Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006_02_08 Town Board Minutes MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK ON THE SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION FROM FOREST CITY RESIDENTIAL, HELD ON FEBRUARY 8, 2006 AT 8:15 PM IN THE COURT ROOM OF THE TOWN, 740 W. BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK PRESENT: Supervisor Valerie M. O'Keeffe Councilwoman Phyllis Wittner Councilman Ernest C. Odierna Councilwoman Nancy Seligson Councilman Paul A. Winick ALSO PRESENT: Patricia A. DiCioccio, Town Clerk Stephen V. Altieri, Town Administrator William Maker, Jr., Town Attorney CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Town Board was called to order by Supervisor O’Keeffe at 7:30 PM. She then pointed out the location of exits. THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD TOWN OF MAMARONECK MS. O'KEEFFE: Good evening, ladies and gentleman. Welcome to the Town of Mamaroneck special meeting. Today is February 8, 2006, and we are gathered here tonight for the purpose of holding a special hearing to consider the application of Forest City Residential to be granted by the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck a special permit for the construction of a housing -- I don't want to use the word development. That gives the wrong word. MS. SELIGSON: Project. MS. O'KEEFFE: Yes, project, at the foot of Myrtle Boulevard and where Jones and Madison Avenue proceeding to Maxwell Avenue, so is there a motion to open the public hearing? MS. WITTNER: So moved. MS. O'KEEFFE: Is there a second? MR. WINICK: Second. MS. O'KEEFFE: So moved. Now, before we hear from the public I would maybe like to ask our attorney, Mr. Maker, to set the stage of why we are here, and how we got here, and then we will ask Mr. Tung from the project from Divney, Tung, Schwalbe to give us an overview of what we are here to talk about. Procedurally, Mr. Maker, if you would be kind enough to enlighten everyone a little bit. MR. MAKER: Certainly. The developer had petitioned the Town Board to amend the zoning ordinance of this property, the BMUB District in which this property is located, and the Town Board did do that earlier, I guess at some point late last year. The procedure that was set up by the new statute was that if a developer, or this developer I should say, wanted to build a mixed use facility, that is a use that consists of both a residential component and a commercial component, that entity could apply for a special permit that would be issued by this Board. Before this Board would issue such a permit, however, it would make a referral to the Planning Board of the Town, which 1 February 8, 2006 would then review the project proceeding as if it were a site plan, similar to the site plans that it used on projects that take place on the Boston Post Road for example, and that the Planning Board would send out all the same type of referrals that it ordinarily does when it does site plan review to other agencies with expertise such as the Traffic Committee, such as the fire department, getting comments from the Building Department, the town's engineer, etc. All of that was done in the context of a number of public hearings at which Mr. Tung and Forest City Residential made presentations. The Planning Board took the information that it had gathered and put together a comment and a recommendation, and a piece of correspondence that the Town Board has that is dated, I believe it is January 13th, and based upon that particular document the Town Board is ready to consider at a public hearing the application for special permit for this mixed use development, which I believe is what Mr. Tung is about to describe to the public once again. MS. O'KEEFFE: Thank you. That is very clear. After three-and-a-half years it should be. Okay, Mr. Tung? MR. TUNG: Good evening, Madam Supervisor, Members of the Board. My name is Andrew Tung from Divney, Tung, Schwalbe in White Plains. I'm here on behalf of Forest City Residential, and with me tonight is George Cruz from Forest City, and Jennifer Porter, our private Counsel. We are here for a public hearing on the special permit. We submitted our special permit application to you in October of last year, and as Mr. Maker said, you referred the application to the Planning Board. We have met with the Planning Board a number of times over the past three months, including two public hearings, and as well met with the various agencies and town groups, consultants, and staff to review the site plan aspects of this project. As Mr. Maker noted, the zoning for the BMUB District was amended last May, which followed the SEQRA findings that were adopted by this Board in March, which concluded an extensive environmental review of the proposal, which basically as submitted to you as a special permit has changed very little from that, which was the subject of the SEQRA findings. The project is 2.1 8th acres at the base of Myrtle Boulevard, bordered by Madison Avenue, Byron Place and Maxwell Avenue, and the board behind me shows that location. The proposal is for a mixed use project within the BMUB District consisting of the renovation and the facade improvements on the existing retail center, which will remain; improvements in the parking deck retail center on Madison Avenue, which includes the expansion of the lot; the changing of the circulation to make the flow better; the moving back of the parking five feet from Madison Avenue so as to provide room to plant a hedge along the front, similar to that hedge which exists further to the east, and that is shown both on the plan here, and also in the prospective view on my right. The residential building is set back behind the retail center 120 plus feet from Madison Avenue, and consists of six stories of residential apartments over a ground floor of parking, and two below grade parking levels, as well, and this building has been designed by Robert Stern, and as part of the Planning Board's review we went with Mr. Stern's architects to the BAR for two visits, and worked with them to explain the building in greater detail, and work through certain discussions with them. The building, as I mentioned, is -- the project is essentially the same as was before you for the SEQRA findings with two changes as we came for a special permit in October. One, the SEQRA findings permitted up to 159 units to be constructed within the building, and as currently before you the proposal is for 135, so a reduction of 24 units. Secondly, the project during the environmental review was proposed to be a rental building, and now it is currently proposed to be a condominium ownership building. So the outside of the building is essentially the same as was previously proposed. The number of units has been reduced by 24, or about 15 percent to 135, and it will be in condominium ownership. As part of the discussion with the Planning Board and the various agencies and consultants, certain refinements have developed in the plan which I would like to describe to you briefly, and this relates to our discussions and presentations, before the Traffic Committee; the BAR; the Coastal Zone Management Commission; as well as discussions and correspondence with the town engineer, Buckhurst, Fish & Jacquemart; the town traffic and parking consultants; the fire department and ambulance district, and I believe they, or I will characterize them as refinements to the plan, such as at the main entrance to the building which faces on Byron Place there is a pull off from Byron Place to the lobby of the building, and it is a U shaped pull off, 2 February 8, 2006 and then circles back to Byron Place. In discussions with the fire department, that the width and the angle of that pull off was adjusted so that the Town's emergency vehicles, including the ladder truck, could negotiate that turn. In addition, following discussions with the fire department there was an additional hydrant added, as well as two stand pipes added, one on both sides of the buildings. It's the Byron Place side and also the Maxwell Avenue side to make fighting fire much easier. There will be hydrants and stand pipe access on both sides of the building, and further on both sides of the building there will be a NO Box. Set up, as requested by the fire department, which is a lock box that has a key to the building, which key to such box is held by the fire department, and by the ambulance district, so in the event that the concierge has stepped away for a moment, and for a moment that the lobby is locked, or on the rear side the access for the parking deck is locked, the fire department or the ambulance district can just get into the building. We also provided additional details on the storm water, the sanitary and water connections through request and discussion with the town engineer, and through discussion with the parking consultant we have made some adjustment to the layout of the interior of the garage to make 14 circulation easier and more clear. So following that, the visits with the various agencies, we came back before the Planning Board, had a public hearing, two public hearings in fact, and the recommendations which are before you were adopted. We are in accord with most of those recommendations. There were a couple that we believe we would propose to you, could be clarified slightly, and I would be happy to go through those with you, at this time, or I can take questions on the site plan, itself. MR. MAKER: Before you do, Mr. Tung MR. TUNG: Yes. MR. MAKER: -- perhaps you could remind the public about the parking situation that is being provided for by this project, certainly what is required by the zoning requirement, and what the applicant is providing. MR. TUNG: Yes, certainly. As I mentioned, there are three levels of parking all within the building which will be for residents. Access to those parking levels are both from Byron Place, just before you come to the turn in for the drop off, as well as the second level. That's for the ground level parking which exists below the building. There are two levels below that ground level, and a middle level is accessed from Maxwell Avenue on the west side of the property. There are a total of, approximately, 250 spaces within the garage, within three interconnected levels. Those will serve the 135 apartments at a ratio that far exceeds the zoning requirement, and also exceeds the recommendation by the Planning Board, which was to supply one space per bedroom, and we believe, especially in the context of the parking situation in the Washington Square area, that was one of the things that was worked through thoroughly during the environmental review, and we believe that that will be a big plus for this project. There are also, opposite the main entry, across Byron Place, 13 visitor spots which will be available to visitors to the condominium. In addition, as part of the project, not on the site, but as part of the earlier discussions with the town, the applicant has offered to provide financing for the construction of a parking deck atop lot three. The lot three, municipal lot three which is not on this map, but it is further up Myrtle Boulevard, at the intersection of Myrtle and North Chatsworth, and this was in accord with a study that was done by Buckhurst, Fish & Washington Square parking task force study, or parking study, where it was suggested that because of the slope of Myrtle Boulevard as it comes down towards Madison, that it would be appropriate in a good way to provide additional parking if a deck was extended over the top of a sloping level below, and that is what Forest City proposed to do. So that as part of the SEQRA findings, and part of the project as it appeared in the FDIS, the preferred alternative, Forest City proposed to, or offered to provide that financing for such a deck. Subsequently, in further discussions with the town administrator and town staff, it may be that Forest City in fact will be able to provide not only financing, but construction of that deck. In any case, Forest City's intent is to, in recognition of the existing parking situation in the Washington Square area, look to make a contribution that would make that, what is believed to be a significant improvement in the parking supply. Also associated with the traffic in the area, Forest City has proposed to pay for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of the I95 ramp, New Jefferson Street and 3 February 8, 2006 Madison Avenue, just to the northwest of the site. The actual traffic to be generated as was found in the SEQRA findings by this project was somewhat limited because of its residential use. At the same time, Forest City recognizes that there is a situation in the neighborhood that could be improved, and so it has made that offer to the town. So those two aspects related to parking and traffic, as Mr. Maker pointed out, are not on the site, but are part of the proposal. MR. ALTERI: Andy, do you want to just quickly go over the affordable housing, please? MR. TUNG: Yes, yes, I was going to get to that, as well. As part of the zoning amendments to the BMUB District that was past by the town last year, an affordable or rather workforce housing component was added to the provisions of the BUMB for a mixed use project, such that at a specific ratio, which I believe is one unit per every 17 units, an applicant is required to provide a workforce housing unit as part of the project, and that workforce housing unit would be available to people within the town who meet an income requirement, or a maximum income requirement that is equivalent to 80 percent of the median, Westchester County median income, depending on the size of that household. At the time, as I mentioned, the project was 159 units, and that calculation resulted in nine workforce units, with a reduction to 135 units. That calculation actually converts to eight workforce units, but as Forest City had previously agreed to nine, it stands by that commitment, so that within the 135 units there will be nine workforce units that would be available to people with the income limits I described. Now, further, this project, as I mentioned, is now known to be an ownership project. That is a condominium project. The condominiums will be sold to new purchasers, new residents, and in discussion with the Town Board, the Town Board expressed a strong preference that the workforce units to be most effective and to be more easily controllable in terms of ongoing income verification that these units be rental. So Forest City has agreed to, as it sells the condominium units, to transfer the ownership of nine of those units to a new entity which would then hold those units, and rent them out per the income requirements, and the workings of that will be documented in a number of places. First it would be documented in the special permit conditions, itself, because the provision of that affordable housing, or the workforce housing is part of your findings in granting a special permit. Secondly, as previously discussed in the findings, in the SEQRA findings, there would be a covenant set upon the land that would run with the land that would provide notice that this requirement was part of the project, and then third, we believe that there would be an agreement between this Forest City entity that would hold the apartments, and the town that would outline such things as how certain aspects of the income qualifications would work, and we would propose that it would be the town, much as it does with projects I understand such as HUMIX, where the town or its designee has a process by which that income qualification is determined both upon initial application to live in a unit. And further, on renewal of leases on a year-to-year basis, a person would be required to show that he or she, or the family, met that income limit on an ongoing basis so that somebody for instance, as was expressed by the Town Board, could not suddenly rise an income, but still be taking up a workforce unit, and we believe that makes sense. So we would see that those three documents would be the way that the workforce housing would be set forth. MS. O'KEEFFE: Thank you, Mr. Tung. Is there anyone on the Board that would like to ask Mr. Tung a question, or make a comment before we go to the audience? MRS. WITTNER: That was a good presentation, Mr. Tung, thank you. MS. O'KEEFFE: Okay, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak? If you would be kind enough to come up to the podium and tell us your name, and tell us where you live so that we can put it in the clerk's records. MS. TERRELL: Sure. I think I've seen you all before. My name is Pat Terrell. My parents own property at 6 Fifth Avenue. MS. O'KEEFFE: Yes. 4 February 8, 2006 MS. TERRELL: I have two questions. Each of these 135 apartments, will they be given one parking space that is designated and sold with that building? MR. MAKER: The answer is yes. MS. TERRELL: Oh, okay. MS. O'KEEFFE: But the question, when you say designated and sold -- MS. TERRELL: Well, in other words MS. O'KEEFFE: Well, hold on. Let's ask the question. I don't know. MS. TERRELL: Oh, Mr. Tung? MS. O'KEEFFE: Mr. Tung, does Mr. Jones who rents apartment 1A get the same spot all the time, or will he drive around in the place looking around for a spot? MR. TUNG: The one spot, I believe, would be assigned with the unit. MS. TERRELL: So if you buy one you're going to get a space that's yours? MR. TUNG: Yes, yes. MS. TERELL: Second question, which I don't totally understand it, how many additional parking spaces does this new prospect which has developed, that you are providing the terrace or the third floor, how many additional spaces does that give you? MS. O'KEEFFE: She is talking about the deck. MS. TERRELL: The deck? Thank you, the deck. MS. O'KEEFFE: Andy, can you get up there and talk into the microphone, because it is a question, and they are not going to hear the answer? MR. TUNG: Yes. MS. TERRELL: In other words, how many spaces are provided with the new deck that you are providing? MS. O'KEEFFE: Oh, you're talking about the thing that is across the street from the stationary and Gjoko. MS. TERRELL: Yes, I'm just curious. MR. TUNG: We have not completed final design on the deck, so we don't know, exactly. MS. TERRELL: Well, do you have an estimate? MR. TUNG: There is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 spaces. MS. TERELL: Okay, that was my question. MS. DI CIOCCIO: These will be on top, these added spaces. MR. TUNG: Right, right, on top. Added spaces. MS. TERRELL: Right, these are in addition -- MS. O'KEEFFE: That's not for the apartment house. MR. TUNG: That is correct. MS. TERRELL: No, it is just for the neighborhood, correct? MS. O'KEEFFE: For the neighborhood, correct. 5 February 8, 2006 MR. TUNG: Right. MS. TERRELL: Okay. The other reason I am here is just to remind everyone about the storm drains and the flooding issue, which I've come every time just to be sure. MS. O'KEEFFE: You certainly have. You live up county, or -- MS. TERRELL: I live in Bowman's Bridge. MS. O'KEEFFE: I remember. MS. TERRELL: I'm an owner of Westchester. MS. O'KEEFFE: And you told us all about the corner where Lou D'Giacomo's station is, where the water gets all pooled. MS. TERRELL: Yes, right. It's been going on for a long time, since they built the other building. MS. O'KEEFFE: And we've been cognizant of that. MS. TERRELL: Right. I just wanted to be sure that, you know, it's still on the docket, so to speak, and instead of paying Don Mason his fee I am here. Thank you. MS. SELIGSON: That issue did come up, though, in the discussion with the Planning Board, and it was a request to have a more complete detailed picture of what is going to happen, so according to what I have read, the calculations have been done, and the storm water will be taken care of. MS. TERRELL: Thank you. MR. TUNG: We did do a site visit with the town engineer, and the town's engineering consultant some time ago and found by following the line, the drainage line from that corner down Fifth Avenue towards New Rochelle, that there is some, I'm not sure, 400 yards down, a point where it turns towards the Thruway, and in that turning towards the Thruway and going through a private parcel there is an obstruction in the pipe, that in times of heavy storm causes the water to backup into the pipe, and come up into that intersection, which is fairly flat, so that's really a system -- as the system has come to be, a system condition, and because of drainage on this site we will be hailed, there is a storm water, detention water, and quality facility located at the front of the building below the pavement. We will not be contributing to any extra flow that would exacerbate that problem at the intersection. MS. O'KEEFFE: Okay. Would anybody else in the audience like to make a comment? So if that's the case, and if there is no one on the Board who wants to ask anymore questions -- MR. MAKER: Excuse me for interrupting. MS. O'KEEFFE: Yes. MR. MAKER: But I think Mr. Tung was next going to go through the recommendations of the Planning Board, and point out to this Board which Forest City concedes, or which ones need some further clarification, and if they may object to it. MS. O'KEEFFE: That was a letter from the Planning Board, as opposed to the paper you just went through where you had written to Ms. Reader? MR. TUNG: That is correct. This is a January 13th letter from the Planning Board. MS. O'KEEFFE: Yes. MR. TUNG: To you. 6 February 8, 2006 MS. O'KEEFFE: Right. MR. TUNG: As I mentioned, we are generally in accord with all of the recommendations made by the Planning Board, with a couple of, what I believe to be clarifications. In two cases the Planning Board had recommended that further drawings be provided to the town as a condition of your final approval. In one case it is the parking structure, the layout of the columns in the parking lot. In another case it is the design of the planting on the green roof, which Forest City proposes to do on the open areas of the deck of the apartment building, as shown in light green on the drawing here (Indicating), and we would agree with that. We would ask that that be clarified to be submitted as part of the building permit set, because in both cases they are part of the detailed construction drawings. In the case of the green roof, the purpose of the green roof was not to be on the upper roof. On the upper roof of the building it will not be an area, it is not a roof garden, so it is not an area that people will go onto, and the purpose of the planting there, or the nature of the planting there is such that we would look to plant basically low growing plants, probably sedums, something like a sedum that would grow in a fairly thin soil, on a high exposed condition, with no additional water. There would be no irrigation there, and the purpose is to provide insolation to eliminate the amount of hard roof surface that would reduce pollutants that would come off in storm water, and also to provide some additional storm water storage. So it's not really ornamental plantings, but rather a survival planting, and we can't really prepare that planting plan until the final roof system has been specified in design, because there are now different types of systems that incorporate the green roof plantings. MS. WITTNER: Andy, that covers the construction that we want to see. In other words, we will see the actual construction of how the green roof is executed in the final -- MR. TUNG: Yes, the permit drawings will have that, and we will certainly go over it with the building department to make sure that they are comfortable with what is being proposed. Another question that we had, or another clarification that we would ask, and that I have spoken about, to some degree, is the question of how the affordable units are guaranteed, or the workforce units are guaranteed to the town, and the Planning Board had several suggestions of other documents that the workforce provisions could be included in. As I mentioned, there will be at least three such documents, the special permit approval, the covenant that will run with the land, and the agreement between the town and the Forest City entity that will hold the apartments as to, for instance, how the income verification would occur. Our Counsel advises that we believe that those three documents would be sufficient to guard the town's interest in this, and to set out what is required. Our concern is that if there are too many documents that address the same thing there is more of a chance that the documents will be difficult to correlate one to the other, or could just by a single word be misinterpreted, so it's in the interest of clarity and keeping things as clear as possible as we go forward. MS. O'KEEFFE: So you're saying that you agree that those three documents would be provided -- I mean, you agree that the covenant or agreement with respect to affordable housing would appear in those three documents you mentioned, the covenant, the deed, and what was the other one? MR. TUNG: The special permit approval, the covenant that would become part of the deed, and the agreement between Forest City and the town. That would be our proposal to you for your and your Counsel's consideration. MS. O'KEEFFE: Thank you. MR. TUNG: And then the last thing which we wanted to perhaps clarify is that the Planning Board suggested that the performance bond be posted by the applicant for all infrastructure improvements, and we would just ask that the applicant be allowed to issue a letter of credit, as well as a bond, if that was appropriate, and also that that infrastructure work, the infrastructure work within the public right of way, that is the sanitary lines, the water lines, the drainage lines within Byron Place or Maxwell Avenue, within the public runway, and not the utilities for instance that occur within the site for the project, itself. 7 February 8, 2006 MR. MAKER: I think that is probably what the Planning Board intended, although one could interpret this to mean that they would want the performance bond until the entire seven stories got built, and that is not the way performance bonds work. What the town is entitled too and asked for is that a bond be posted to make sure whatever public improvements, such as what were just described by Mr. Tung are built, and if it is not built, either have the money to build them, or repair them if they were done incorrectly. MR. TUNG: That's correct. MS. O'KEEFFE: Now that we have been given more information, does anyone else in the audience want to make a comment, or ask a question? Anybody on the Board? MR. WINICK: I think this is an obvious point. I understood you to say performance bond, and a letter of credit. I presume that the applicant wants us to issue the option of issuing a letter of credit as an alternative. MR. TUNG: Yes, yes, that's correct. MR. WINICK: Okay. MS. WITTNER: Don't we ordinarily require a performance bond? MS. O'KEEFFE: We would. MR. ALTERI: Not for the building, itself. MS. O'KEEFFE: No. Mr. Odierna? MR. ODIERNA: We had some discussions about the timeframe. Maybe you could bring us up-to-date on where your thinking is. MR. TUNG: If I may, I would defer to George Cruz. MS. O'KEEFFE: Mr. Cruz, would you be kind enough to say who you are, and you can say where you live, if you want? You don't really have to. MR. CRUZ: Okay, George Cruz, C-R-U-Z, Vice President for Forest City. The question is in reference to timing. As you all know, we have been here a long time. This is going on six years, and as soon as we can get through this process we will get into starting our construction drawings, and we envision, well, we now own a majority of the land. We closed on the Hoffman parcel. We have owned the Palace three homes for at least a year-and-a-half or two years, so we own a large majority of the site, at this time. We would be prepared to start demolition and clearing the site some time this summer, and be prepared for construction, hopefully by the end of the year. MR. ODIERNA: And the garage construction, or the deck rather? MR. CRUZ: We actually had a meeting with Mr. Alteri this week in reference to exactly that issue, and we are working through with Steve the timing of the deck, and how that all will happen. Obviously there is some relocating of existing cars that has to happen before we can do the construction on that site, so all those logistics needs to be worked out prior to, and we are in the process of doing that. MR. ODIERNA: Okay, thank you. MS. O'KEEFFE: Anybody else? No? MR. ODIERNA: Did we have it clarified on the workforce housing, the maximum percentage of the median? MR. ALTERI: 80 percent of the median. MS. O'KEEFFE: We said 80. 8 February 8, 2006 MR. ODIERNA: I know 80, but we were talking 30 percent of that, what the rent would be. MR. TUNG: We have not completed discussions. MR. ODIERNA: Oh. Ms. O'KEEFFE: Okay, anyone else? Now, we will keep this public hearing open, and we will adjourn it if there is a motion to do so for our first meeting in March, and when is that, Madam Clerk, do you know? MS. DI CIOCCIO: March 1st. MS. O'KEEFFE: That is the Feast of Saint David, and if you live in Wales you go around with a leaflet of onion on your lapel. Why, I'm not sure. MR. WINICK: Thank you for sharing that, Madam Supervisor. MS. O'KEEFFE: Okay, so we are adjourning, or keeping it open. MR. MAKER: I think the process will be to adjourn, consider the documents referred to tonight, such as the covenant, the contract, itself, parking spaces, special permit. All of these are in various states of draft, which I, Mr. Alteri, Mr. Fish who is in the audience here from Buckhurst, Fish & Jacquemart will review together with Counsel for the applicant, and the applicant, themselves, and with a great deal of optimism we hope to have those documents in such a form that this Board can review them, and maybe vote on them on March 1st. MS. O'KEEFFE: Very good. So thank you all for coming. If there is a motion to adjourn? MS. WITTNER: I make a motion that we adjourn until March 1st. MR. ODIERNA: Second. MS. O'KEEFFE: All in favor? (Whereupon the Board takes a vote.) Approved/ MS. O'KEEFFE: The public hearing is adjourned until the 1st of March, and our regular meeting, which will be 8:15 in this courtroom on March 1st. Thank you, everybody. Time Noted: 8:15 p.m.) Certified to be a true and accurate transcript of the aforesaid proceeding. -------------------- Melissa Sasso Submitted by: _____________________________________________ Patricia A. DiCioccio Town Clerk F:\\Documents\\Minutes\\2006w\\02-08-06.Specmtg.Doc 9