and chairs it is square footage of the area that houses in a restaurant use. According to the calculations that were done we had a surplus. I understand the concern that the number of parking spaces there may not be adequate.

Chairman Cosentino: I am not trying to put a fly in the ointment. I am just comparing. What happens now that something you didn't know before? Any restaurant in the village of Mount Kisco has a count of the square footage. Was this a complete count?

Whitney Singleton: If Applebee's on this site plan is required to approximately 20 parking spaces. If Applebee's were in another location in the village it would require 60 parking spaces. It is about one third. Yes 1 per 75 verses 1 per 270. Theoretically that is in recognition of the fact that they have different operating hours.

Chairman Cosentino: I was surprised when I heard that there was going to be a Starbucks. I had no idea there was going to be Starbucks. I don't think anyone on this board had an idea there was going to be a Starbucks. It was never brought up.

Dan Hollis: Food was brought up.

Chairman Cosentino: Food was brought up Starbucks was not. Target was supposes to have a pizza place. That was brought up. Starbucks was never ever brought up before this board. I want you to know that. It was never ever brought up. I hear now this morning. I get a call and there is a Starbucks and there are many tables in there. You say what happen here? The pizza place we knew about not a Starbucks. So let it be. Anything else on four, five.

Anthony Sturniolo: On five cross out line indicates number 12 is being removed, and David that is the reference to concept of the concrete pathway.

Chairman Cosentino: Number 6 is the backflow preventor and that is certified?

Dan Hollis: A copy is filed with Michael Stein.

Chairman Cosentino: Just let me add one more thing. I could be spiteful.

Dan Hollis: I will take your word for it. You have never misled me before.

Whitney Singleton: I just want to touch on paragraph 11. As we discussed at the last meeting. There is a traffic management agreement with the village that refers upon the village manager and consultation with other people. The right to require on site traffic monitors as well as off site on abutting public right of way, at the expense of the property owner. A copy of that agreement was given to the applicant at the last meeting and subsequent to that. What happened is they forwarded this to the property owner at some remote location and he sent it back with changes. Mr. Hollis faxed over to me last night. I already conveyed to him that the changes were unacceptable and he said. I want this clear and do not want to alter a document after the fact. You have you client's authority.

Dan Hollis: Mr. Rossi and I have the authority where it is reasonable and maybe can be pending.