The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20210224 254 Washington St. 1 4/29/21 To: Susan Barden From: Mark R Torpey Subject: 254 Washington Street Site Plan (Application#20210224) This note is intended to provide additional clarity regarding the Site Plan application submitted for 254 Washington Street. The application has been discussed by the Planning Board on multiple occasions, most recently at the 4/22/21 meeting. At the last meeting,the Applicant stated that a "punch list" provided by the Planning Board would be helpful to better understand what work needs to be done to satisfy the requirements of the Transect 5 (T-5) district. The objective of this memo is as follows: 1) Provide guidance regarding the requirements of the T-5 district. 2) Provide substantive comments regarding the submitted site plan drawing (version 2/17/21). 3) Identify any/all additional information required to move the application forward. The Planning Board has fully reviewed the letter provided by the Applicant (dated March 4t", 2021) as an additional supplement to the submitted site plan materials. } i Guidance Re�ardin�T-5 District The T-5 District Intent as defined in Section 2.1 Table 1 of the Zoning Ordinance (ZO) is as follows: To accommodate a wide variety of residential and non-residential uses, building and frontage types. This district also focuses on providing quality streetscape amenities and civic spaces to enhance pedestrian activity. The district intent establishes the overarching philosophy that guides all development projects within the district whether it be a new construction project or an adaptive reuse of an existing structure. The fundamental "tone" of the T-5 is not so much about the uses, but rather about how the overall project engages visually and physically with the broader community through streetscape amenities and pedestrian connectivity. � Section 2.2 Table 2 of the ZO establishes a set of guidelines regarding the allowable uses in T-5 as follows: �� • Principal permitted uses and structures: NONE • Uses permitted with Site Plan (SP) approval: NONE • Uses permitted with both Special Use Permit (SUP) and SP approval:All USES The transect zones in general (and the T-5 district specifically) are quite unique from an overall "use" standpoint. No principal uses are pre-defined and yet the district is open to all potential uses provided that all projects satisfy the administrative requirements associated with SUP and SP review. This affords great flexibility to develop a wide array of projects, but the "trade off" is a higher degree of review by the Planning Board to ensure that each project comports with the essential requirements of the T-5 district. An adaptive reuse of an existing building can do little to comport with many of the 2 area/dimensional standards (since the building may have been built before any zoning laws existed), which makes it even more important to properly support the other salient components of the district w/r/t streetscape amenities and a layout to enhance pedestrian activity. Section 3.1.4 of the ZO provides additional language regarding the "urban form" of the T-5 district as follows: Transect-5 Neighborhood Centers are intended to accommodate a variety and mixture of residential and non-residential uses, building types, and lot sizes. Neighborhood centers must incorporate residential use, create a public realm conducive to pedestrian activity, and provide linkages to adjacent neighborhoods. Neighborhood centers may vary, however, in the balance of neighborhood-and regional-scale non-residential uses based on their proximity to residential areas and major thoroughfares. Civic uses and spaces are also important elements of neighborhood centers. The 2015 Comprehensive Plan identifies the area surrounding 254 Washington Street as Community Mixed Use (CMU) which is described as follows: �� The CMU designation includes areas of moderate density residential and community-supported commercial uses. These areas are characterized by mixed use neighborhoods that are walkable and connected to adjacent residential neighborhoods. Each area includes a variety of neighborhood-scale businesses and services that meets the needs of the surrounding community. VI/hile the character of each Community Mixed Use areas may vary, all areas are intended to be pedestrian-oriented with an attractive streetscape, along with amenities such as small parks and plazas. In some areas, identity is already well established through architecture and streetscape while in others, identity will be shaped by future planning decisions. � � �� The 2016 Complete Streets Plan identifies Washington St as a critical connector link as follows: A side path along Washington Street(Route 29) would improve cyclists and pedestrian comfort on this designated truck route and connect the Naval Support facility and offices to amenities on the west side of the city. � ��. � � � � � � � 4��,�;,:�r��'�°��:�f: _.� m � �� . � `- ,,.r�� 3 �,��. u� � ,�,�' . �, -. - � 4+"5 �� - � � �c�f��3t7]�� - l��T�,�� - � � ; `-�I,��ti,�rt I r7 � � �_ STATI��1 - � � _ . � � �. � c� �; CITY HAL�+� �la��,��tr��5, +'as=�=��= � �� - � �� z� �, . _ rr, - � .=�°`.y` __ " � .i� _ �r � � >..e ,1/ . � r�. e t!5 �t� � , .`� Cr�nd,��r� - „ .�__ � �Ct�ngr�� P'�rk ��°'��.< � �� L,I.,Itsil�l�,,��t � � � � � � �� 4 6 �"�� ,.�� ,��,�� `�'1"VI�C1� � � �� a�,i��..r�. - � ��i�.,i�,,. 3 The information provided by the applicant (memo dated 3/4/21) regarding the 2016 Complete Streets Plan failed to recognize the broader need for a connector link to the communities west of the train tracks and incorrectly assumed that the "recommendation levels" cited were static and not intended to continually improve over time.These neighborhoods include residential work force housing and the Naval Support Facility. It is incredibly important for the city to facilitate a long-term strategy that provides greater connectivity with these critically important communities.The installation of a "shared use path" or"side path" would be an essential next step. The applicant is bringing forward a wonderful adaptive reuse project and the proposed uses are certainly appropriate for this area of the city. Further,the applicant has done a great job cleaning up the site and improving its overall appearance, however, additional work is still needed to satisfy the requirements of the T-5 district. Site Plan Comments The applicant submitted a site plan drawing(latest revision 2/17/2021)for the Planning Board to review. � ,. ,., 1 . ,,, r�. .. . , < ....., . .. ... . .. ''1 a > .i.` � � '` . , . .. ...., . ` • —.—..————��—�——�—�—�——�---—--- — � �1 � _...—..,.——_. _ ��i f� 5� �� -— �� `� �'�� ..7" � t f �f 1 i� ��i��T�f i�•�f 1 I�l� 1 _ � ..iJ�� i � ' � L:•fi. b�U� {`L'.[: :r'� �� _�� •�t��`r�•r, i I 1 I;, �i;F.r �;,'t ��57'IivC •. � �f��F,1.' 1fi 5.1'�--F 9 � ` , se��rrc,��u,�� . � . , , �TRlPE'G+ �"-� � ¢ : EXI�T��5►�+�++R�D�+GGES� .�i:.l 1 '��''�f , .;'Q l'1^1 r1r G r�o��Rr�r.a•c�. •- ----___ p�¢�v�ro+�w��e��-,. '�,+ r'.'.Y. �3L1)C L11VI' � : sxor smcx � ;,�;,;,;� :°�r. t`h'1�'T ��'t.�Pf'I}. ,�� F��. r'. „+�,, r ,, � " • � • . tirr F�ar,��+,�; `.. _�----- �'r16'!�ti'+�: L"U,'�7�f�.11'i c � � � � f PLt��`'E�:" , •v �-- - . , , �� , f I )S Il)� !I1� 1 . . �'�IIi�I1VG ,. , �� . 1�`�" , . . , • -- ��,�: ,-. �� P;.,r' ,,.t�� ,.�c,� `�� 't . - � >>t �� ,, , . . •- . �_�_ "�,� C'ARS � r�- � � ; �'� � - ��_ � 4 , _ :ri . r: l�, � � �rE„�,- a-�,.--""_`�$_---, '� GAJ��GE � ' �_ +� - �•� l..t�a��r,r�;f : l�U.1"�3 UU11 f!'�'T)G'f. ... � .�.,,. ,i�,_�" ;. •'� �.- � ' ��' `, , 'r`��' �'� . c�' I'AV�'►R ii'�iLIfW"AY%---. i •.i �� le1 rwf.� �� t'Ah'k"f i�'(: ,� �• ,_�1{RACi: �AL� " �I F ti :�, �1 i .' t 1'.�'�'-�1'f' f:tfPRQ V�'��E�TS �a� t � ,� L ��,�+r�, s,�� `�una�s�vF r r;i !' s . � r F�•f:rr, � � F.'.tl. Y.ti'C: .�, �#D_'F' _ ` -,�. . ;;y} 1CART CDA'f' ' - � *� tt�� ¢_,^� ;-�F. 7�:, -- ; r� � i! , !' 1 ��' .�'�E SP--f F(� _� � �, � .._^_ --�� `'� p L�:1�'U�G"�f'1:1�: . ----- �.A NDS�'�l P1 x'�`C: � � _- , -� �..•�. ,r, r�' � ,f y:F vy� -F-— � �'E'FEf�E.'�7CL�': j,; iw"i� . f�� r4r: — � �. ��' a��1'r� � �LL'S �A f�l�1.�'G �., �r � - ' i +� (.�0 CA RS A 7'-�.� `" - � io�.�y'�.��1,�-�. ._ `- �''� j� ---�•� �L�'L" S P' 1 FU f; 1�1�: y .� :... _ �'�'Rl��'�°T�'"J4� " - o� � ._ . _ _ w -;� � _..__�iLLU7 1!� 1.,��. 7'�:':ti�.��T �+4f�f1L Bl3X `" _a_ .. r�� ,,.. �, � �. , ~ C�-� I � _; � "� �^� �!• �f }"� :r I t!j'"�]..-7 1 i�. ;,,,..��ov�t�us�ra.sr�L st�raa+r�ax rr�a1�-- t�`rs + _,'� _— ' .;� � �t � SAl.F.�i i�i �+�.^:..' - . - _ .��..�. ��f�'��:��}' l�F �.��'T-----� ... _ ti . ��r 'rC ��'__ �1r1 C YA�EhfENT T+�f' A.�' ��- • ��.. , y� r�r'� :s,� . � w� " r+y�.�� .��.�. ,. ` ILGQ�Tl1'��lJ `- �'r�� .1 �, - • r'� � .<. �,r a , � , rry /� �� / ` �{ }�■♦ t . ,€XJ571NC PCJr�FIR�FF--` � �� _13 •� `��r,� ^S"S' ~ L/i. f_f r.i'� 1 �� 1� �Yl i� � 1 a -' � � � !�� '�;'1�° I�,f�� .�13�1 1�-l � JpA�v'�.�lEII�T !y,+J ��r,y,. �,+'f:E,��'1' �A�!F' t�r L�XlST11W'�G .�-;1TEW ESTA7'�' F'E':4t`1: r'; r i..�.ji`. T�1 R�'1NAlN S�GN� I�'�PLA�CF �7tD TlM�FF' M 1` rl�1 1 1 �V��V� lsrcx��xrr W ALI. LI1V��'SEE" Sf _ �. r'.i,'�h'1�N� 14'tJT�,.�`t__•'�CAII�CCS: ��`�� r o�rrra�,s��•- f��'TA1 L 7/SA-1,� SI�.�f -_.___�._ ---�----�----------�------ �� 'xa�►r r,tr.t F'►Rf]Ff 1 F_ 5f'--2- '.r+�;r'15.1'r.' r,.t f�h,'`��,.' �,+} r.;�,�. .tin.,r..+, r , � r r, ' 1�. , .'f�,'. :r r�. ,.: e _ • � r r The following comments are offered to further guide the development of this project: 1) The location of the mailbox at the easterly entrance presents an impediment to the line of sight for cars leaving the site and may encourage employees to check the mailbox while temporarily blocking the entrance. The mailbox should be relocated to a safer spot near the building. 2) The parking spots nearest the entrance points on both the east and west side of the property present an unsafe condition for employees/customers backing out when entering employees/customers may be moving at higher speeds coming from Washington Street. The parking configuration should be altered to avoid these "pinch point" spots too close to the entrance. Consideration should be given to establish employee parking spots behind the building towards the southern end of the property. 4 3) The westerly entrance point is skewed at an angle and presents unnecessary confusion for motorists and pedestrians. Is this angled entrance meant to signal that those exiting the property should only make a left hand turn on to Washington St? The westerly most stone pillar of the "estate fence" protrudes out into the drive lane and presents a significant safety hazard. 4) The recently erected estate fence is located in the NYSDOT right of way and does not fully line up with the parking area it is required to buffer from view. The T5 district includes specific requirements for providing adequate screening of on-site parking. The Planning Board would never have asked the applicant to install hard fencing of this type on public property and the work seems to have been completed before any approvals were granted. A simple vegetative buffer would have been sufficient for buffering the street side parking. The estate fence should be removed and replaced with a "softer" vegetative buffer that fully lines up with the parking area. The County Planning Board expressed further concerns regarding the location of the estate fence as well. 5) The main sign for the business extends beyond the boundary line of the parcel and is located in the NYSDOT right-of-way. Encroachments of this nature are typically remedied during site plan review. The existing sign (and foundational base) should preferably be relocated on to private property, butata minimum NYSDOTapproval shall be required. 6) The location of the estate fence within the NYSDOT right-of-way further restricts the ability to situate a safe multi-use path which the T-5 district expressly encourages. Establishing a safe connector link to the residential neighborhoods surrounding Kirby Lane and the Navy Support facility is critically important as further reinforced in the 2016 Complete Streets Plan. The city has a long track record of working collaboratively with the NYSDOT to install the appropriate pedestrian/bike amenities all along Washington Street and the city is willing to facilitate further discussions as required for the current project at 254 Washington St. Additional Information and Outstandin�Items 1) The driveway easement language between the two owners at 254 and 252 Washington Street needs to be reviewed and approved by the city attorney. 2) The Planning Board seeks an advisory opinion from the Complete Streets Committee regarding the potential multi-use path along Washington Street. 3) NYSDOT needs to be informed regarding the encroachment of the estate fence and signage on public property. 4) The applicant has requested an office use as "incidental" to the principal uses of"automobile sales" and "automobile garage". As stated before, the T-5 district is designed to accommodate a myriad of uses and the applicant may wish to consider a broader definition of the office use to provide greater flexibility. 5) The Planning Board has no jurisdiction over the West Avenue Special Assessment District (WASAD) and cannot offer any guidance as to why the water/sewer lines were not extended to 254 Washington Street. This is an unfortunate occurrence because the uses are indeed limited w/o these utilities and this appears inconsistent with the intent of the T-5 district to allow all potential uses. The applicant is encouraged to work with the city and discuss what it would take to provide these utility connections. It is important to note that the existing building was erected after the initial ZO was adopted by the city. 5