Chappaqua Crossing documents recently added to the town website

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Editor’s Note: Below is a list—and some brief descriptions—of recently-mounted documents in the town website’s “Land Use Applications” page. Each blue title opens directly to a pdf of the document.
_______________________________________________

Proposed Rezoning for Retail: Local law to Amend the Town Development Plan Map and Proposed Legislation to Allow Retail Uses in a Research and Office Business District
_______________________________________________

Traffic

Most recently, correspondence between NYS Department of Transportation and Summit Greenfield’s traffic consultant, John Collins, have been added to the town’s website.  At issue are the traffic mitigations Summit Greenfield has proposed.

Department of Transportation’s preliminary review of traffic analysis September 25, 2014

DOT asks for traffic forecast and analysis contemplating “estimated time of completion” plus ten years.  DOT questions the absence of “Synchro” information for Route 117 and Roaring Brook Road intersection; Synchro shows the intersection level-of-service as D and a level-of-service of F for the left-turn movement.  And DOT notes that further review of Synchro shows a level of service of F for “all 3 PROPOSED weekday scenarios provided” but are reported in the TIS [Traffic Impact Study] as level-of-service B and says, “Please clarify.”

Collins response to DOT comments October 16, 2014

• The State is reviewing the SDEIS and the 2013 Retail PDCP and is unaware of the recent data shared with the Town. That data established that the 2008 traffic volumes are representative of 2013 Existing Conditions. As a result the traffic projections in the SDEIS reflect a Future Forecast Year of 2020. Based on NYSDOT long term growth data which are lower that what was used in the SDEIS, the traffic projections would reflect a Future Forecast Year of 2025 and would satisfy the requested Estimated Time of Completion + 10 Year analysis (ETC + 10).

• As noted in the NYSDOT letter, the SDEIS Traffic Impact Study and SYNCHRO analysis indicates that the NYS Route 117/Roaring Brook Road intersection is
currently operating at or above capacity during peak periods with poor Levels of Service (LOS F) and high volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios. With the roadway improvements noted in the SDEIS and identified in the Findings, an overall Level of Service “B” with improved volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios will be experienced under the future Build Conditions. No further improvements would be needed at this intersection. The NYSDOT may have design details that could further improve operating conditions. These details are normal and associated with any Highway Work Permit.

• Also as part of the Highway Work Permit process, the NYSDOT requires a Priority Intersection Location Study (accident study) within the proposed improvement area to determine the effect of any improvements on operating and safety conditions. It should be noted that the type of improvements proposed will improve operating and safety conditions in the area.

Based on the above, no new information is needed to be submitted at this time to NYSDOT since the NYSDOT will not complete its review of a Highway Work Permit application prior to preliminary Site Plan Approval. After preliminary Site Plan Approval, the Estimated Time of Completion + 10 Year analysis and PIL Study will be submitted.
_______________________________________________

Ethics Advisory Opinion In the Matter of Councilwoman Elise K. Motel

Ms. Mottel announced at last week’s Town Board meeting that the Ethics Committee had cleared her to participate in the Chappaqua Crossing deliberations.  She is no longer recused.
_______________________________________________

AKRF 2014 Amended PDCP Competitive Effects Analysis

See “Long-awaited comments on Chappaqua Crossing traffic, store-size, competitive effects, revenue,” NCNOW.org, 10/21/14.
_______________________________________________

Westchester County Planning Board Letter of August 5, 2014

“As per our previous comments, we would prefer that the Office Park Retail Overlay zone be revised to permit both resiential and retail uses so as to allow for a site plan that would create a true mixed-use development where residences are placed closer to (or above) stores and workplaces to create the efficiencies and synergies that occur in a mixed-use environment.”
_______________________________________________

July 22, 2014 Board of Architectural Review of 2014 Amended PDCP

Editor’s Note:The BAR approves the Unless there are newer drawings, Summit Greenfield’s renderings have so far shown elevations for proposed new buildings that are not recognizably Georgian.  The November 2013 Findings state, “Any new buildings shall be Georgian-style architecture compatible with the architecture of the Rotunda Building. The Town Architectural Review Board shall review and approve this aspect of any proposal in cooperation with the Town Planning Board.
_______________________________________________

September 10, 2014 Letter from Applicant’s Attorney Shamberg, Marwell, Hollis, Andreycak, Ladilaw P.C.

SG’s attorney asks the TB to close the public hearings on October 28 and “the zoning approvals [...] must be approved immediately for Whole Foods to maintain its interest in the Site.”  The letter details the history of SG’s applications to the town and, beginning on p. 10, responds to a letter (below) from the attorney representing residents—neighboring Chappaqua Crossing—who make up the “Coalition for Reasonable Zoning.”
_______________________________________________

June 23, 2014 Letter from Attorney for the Coalition for Reasonable Zoning

CRZ argues that in considering the rezoning for retail the Town Board is not constrained by the previous Town Board’s “Findings” of November 2013.
_______________________________________________

TDP Amendments, Town Planner’s April 2, 2013 Memorandum and May 17, 2013 Planning Board Referral Memorandum

2013_Planning_Board_TDP_Amendments.pdf

Town Planner supports Planning Board’s “Traditional Neighborhood Design” standards

2013_Town_Planner_Proposed_Amendments.pdf

Town Planner’s rationale for amendments to the Town Development Plan

Amended_Town_Development_Plan_Policies_.pdf

What wording changes should be made to the Town Development Plan to make it consistent with permitting retail development at Chappaqua Crossing

_______________________________________________

New Castle Traffic Consultant’s Review of 2014 Amended PDCP

Michael Galante recommends no changes to the traffic mitigation plan “based on moving the commercial buildings within the site itself.”  The 25,000 square foot gym, he says, will draw less traffic than the same amount of retail.
_______________________________________________

Planning Board Referral Response re CC Legislation

“Planning Board recommends an approval process whereby both the Planning Board and Town Board approve the preliminary development concept plan”—rather than the Town Board alone approving it and leaving the Planning Board to handle “final site development plan.”  In addition to wetlands, steep slope and tree removal permits, the Planning Board “recommends that its report to the Town Board should include the relationship of the project to the community character of New Castle. The last sentence of this section refers to residents in the community. This should be further defined as the existing neighborhoods.”

Planning Board asks also for an analysis of the economic effects of retail at Chappaqua Crossing on the existing hamlets.  The AKRF report was generated in response to this request. 

Planning Board recommends that the “site plan shall incorporate Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) principles and standards intended to diversify and integrate land uses within close proximity to each other, and provide for recreational and shopping needs of the community” and spells out those principles.

Planning Board recommends that the Town Board leave approval processes for signage and lighting to the appropriate advisory boards, rather than take the responsibility to themselves, as the legislation proposes.

The Planning Board recommends that “The Town Board and Planning Board should require that the owners’ agreement for integrated operation of the site shall be confirmed by written agreement, in a recordable form satisfactory to the Town Attorney. This should apply not only at the time when application for rezoning is made, but also to future applications, e.g., if additional parking is needed. [...]”

Additional requests by the Planning Board:

Clarify number of restaurants permitted, with a view to noise, odor and vermin control.

Define the “personal services”—that are not permitted—more specifically.
_______________________________________________

Planning Board Referral Response re CC Residential

Planning Board asks for detail on costs to the town associated with keeping the auditorium within the residential area.

Planning Board “recommends that a new parking accumulation study be undertaken for the entire site that takes into account the new and expanded uses proposed for the site including, but not limited to, the gym, several restaurants, and the 5,000-square-foot mezzanine area of Whole Foods, as well as the auditorium.”
_______________________________________________

Planning Board Referral Response re Modify the Boundaries of the Mapped MFPD

Planning Board approves a “de minimis modification of the northern boundary of the [multifamily planned development, 111 residential units].”
_______________________________________________

Planning Board Referral Response re Retail PDCP

“Adaptive reuse of existing buildings at Chappaqua Crossing has been a primary planning objective from the inception of the proposal for retail development on the property. As an alternative to adaptive reuse of the existing buildings, a proposal advancing Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) principles and standards was explored. The Planning Board reiterates its recommendation that TND principles and standards be incorporated into any preliminary development concept plan for Chappaqua Crossing. To date the Applicant has not presented a true TND proposal. In the absence of a true TND proposal, the Planning Board recommends that adaptive reuse of the existing buildings remain a primary feature of any preliminary development concept plan for retail development at Chappaqua Crossing.”


Comments(0):
We encourage civil, civic discourse. All comments are reviewed before publication to assure that this standard is met.

There are no comments for this article yet.


Post a comment:

Display Name*:

Your Display Name will be associated with this comment on NewCastleNOW.org. We encourage commentators to use their real name or initials.

We encourage civil, civic discourse. In other words, be pithy and polite. All comments will be reviewed before publication to assure that this standard is met.