Rye City Planning Commission Minutes April 19, 2011

Transcription

1 Rye City Planning Commission Minutes MEETING ATTENDANCE: Planning Commission Members: Nick Everett, Chair Martha Monserrate, Vice-Chair Carolyn Cunningham Barbara Cummings Hugh Greechan Peter Larr Other: Christian K. Miller, AICP, City Planner JoAnn Rispoli, Secretary Lori DeCaro, CC/AC Chair I. HEARINGS. Greenhaven Road Linda Whitehead (applicant s attorney) stated that the application involved a wetland permit to maintain a play ship structure within a 00-foot regulated wetland buffer. Ms. Whitehead stated that the application was presented initially to the Planning Commission and was referred to the Board of Appeals where it was reviewed for a number of months. Ms. Whitehead stated that the Board of Appeals approved the required setback variance subject to conditions. Those conditions were referenced in an agreement between the applicant and the adjacent property, Jordan Seaman, who objected to the application. Ms. Whitehead stated that nearly the entire property was located in a wetland buffer and that there was no alternative location that would be outside a regulated area. There was no public comment. ACTION: Peter Larr made a motion, seconded by Carolyn Cunningham that the Planning Commission closed the public hearing on wetland permit application number WP, which was carried by the following vote: Martha Monserrate, Vice- Chair: f:\new planner 00\minutes\0 pc minutes\0 pcminutes.doc

2 Page of II. ITEMS PENDING ACTION. Greenhaven Road The Commission reviewed the revised plan and letter from Jordan Seaman. The Commission stated that there was no alternative location that could reduce wetland buffer impacts. The Commission had no objections to the conditions required by the Board of Appeals for the setback variance for the play ship. ACTION: Carolyn Cunningham made a motion, seconded by Hugh Greechan that the Planning Commission approve wetland permit application number WP, which was carried by the following vote: Martha Monserrate, Vice- Chair: Carolyn Cunninham:. Philips Lane Linda Whitehead (applicant s attorney) stated that as requested the applicant has submitted a revised plan that is responsive to the Planning Commission s concerns with the application. She noted that the revised plan completely redesigned the residence, which allowed it to be moved forward on the property. She stated that the proposed residence and pool is located almost completely outside the wetland buffer. Ms. Whitehead stated that the revised plan reduces impervious area in the wetland buffer by,00 square feet and preserves the previously proposed mitigation plantings for additional wetland buffer enhancement. The Commission questioned the proposed house design including whether the rear patio is covered, the footprint size and total floor area (i.e. FAR). Ms. Whitehead stated that the rear patio is covered and has been included in the calculation of impervious area. She stated that the proposed residence still requires an FAR variance, but that the total floor area is less than the existing house size. The Commission discussed the location of the residence on the property and its relationship to the adjacent residences. The Commission noted the setback blocking diagram prepared by the applicant s architect. The Commission agreed that the proposed residence location was acceptable and that there was no uniform pattern of setbacks on Philips Lane that would be disrupted by the proposed plan. f:\new planner 00\minutes\0 pc minutes\0 pcminutes.doc

3 Page of The Commission stated that the adjacent residence on 0 Philips Lane was setback substantially closer to Long Island Sound. Ms. Whitehead stated that the revised plan was designed to address the Commission concerns, but that her clients would prefer to shift the residence back from the street. She stated that such a plan could be accommodated and still achieve a reduction in impervious area in the buffer. The Commission agreed that the location of the revised plan was acceptable and appreciated the applicant s revisions to the plan. The Commission noted that it did not want to set a precedent for future applications seeking to construct new houses and pools within a wetland buffer. The Commission agreed that it would submit a letter of support to the Board of Appeals on the revised plan. The Commission requested that the CC/AC submit revised comments on the plan prior to its next meeting, which will be after the Board of Appeals grants the necessary variances.. Brevoort Lane Richard Horsman (applicant s landscape architect) stated that the applicant has agreed to revise his plan so that the existing fence/deer meshing on the property will be reduced in height to comply with the City s fence law. The City Planner stated that he confirmed with the City Building Inspector that the height of the proposed gate complies with the City s fence law. The Commission agreed that the application was a unique case. The wetland bisected the property offering no alternative where impacts to the wetland buffer could be avoided. The Commission also noted that there was no practical alternative to the applicant s proposal that reduced the amount of property to be enclosed with fencing. The Commission noted that most wildlife other than larger deer will be able to access the property. ACTION: Carolyn Cunningham made a motion, seconded by Peter Larr that the Planning Commission set the public hearing for the meeting dated May, 0 wetland application number WP0, which was carried by the following vote: Martha Monserrate, Vice- Chair: f:\new planner 00\minutes\0 pc minutes\0 pcminutes.doc

4 Page of Stuyvesant Ave Glen Ticehurst (applicant s landscape architect) provided an overview of his April, 0 letter to the Planning Commission outlining changes in the plan. He noted that the revised plan no longer proposes a new dock, but to repair the existing dock. He noted changes to reduce the grading and fill required for the rear terrace. He stated that the square foot encroachment of terrace in the buffer remains unchanged in size, but that the terrace will be set in stone dust as requested by the Commission. Mr. Ticehurst stated that the rain garden size has been confirmed by the project engineer. He stated that the previously proposed ramp to the small beach on the property has been eliminated as requested by the Commission to protect a small stand of spartina grass. Mr. Ticehurst reviewed the proposed tree replacement plan and proposed wetland buffer mitigation plan. The Commission noted concern with the extent of fill in the wetland buffer and stated that it should be as low as possible to avoid setting an undesirable precedent. Mr. Ticehurst stated that an estimated 0 cubic yards of fill are proposed in the rear yard, but overall the plan provides substantial environmental benefits. He noted that the proposed planting plan will reduce the amount of managed lawn in the buffer from,000 to,00 square feet. New hardwood and evergreen trees would be provided and rain gardens would be included to improve stormwater quality. The Commission discussed the proposed fencing within the buffer. Mr. Ticehurst stated that the fencing was required for the spa in the rear of the residence located outside the buffer. The Commission agreed that the proposed black vinyl-coated fencing was appropriate. The Commission agreed that the overall environmental benefit exceeded the modest encroachment and regulated activities in the wetland buffer. The Commission agreed that any future improvements for this property would be carefully scrutinized. ACTION: Carolyn Cunningham made a motion, seconded by Peter Larr that the Planning Commission set the public hearing for the meeting dated May, 0 wetland application number WP0, which was carried by the following vote: Martha Monserrate, Vice- Chair: f:\new planner 00\minutes\0 pc minutes\0 pcminutes.doc

5 Page of Purchase Street The Commission noted that the applicant obtained the required FAR variance and that the application was complete for the setting of a public hearing. ACTION: Carolyn Cunningham made a motion, seconded by Peter Larr that the Planning Commission set the public hearing for the meeting dated May, 0 wetland application number SP, which was carried by the following vote: Martha Monserrate, Vice- Chair:. Cedar Place Leo Napior (applicant s architect) provided an overview of the application noting that it involved the subdivision of a property into four building lots. The subdivision would replace an existing contractors yard with four, two-family residences. Each lot complies with zoning and would be approximately,00 square feet. He stated that the proposed development would be consistent with zoning and surrounding twofamily and multi-family residences. The existing commercial use on the property is non-conforming. He stated that the proposed development would reduce impervious area on the property by nearly 0% since the existing site is almost completely paved. He added that the proposed development would also increase tax revenue to the City. The Commission requested that the plan show the location of electrical panels. The project architect stated that the electrical panels would be on the side of each residence. The Commission questioned the environmental condition of the site and the presence of any contamination given the prior use of the property. Mr. Napior stated that the applicant was purchasing the property subject to assurances that the site is clean. He stated that the applicant will forward all relevant environmental documentation to the Commission when it becomes available. f:\new planner 00\minutes\0 pc minutes\0 pcminutes.doc

6 Page of The Commission discussed the proposed street improvements (including curbs, street trees and sidewalks). The Commission noted that the improvements were desirable, but that the street will be too narrow to accommodate on-street parking. The Commission stated that the applicant should prepare a revised plan that shifts the proposed sidewalk and curb closer to the applicant s property and provides space for on-street parking. The Commission stated the importance of the sidewalk given the site s proximity to Midland School and the presence of children in the neighborhood. The Commission discussed potentially the City improving the other side of Cedar Place with curbs and replacement sidewalks. The Commission questioned what will happen with the existing debris pile on the site. Mr. Napior stated that all material will be removed from the site. The Commission noted that as the pile is removed an existing planter on the adjacent property may be undermined and will be at a much higher elevation as compared to the proposed lot. The Commission discussed the rock face in the rear of the site. The Commission noted that this rock ledge must be protected to prevent potential impacts to abutting neighbors on top of the rock ledge. The applicant has stated that he is still considering potential protective treatments to the rock ledge, but does not intend to remove or disturb it as part of construction. He stated that he is retaining a geologist to provide recommendations. The Commission stated that it will required more detailed information for its next review. The Commission also requested that the City provide more information regarding the condition of the sanitary sewer on Cedar Place and whether the existing system can accommodate the proposed development.. Rye Road David Wallace (project architect) stated that the existing residence is located on the portion of the lot located in the adjacent Village of Port Chester. He stated that the project would add a wood deck over an existing stone dock. The project would also including lighting, railings and a ramp with float for boat docking. He noted that the proposed deck would be about inches above the top of the stone dock. He stated that to meet the adjacent grade fill would need to be imported to the site. The Commission stated concern with the amount of fill in the buffer. The Commission requested that the applicant present a revised plan that reduces the height of the proposed decking, which would eliminate the need for the required fill. The Commission suggested alternative materials, such as stone would meet the applicant s needs and withstand storm events. Mr. Wallace and David Hilt (applicant s dock consultant) stated the purpose of elevating the dock decking was to have it above some of the larger storm events. f:\new planner 00\minutes\0 pc minutes\0 pcminutes.doc

7 Page of He stated that they would consider an alternative design for the Commission s consideration.. Frankie & Johnnie Steakhouse-Outdoor Dinning Permit The Commission stated that they previously approved the subject application last year. The City Planner noted that there had been no complaints regarding the outdoor dining from last year. There was no public comment. ACTION: Peter Larr made a motion, seconded by Carolyn Cunningham that the Planning Commission approve outdoor seasonal customer seating permit number OD#00-0, which was carried by the following vote: Martha Monserrate, Vice- Chair: Barbara Cummings : Carolyn Cunningham; :. Walden Lane-Extension of Time Alan Pilch (applicant s engineer and landscape architect) stated that the applicant was delayed in starting the project, but that he intends to start construction shortly. He stated that there was no change in the plans proposed and that the project resulted in a net reduction in impervious area in the wetland buffer. ACTION: Carolyn Cunningham made a motion, seconded by Martha Monserrate, that the Planning Commission conditionally approve on the extension of time on application WP# that was carried by the following vote: Martha Monserrate, Vice- Chair: Barbara Cummings : Carolyn Cunningham; : f:\new planner 00\minutes\0 pc minutes\0 pcminutes.doc