VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON, NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES – TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2004:
A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York was held on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 in the Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Gallelli, Chairman
ABSENT: Ted Brumleve
ALSO PRESENT: Daniel O’Connor, P.E., Village Engineer
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Gallelli.
Croton Enterprises, LLC (C/o Juster Development Co.) – 440-460 South Riverside Avenue (Sec. 79.17 Blk. 2 Lot 2) – Application for Amended Site Plan Approval for ShopRite Supermarket
Rand Rosenbaum, Architect, and Wilson Rugel of ShopRite Stores, Inc. were present for this application.
Chairman Gallelli stated that ShopRite is proposing to offer to its customers an “at-home” shopping service, which would require, among other changes, a new entrance door for the “at-home” grocery pick-up area. The proposal also calls for the re-designation of four parking spaces for “at-home” customer use.
Chairman Gallelli opened the public hearing.
Chairman Gallelli noted that, at the last meeting, the Planning Board asked the Applicant to look into the possibility of changing the handicap parking arrangement at ShopRite. The Applicant was supposed to contact the landlord to discuss this matter.
Mr. Rosenbaum stated that, at the Planning Board meeting last month, he explained to the Board members ShopRite’s intention to introduce “at-home” shopping at its Croton store. Customers would order groceries “on line” and then pick up the groceries in the designated pick-up area. As part of the Applicant’s Amended Site Plan application, the Applicant would like to install a canopy over the entrance to the pick-up area and re-designate four parking spaces for “at-home” shoppers’ use.
Mr. Rosenbaum stated that the Planning Board requested at the last meeting that the Applicant’s plan showing the parking be revised. It was a matter of clarifying how these “at-home” parking spaces would line up with the existing building and how they would affect the overall parking lot at ShopRite. Mr. Rosenbaum stated that, in order to do this work, his firm tried to obtain site survey information from the property owner; however, they were unable to do so. As a result, they had to survey the site themselves. Mr. Rosenbaum told the Board members that the revised plan that they are looking at tonight shows the four “at-home” parking spaces, which would be situated directly in front of the entrance/exit door for the pick-up service. The plan also shows the existing and
proposed handicap parking spaces.
Mr. Rosenbaum told the Board members that the Physical Rehabilitation Center near ShopRite has told ShopRite that they would appreciate having a handicap parking space nearer to their facility.
Mr. Rosenbaum stated that the new plan shows a better layout for the handicap parking spaces at ShopRite. He pointed to the area on the north end of ShopRite where the additional handicap parking would be situated. He noted that, with respect to the new handicap parking and the existing fire hydrant, there would still be sufficient passage for fire equipment with the additional handicap parking space being proposed. Mr. Klein asked if the 8-foot wide space being shown on the plan is a standard parking space now, to which Mr. Rosenbaum replied that, right now, it is a striped area for fire hydrants. Ms. Allen asked if there was a ramp in this area to provide handicap accessibility, to which Mr. Rosenbaum replied that the concrete and pavement meet so that there is a natural gradation.
Mr. Rosenbaum stated that what the Applicant is proposing now is to move the parking space from the back corner and provide an additional space.
Ms. Allen stated that she would suspect that, if a handicap parking space were installed in this area, the curb (there) would have to be smoothed out.
Chairman Gallelli pointed to the new crosswalk and asked if there was another crosswalk shown on the previous submission, to which Mr. Rosenbaum replied that there was not.
Mr. Rosenbaum noted that the 8-foot wide fire lane markings in front of ShopRite are worn. As part of this proposal, the Applicant would re-stripe and enhance this fire lane.
Chairman Gallelli noted that, at the last meeting, the Planning Board asked for a letter of authorization from the property owner. The Planning Board would need documentation that this proposal is in accordance with the landlord’s wishes. Mr. Rugel of ShopRite stated that he would forward this letter of authorization to the Village Engineer’s office in the morning.
Chairman Gallelli noted that there are no members of the public present for this application. She closed the public hearing.
Chairman Gallelli asked if there were any further comments from the Board members. Mr. Klein stated that, since the last meeting, he has had an opportunity to look at the ShopRite web site. The store in Peekskill has “at-home” shopping. As part of the service, people can phone ahead, and an employee from the ShopRite store will come outside to deliver their orders. Mr. Klein wanted to know what would happen if more than four people, who are getting off the train, call ahead, and there are only four parking spaces to accommodate these people. Would these “extra” people have to circle the parking lot? Mr. Rugel stated that, for the time being, these “at-home” customers have to come inside to pick up their orders. ShopRite does not yet have the
computer software to offer this service at the Croton store.
The Village Engineer asked how many ShopRite employees are required each day for the “at-home” service, to which Mr. Rugel replied that three employees perform this service at any given time. The pick-up operation takes 5 to 10 minutes. Chairman Gallelli thought that if an “at-home” shopper could not find an available “at-home” parking spot, he/she would probably decide to park elsewhere in the parking lot in a regular spot. Mr. Klein pointed out that if people call ahead, they would expect that an employee from ShopRite would be coming outside with their order. All these people are going to be expecting to be able to use the “at-home” parking spaces. Mr. Rugel told the Planning Board that, if this parking situation becomes an issue, then
ShopRite would expand the “at-home” parking spots. Mr. Klein suggested that it should be made a condition of the approval that the Applicant should report back to the Planning Board in six months and again in one year regarding any possible problems with the “at-home” parking. Chairman Gallelli suggested that ShopRite should submit written reports to this effect, to which Mr. Klein concurred. Mr. Klein noted that if this parking problem were to exist at all, it would most likely be confined to peak traffic hours.
The Village Engineer suggested that any future “at-home” parking spaces could be put on the far side of the building where people rarely park now.
Chairman Gallelli stated that a condition would be placed in the resolution that, as of June 30, 2005, there must be a written report provided to the Planning Board and/or the Village Engineer regarding any reported problems on the allocated parking spaces for the “at-home” shopping.
The Village Engineer noted that the pedestrian crosswalk that is being planned is not centered on the parking spots. Mr. Rosenbaum stated that they ran it (the crosswalk) at 90 degrees to the building face. The Village Engineer asked Mr. Rosenbaum if the curb could be brought in so that the parking spot(s) could be made wider, to which Mr. Rugel said that it could be. Chairman Gallelli asked how this could be stated as a condition. It was decided that the condition should say that, with respect to the new painted crosswalk to the pick-up entrance door, the curb cut in the island should be cut back so that the opening is equidistant on both sides of the crosswalk.
The Village Engineer referred to the alternative handicap parking proposal shown on the Applicant’s revised plan. He told the Applicant that he should remove the alternative proposal from the plan, as the initial proposal solves the handicapped parking problem. The Village Engineer noted that it should be stated, as one of the conditions of the approval, that the alternative proposal is not approved.
Mr. Rosenbaum noted that the plantings, which are shown on the plan, are existing and would remain the same. The Applicant is not doing any additional landscaping.
The Village Engineer asked that a detail of the dropped curb be provided that is ADA compliant.
The Village Engineer asked if the traffic arrow on the pavement would be repainted, to which Mr. Rugel replied that painting the traffic arrow would be done in the spring as part of the overall site maintenance.
Chairman Gallelli stated that, as a condition of the approval, the Planning Board should ask that the landscaping details shown on plan #SP-1.01 be removed. The Planning Board should also ask that an ADA-compliant dropped curb detail be added to plan #SP-1.01.
Ms. Allen noted that there are no handicap parking spaces for the “at-home” pick-up service. She suggested that there should be an additional parking space closest to the pick-up entrance, which would be designated for the handicapped. She pointed out that handicapped individuals would probably be more apt to use this new “at-home” shopping service. Mr. Rugel noted that there is a time limit (10 minutes) on these “at-home” parking spaces which might present a problem, to which Ms. Allen suggested that, for the handicap parking space, the 10-minute limitation could be removed. Mr. Klein wondered how it could be made clear that any handicapped person would be entitled to use this “at-home” handicap parking space.
Chairman Gallelli pointed out that handicapped individuals would have prime access to this new pick-up entrance door anyway because the existing handicap parking spaces at ShopRite are situated in the front of the building. Mr. Burniston stated that he agrees with Ms. Allen that handicapped individuals would be more apt to use this service; however, he did not think it would be necessary to provide a designated “at-home” handicap parking space. Ms. Allen asked if the handicap parking spaces at the south end of the building were ever used, to which Chairman Gallelli replied that she thought they were used sometimes. She noted that the sidewalk at that end provides easy access.
Chairman Gallelli thought that designating an “at-home” handicap parking space might present an enforcement problem and create a lack of understanding. Ms. Allen stated that she would want to be assured that, when new protocols are established at ShopRite, such as grocery deliveries to cars, handicapped individuals would be able to receive the same service. Chairman Gallelli pointed out that, by law, they have to receive the same service as anyone else.
Chairman Gallelli referred to the Applicant’s plan and stated that, in her view, the four handicap spaces in the front and the two at the end would be sufficient.
Chairman Gallelli suggested that ShopRite could include, in its six-month written report, any problems relating to handicap accessibility and the new “at-home” pick-up service. The other members agreed.
Chairman Gallelli entertained a motion to approve this application for Amended Site Plan Approval with the conditions discussed at the meeting tonight. The motion to approve was made by Mr. Klein, seconded by Mr. Burniston, and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
Chairman Gallelli distributed to the Planning Board members a memorandum from Doug Wehrle of the Advisory Board for the Visual Environment (VEB) dated October 20, 2004. Chairman Gallelli stated that the VEB would like to have a joint meeting with the Planning Board to discuss the Village’s signage ordinance. There are some specific regulations that the VEB would like to have changed. The VEB would need the Planning Board’s endorsement to hire a professional consultant in this regard. The VEB would also like to schedule another meeting with the Planning Board and the Chamber of Commerce. Chairman Gallelli stated further that the VEB would like to know how it would fit into the review process, should the Planning Board be granted architectural review
authority. Chairman Gallelli stated that Ted Brumleve is the Planning Board’s liaison to the VEB. She suggested that the Planning Board could table this discussion until Mr. Brumleve has the opportunity to provide his comments. The Planning Board could discuss a possible joint meeting date at its November 9th meeting.
Chairman Gallelli reviewed the agenda items for the November 9th meeting, stating that the Planning Board would discuss the referral from the Village Board regarding Maria Modica-Snow’s suggestion to amend the Existing Small Lots Law. The Symphony Knoll and Galena Feit applications might be back before the Board. Finally, there might be an application before the Board for an Amended Site Plan for a tennis court at the River Landing Subdivision.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the Thursday, September 23, 2004 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Mr. Burniston, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
The minutes of the Tuesday, September 28, 2004 Planning Board meeting were approved, as amended, on a motion by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Klein and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:21 P.M.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on an Amended Site Plan application on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 for Croton Enterprises, LLC, C/o Juster Development Co., (Shop Rite), hereafter known as “the Applicant,” said property located at 440-460 South Riverside Avenue and designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 79.17 Block 2 Lot 2 (formerly #2 98 1E); and
WHEREAS, the proposal is to install an exterior canopy and change the designation of 4 parking spaces at the ShopRite Supermarket for “at-home” customer use; and
WHEREAS, under the requirements of Local Law 7 of 1977, the Planning Board has determined that there will be no adverse impacts resulting from the proposed application that cannot be properly mitigated.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Amended Site Plan application as shown on Sheet A-1 entitled “First Floor Construction/Fixture Plan,” dated August 18, 2004, last revised September 8, 2004, Sheet A-2 entitled “Partial Clg. Plan, Ext. Elevation, Details,” dated September 8, 2004, and Sheet SP-1.01 entitled “Proposed Site Parking Plan,” dated October 26, 2004, prepared by Rosenbaum Design Group, Architects, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall provide to the Village Engineer’s office a letter of authorization from the property owner to do the proposed work.
2. On June 30, 2005, a written report shall be provided to the Planning Board and/or the Village Engineer regarding any reported problems with the allocated “at-home” parking, including any handicap accessibility problems.
3. With respect to the new painted crosswalk to the “at-home” pick-up entrance area, the curb cut in the island shall be cut back so that the opening is equidistant on both sides of the crosswalk.
4. An ADA-compliant dropped curb detail shall be added to Sheet SP-1.01.
5. The Applicant shall remove the landscaping details shown on Sheet SP-1.01.
6. The alternative proposal for handicap parking shown on Sheet SP-1.01 is not approved.
In the event that this Amended Site Plan is not implemented within three (3) years of this date, this approval shall expire.
The Planning Board of the Village of
Croton-on-Hudson, New York
Ann H. Gallelli, Chairperson
Motion to approve by Mr. Klein, seconded by Mr. Burniston and carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, October 26, 2004.