1 1 2 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ORANGE TOWN OF NEWBURGH PLANNING BOARD 3 -------------------------X In the Matter of 4 LANDS OF HAGARTY 6 (2007-44) 7 Corner of Athboy and Old Post Road Section 8; Block 1; Lot 51.21 8 AR Zone 9 -------------------------X CONCEPTUAL SKETCH PLAN -LOT LINE CHANGE 11 12 13 Date: December 20, 2007 Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: Town of Newburgh Town Hall 1496 Route 300 14 Newburgh, NY 12550 16 BOARD MEMBERS: JOHN P. EWASUTYN, Chairman FRANK S. GALLI KENNETH MENNERICH 17 JOSEPH E. PROFACI 18 ALSO PRESENT: DINA HAINES 19 MICHAEL H. DONNELLY, ESQ. BRYANT COCKS PATRICK HINES KAREN ARENT MARK SARGENT 21 22 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: KENNETH LYTLE 23 -------------------------X MICHELLE L. CONERO 24 10 Westview Drive Wallkill, New York 12589 (845)895-3018 LANDS OF HAGARTY CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to welcome you to the Town of Newburgh Planning Board meeting of the 20th of December. At this time I'll call the meeting to order with a roll call vote starting with Frank Galli. MR. GALLI: Present. MR. MENNERICH: Present. MR. PROFACI: Here. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Myself present. The Planning Board has special consultants that provide input and advice to the Planning Board in reaching various SEQRA determinations. I would like them to introduce themselves. MR. DONNELLY: Michael Donnelly, Planning Board Attorney. MR. HINES: Pat Hines with McGoey, Hauser & Edsall, Consulting Engineers. MR. COCKS: Bryant Cocks, Garling Associates, Planning Consultant. MS. ARENT: Karen Arent, Landscape Architectural Consultant. LANDS OF HAGARTY MR. SARGENT: Mark Sargent, Creighton, Manning Engineering, Traffic Engineer. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Thank you. At this time I'd like to turn the meeting over to Frank Galli. MR. GALLI: Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. (Pledge of Allegiance.) MR. GALLI: Please shut off all cell phones. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Our first item of business this evening is the lands of Hagarty. It's a conceptual sketch plan for a lot line change located on the corner of Athboy and Old Post Road. It's zoned AR and it's being represented by Ken Lytle. MR. LYTLE: Good evening. What the client is proposing is a property exchange of approximately 14,000 square feet from lot number 2 to the adjoining owner, lands of Berm, on lot number 1. We've shown the existing septics and wells. It meets all the zoning requirements. LANDS OF HAGARTY If the Board has any comments. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Bryant Cocks, Planning Consultant? MR. COCKS: Both of these lots are going to meet the Zoning Ordinance. They are just making it a rectangular shape. We have no problem with this. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Pat Hines? MR. HINES: We reviewed the septics and well locations. Similar to Bryant's comment, it makes a better lot geometry. It's a transfer of 14,830 square feet from one lot to the other. We have no outstanding comments. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Frank Galli? MR. GALLI: No. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken Mennerich? MR. MENNERICH: No questions. MR. PROFACI: Nothing. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Okay. I'll move for a motion to grant conceptual site plan approval and declare a negative declaration for the lands of Hagarty for a lot line change. MR. GALLI: So moved. MR. PROFACI: Second. LANDS OF HAGARTY CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Frank Galli. I have a second by Joe Profaci. Any discussion of the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a roll call vote starting with Frank Galli. MR. GALLI: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: And myself. So carried. At this point I'll turn to Mike Donnelly, Planning Board Attorney, for conditions of approval. MR. DONNELLY: The standard conditions you have in your lot line resolutions are the requirement of a map note, which Ken may already have, that from the best available knowledge there are no buried utilities within or adjacent to the lot line change that will cause encroachment to create violations of the State Sanitary Health Code. The other requirements are that a map be sent to the Real Property Tax Service and that it include metes and bounds, LANDS OF HAGARTY that we be copied on it and that the applicant copy the Planning Board on the deed conveying the lands to be exchanged and to provide us recording information upon return of the deed. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Okay. Having heard the conditions of approval, I would move for that motion. MR. GALLI: So moved. MR. MENNERICH: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Frank Galli. I have a second by Ken Mennerich. Any discussion of the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a roll call vote starting with Frank Galli. MR. GALLI: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Myself yes. So carried. MR. LYTLE: Great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Happy holiday to you. (Time noted: 7:05 p.m.) CERTIFICATION I, Michelle Conero, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify that I recorded stenographically the proceedings herein at the time and place noted in the heading hereof, and that the foregoing is an accurate and complete transcript of same to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATED: January 2, 2008 1 8 2 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ORANGE TOWN OF NEWBURGH PLANNING BOARD 3 -------------------------X In the Matter of 4 EXETER BUILDING CORP. 6 (2002-26) 7 South side of Route 17K Section 89; Block 1; Lot 1.1 8 R-3 Zone 9 -------------------------X RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN 11 12 13 Date: December 20, 2007 Time: 7:05 p.m. Place: Town of Newburgh Town Hall 1496 Route 300 14 Newburgh, NY 12550 16 BOARD MEMBERS: JOHN P. EWASUTYN, Chairman FRANK S. GALLI KENNETH MENNERICH 17 JOSEPH E. PROFACI 18 ALSO PRESENT: DINA HAINES 19 MICHAEL H. DONNELLY, ESQ. BRYANT COCKS PATRICK HINES KAREN ARENT MARK SARGENT 21 22 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: DAVID HIGGINS 23 -------------------------X MICHELLE L. CONERO 24 10 Westview Drive Wallkill, New York 12589 (845)895-3018 EXETER BUILDING CORP. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Let the record show that the next item of business after the lands of Hagarty is Newburgh Retail Developers. It's scheduled this evening for a site plan phasing plan. It's being represented by Kevin Down. The applicant at this time isn't here so we'll take the next item and that's Exeter Building Corp. It's a residential site plan located on the south side of Route 17K 700 +/-near Drury Lane. It's in an R-3 Zone. Is Dave Higgins here? MR. HIGGINS: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Thank you. MR. HIGGINS: Good evening. My name is David Higgins with Lanc & Tully Engineering. With me tonight is Mr. Bill Fried, applicant for the Exeter project; and also Mr. Rick Golden, the attorney for Mr. Fried. Mr. Lopez I guess is not here yet, the planner on the project. He may be coming in shortly. What we submitted is a site plan for a 136-unit town home development located on New York State Route 17K basically opposite Coldenham School. The project has been before the Board EXETER BUILDING CORP. for some time. We received a negative declaration and a preliminary site plan approval. It's my understanding that it's before the Board tonight for consideration of site plan approval. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Okay. Do you want to walk us through the site plan from your last maps to your revised maps? MR. HIGGINS: The changes that we made to the plans generally had to do with in some areas we had some patios and decks on buildings. Basically it was determined with the consultants that decks are not permitted within the building setback. Where we had issues of those structures extending into the setback, those have been modified to be patios. We no longer have any decks within the setback. In some cases we've -on the plans I think the Board has it specified patios, and where it's not specified that it would be considered a deck. We had made some changes I know on landscaping to satisfy some of the concerns that Karen Arent had with regard to landscaping. I understand some of those are yet to be resolved. We have met with Karen to talk about what changes EXETER BUILDING CORP. would be made. I believe we're on the same page with regard to what changes would be made to the plans. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Okay. Site issues as it relates to drainage. MR. HINES: We reviewed the project with regard to the engineering details. We previously signed off on the stormwater management plans as they were developed over time. There's several detention ponds on the site, some sand filters, a fire retention area that have been incorporated into the plan. We reviewed the water and sewer provisions with the applicant's representative. We had several meetings with Jim Osborne and the water department. Those issues have been resolved. We're still awaiting confirmation from the Army Corp of Engineers regarding the jurisdictional determination and the need for a permit. It's my belief that the work here is covered under Nationwide 39 and no individual permit will be required. The sewer issues with regard to EXETER BUILDING CORP. improvements along 17K have been revised so this is considered only a single lateral hookup to the Town system. I believe that the City of Newburgh sign off has been received for acceptance of the flow. So with that, our engineering and technical issues have been resolved on the project. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Okay. Any questions from the Board Members from what we heard from our consultant, Pat Hines? MR. GALLI: No. MR. MENNERICH: No. MR. PROFACI: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Bryant Cocks, Planning Consultant. MR. COCKS: Yes. As Dave mentioned, one of the issues surrounding the site was the issue of decks and patios. They have what looks like some mislabeled on the last site plan that I have. Karen Arent said that she had a different version of the landscape plan where it's going to be all patios now, so I think that issue has been resolved. EXETER BUILDING CORP. MS. ARENT: Within setbacks. MR. COCKS: Within setbacks. Some of them weren't labeled within the setback line. There was another issue regarding sidewalks on the interior of the site, mainly where some of the driveway cuts were. The applicant has fixed those and taken away the sidewalks where they were too choppy considering there would be driveway cuts breaking them up and they really wouldn't function well. The only other issue is surrounding the architectural approval, the applicant submitted black and white drawings. When they do come back we will need colors. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I know we had received comments from Ken Wersted in reference to sidewalks. Mark Sargent here is representing Ken who is at another meeting. Mark, you work with Creighton, Manning Engineering also. MR. SARGENT: Right. I believe it's the same comments that Bryant just mentioned about the sidewalks. The last set of plans that we had looked at did not show the changes. We EXETER BUILDING CORP. understand now from Bryant and Karen that has been taken care of. One thing we just talked about is the item labeled emergency access or emergency connection to the adjacent Drury Heights project. We believe or it's our understanding there's also supposed to be a pedestrian access, not just an emergency access. It should be labeled that way. MR. HIGGINS: Okay. MR. SARGENT: We know you're working on some outstanding design issues with DOT related to the driveway. One of their items was related to maintenance of the sidewalk in the right-of-way. We believe you have that taken care of through the homeowners association. We recognize there are some outstanding transportation highway work permit issues that you're working on. MR. HIGGINS: Yes. Basically DOT has signed off on the location and essentially the geometry of the entrance and had indicated in a letter some additional work was going to be required for the permit to be issued. The location is acceptable to DOT. There's some EXETER BUILDING CORP. other work --there's a traffic pole --a traffic signal that has to be replaced and a traffic signal. Some work has to go into that. We're working with Phil Grealy from John Collins Engineers. Prior to obtaining a permit from the State we would have to address all of those items to DOT's satisfaction. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Comments from Board Members to this point. Frank Galli? MR. GALLI: No. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken Mennerich? MR. MENNERICH: No questions. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Joe Profaci? MR. PROFACI: No, John. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Mr. Higgins, -excuse me. Mr. Lopez, Mr. Higgins said he was expecting you shortly. Would this be the right time for Mr. Lopez to make his presentation? I think we're discussing landscaping also as it relates to this project, lighting as it relates to this project and some discussion on the recreational uses and areas located for that. MR. LOPEZ: We've been through quite a EXETER BUILDING CORP. few changes on the landscape plan with input from your consultants and responding to some slight changes in the site plan as well. Generally speaking, the areas in solid medium colored green around the site are forested areas that are anticipated to remain on the site, like off to the west surrounding the perimeter of the south leg and on the east side of the property, and there's some other smaller areas. We've planted quite heavily and I think in accordance with your buffer setback regulations. The perimeter of the property where its been open. We walked the perimeter of the site on at least one occasion --actually two occasions with your landscape consultant to take a look at where we might have some openings in what appeared to be wooded areas but where the woods might be thin or small. We've supplemented those with green material, largely on the border between the site and Colden Park where we have some existing --obviously an existing, completely developed community. Around the interior of the site we've --did you speak about sidewalks? EXETER BUILDING CORP. MR. HIGGINS: No. Actually, one of the comments they had had to do with the relocation of the sidewalks to conform with Karen's comments about basically removing the breaks. MR. LOPEZ: Right. I think you're familiar from previous plans, and certainly from this drawing as well, that we have sidewalks around each of the areas, the three separate areas of the site, the loop on the northwest side of the site into the east side of the site and down to the end of the lake going south. It was mentioned that there was an intention to connect here through Town-owned property to the adjacent development. If that adjacent development happens and if the Town concurs that that connection would be allowed to be, and if it is, then that connection would occur in that direction. We obviously have a lot of street trees and a lot of plantings around the buildings. We also have a typical landscape plan for individual units which shows foundation plantings and other ornamental plantings commonly used. We do have as well --this came off - EXETER BUILDING CORP. 18 I believe your Board has seen these drawings. We have samples of what the architectural appearance of the buildings will be. Essentially we're looking at two-story elevations in the front. There was some discussion about having a lower level with basements down under. Dave's office worked out the grading so that we don't need that third elevation in the front. For portions of the site where the road is relatively level across the front of the building we'll have an elevation that looks similar to this. In other portions of the site where the road is ascending or descending we'll obviously have a stepped elevation. We don't think that we will need to step it more than once in the center of the building. The rear of the buildings being either patios or decks, we anticipate that the ascendcy up or down from the floors that open out onto the decks or come down to the patios will be anywhere from a couple of feet to four or five feet. We'll accommodate that with a staircase out the rear of the unit. In some instances there may be some access from a basement at a lower level. I think that we've pretty much decided almost all EXETER BUILDING CORP. of these are going to be from the first floor, so the rear of the building won't have a third floor elevation typically. The clubhouse will be a similar style. It will be two stories on the lower elevation that you can see facing the pool and a single story facing the road in the front. The balance of these drawings are related to other things that you've seen in the past. This is a photo with the site plan superimposed. You can see a relationship to the community. Any questions? MR. GALLI: Are any of the buildings going to be --are you going to see three stories from the road because of the grading? MR. LOPEZ: That portion of the plan that would be potentially visible --we'll put up the site plan --from 17K - MR. GALLI: The question I have is if it's going to show three stories what's the bottom part going to look like? You're showing us the first and second floor. MR. LOPEZ: I wanted to --I didn't EXETER BUILDING CORP. want to answer that from the hip because I wanted to address the different portions of the site. This portion, as I'm sure you're aware, is a relatively lower level area. Here we anticipate a relatively straightforward two stories front and back. This is the side view. These buildings which are up on the hill will also likely be two stories. There's no reason to have a third story in the back. The only potential area we might have a third story would be in some of these buildings down here where the land falls off behind the buildings. In those situations the rear of the building, as I had indicated earlier, would look similar to this. We anticipate that the portion of the foundation that would be exposed we would either treat by continuing the siding down over the exterior of that or it would be parged or faced with a masonry material. It would not be left as the mortared cement block look is what I'm getting at. MR. GALLI: When you say parged, that looks like mortar cement block anyway. MR. LOPEZ: But it would be finished EXETER BUILDING CORP. off in a way that would be complimentary to the architecture of that overall development. MR. GALLI: Okay. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken Mennerich? MR. MENNERICH: Could you show us where the playground areas are and the tot lot? MR. LOPEZ: Sure. There are actually four recreational areas, of course the pool and the clubhouse being one. Here on the southeast corner of the westerly loop is a picnic area. On the west side of the northerly end of the south leg is a tot lot area. There's an additional recreation area here which we anticipate to be a picnic area as well, picnic and bench area, outdoor, probably a couple barbecue pits and that kind of thing. MR. MENNERICH: Have you determined what's going to be in each of these areas, sort of a materials type thing? MR. LOPEZ: We spec'd out a sample piece of play equipment from a play catalog which I have here this evening if you would like to see. We had laid out a semi-circular park bench and picnic area here. We have not laid out this EXETER BUILDING CORP. area here yet but it would be similar to the first. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Can you show us what you brought this evening? MR. LOPEZ: Sure. This is a Big Toy catalog tear sheet. We're looking at something along the lines of this which roughly occupies 40 square foot or a 40 diameter circumference area. I guess 37 by 35. These come in a variety of models. I'm sure you're aware you can add a swing area or a climbing area or whatever. They're modularly put together. MR. GALLI: You're only going to have one of them on the site? MR. LOPEZ: Yes. One on the south leg. MR. GALLI: For the whole site? MR. LOPEZ: Yes. We're not sure what we are going to be anticipating in terms of younger children. The initial concept was that the marketing and the positioning of the units would likely attract empty nesters and not as many children. We were thinking about setting aside some funds for future construction of recreational areas when it became more apparent EXETER BUILDING CORP. who was buying. At the recommendation of your consultant we spec'd out a piece of play equipment and if the demographics don't justify that as the development is built out then we will come back and obviously take a look at whether that needs to be revised. This third area --if it turns out there are more tots, this third area that hasn't been laid out yet would be a tot lot. At some point in time as we get a critical mass of people on the site with families and get a better idea of what's needed they'll be developed. MR. GALLI: They'll never make a decision. MR. LOPEZ: A decision has been made for purposes of site plan. If there's a need to change we'll be back. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Anything else, Ken? MR. MENNERICH: On the street lights, have you picked out a - MR. LOPEZ: We discussed using a corner style, similar to the Central Park style, those glass globes, those --the best way to describe them is they are a clouded glass globe that have EXETER BUILDING CORP. a refractor in the top so although it's glass on the outside and looks like it's glass, it is glass without any obstruction on the inside. The bulb actually sits up inside of the semi-hemispherical structure. It's mirrored on the inside and that bounces the light down and out so you don't get the spillage in an upper direction. They can be controlled as well with controls so that the back of the unit doesn't throw light off site. What we were looking at doing is using several of those in areas of the roadway where we don't have buildings, in areas around proposed parking lots, so that those areas would have one or two fixtures. We weren't planning on using fixtures throughout the site because most of the front doors we're anticipating will have two carriage lights on either side of the door which will provide lighting for those units. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Joe Profaci? MR. PROFACI: Given that we're not doing architectural review tonight, I'm going to reserve my comments. I just want to say that where that EXETER BUILDING CORP. third level will be visible, I think we're going to have to work on something other than parging. It's not going to cut it. MR. LOPEZ: We're completely open. MR. PROFACI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Would our consultants like to add anything at this time before we begin discussing phasing of the project? MR. HINES: No. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Bryant Cocks? MR. COCKS: No. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Karen Arent? MS. ARENT: I think he went over everything. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Do you want to walk us through your concept for phasing of the project? MR. HIGGINS: Basically the way this is set up is we have phase I consisting of building unit numbers 1 through 15. So it's this loop in here. Also what's a requirement dictated on the plan is the clubhouse and pool area be built, I think it's before the certificate of occupancy is EXETER BUILDING CORP. issued, I think it's on the last building in that phase I believe. MR. DONNELLY: The twenty-fifth unit of the whole project I think is how it's worded. MR. HIGGINS: What's currently shown as phase I would be this loop in here, the entrance road and the clubhouse. Phase II then basically would take the road up across here and put in the emergency access lane, build out these units and then this unit here. Then the third phase would constitute extending the road out to the south down the south leg and then build out units, it looks like 24 through 34 I think the number is. MR. HINES: Phases II and III can go either way, they're not defined as having to occur in that order. I think that's important. MR. HIGGINS: That's what we had talked about at the work session that we had. Phase II and III could go either. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Frank Galli, comments? MR. GALLI: No additional. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken Mennerich? MR. MENNERICH: Just a question on your EXETER BUILDING CORP. green space to the west there. Is there anything planned for that as far as walking paths or anything? MR. LOPEZ: Is that the wetland area? MR. MENNERICH: Some of it is. MR. HIGGINS: This area here? No, we did not have plans to utilize this area. MR. HINES: That's pretty steep through there, Ken. MR. MENNERICH: Thanks. MR. LOPEZ: There are some wetlands but, as Pat mentioned, there are some pretty steep slopes in that area. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Joe Profaci? MR. PROFACI: Nothing. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Pat Hines? MR. HINES: We discussed the phasing at the last workshop. The phases are independent of each other. We've tied in to the resolution the recreation proceeds not by phases but by unit count so the necessary recreation will be built as the project gets built out. The phasing works on the site because of the road layout and geometry. EXETER BUILDING CORP. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Bryant Cocks, Planning Consultant? MR. COCKS: Nothing further. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Karen Arent, Landscape Architect? MS. ARENT: The only thing we need is a phasing plan because there was not one in the set of documents. We're going to need to have your thoughts put on paper. MR. HIGGINS: Something other than just indicating which units go with each phase? MS. ARENT: Wouldn't you say that we need a plan? MR. HINES: There should be a defined boundary line for each of the phases. That is just for the code enforcement department with what is supposed to be where and when. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Mark Sargent? MR. SARGENT: No comment. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll turn to the Board Members at this time for additional information they would like to have from the applicant. If you could bring forward your questions. EXETER BUILDING CORP. MR. GALLI: Nothing additional. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken Mennerich? MR. MENNERICH: Nothing additional. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Joe Profaci? MR. PROFACI: Nothing. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: At this time I would like to turn to Mike Donnelly, Planning Board Attorney. MR. DONNELLY: I had provided you with a copy of the preliminary resolution that has been amended as if it is a final resolution, and we had gone over that at work session. The applicant has been given a copy of that draft. We've made some changes and additions to it and I can review those now. First, on page 2 I'll need the updated plan set information, and that can be provided to me after this evening. On the specific conditions beginning on page 4, the first is the requirement that the amendments to the plans and additions that Karen spoke of and that are outlined in her memo of December 13th will need to be provided, and the site plan will not be signed until Karen has EXETER BUILDING CORP. provided the Planning Board with a letter to that effect. In addition, Mark Sargent mentioned that he wanted to see some markings regarding pedestrian access to Drury Heights, and I think we should condition the approval on a sign-off letter from his office as well. Next we mentioned the need for a phasing plan, and the approval will be conditioned on the submission of a phasing plan. I assume it's probably best if Pat Hines review that. We're aware of what the phases are but that should be added to the plan probably as a separate sheet. MR. HINES: We were just mentioning over here the sidewalk along 17K, that's part of the phase I improvements I believe. MR. HIGGINS: Yes. MR. DONNELLY: What had been listed as condition number 2 in the preliminary resolution was the adjustment of the buffer areas to correspond to the law that had been enacted by the Town since the application was first made, and that condition can now be removed because EXETER BUILDING CORP. that buffering has in fact been provided in compliance with that law. We talked earlier about the need for a lighting plan which has not yet been submitted, and a condition of the approval will be that a lighting plan be submitted. The resolution should recite that the fixtures should be not more than 16 feet high consistent with the Town's design guidelines and consistent with the architecture that is to be approved as part of the final ARB. Condition number 3 at the bottom of page 4 references the DOT approval that has been granted in concept, but the requirement that a highway work permit be obtained and the requirement that if anything is changed as a result of that work permit in terms of the site plan elements, that the applicant will need to return to the Planning Board. Number 4, Pat Hines mentioned earlier that this will be subject to a jurisdictional determination, a wetlands Nationwide number 39 permit, and that would mean that the applicant couldn't move forward until the notice of intent EXETER BUILDING CORP. to begin activities was given and either the permit was ruled upon or 45 days had past. We've removed the requirement of Orange County Health Department approval because that has been obtained. The preliminary resolution had referenced the need for a DEC sewer main extension permit. We have determined that that permit is not necessary as Pat mentioned earlier, so that condition will be removed. Number 5 relates to Town Board approvals for sewer and water districts that did not exist at the time of preliminary approval. They have now both been granted by the Town Board but they contain certain conditions and requirements, and those conditions and requirements are incorporated into the resolution. The landscape plan that was listed on page 6 has now been submitted but the lighting plan has not. I would change this language to lighting. I mentioned that already. The roadway names will need to be approved by the Town Board, and the plans will EXETER BUILDING CORP. not be signed until that approval is obtained. Condition number 8 related to the homeowners association or condominium association bylaws that need to be referred and reviewed by the town attorney, and we added language that requires that those bylaws include provisions regarding condominium governance, common area regulation, and we've added including a provision for sidewalk maintenance because that's a particular concern. Number 9 relates to the requirement that the applicant petition the Town Board to allow enforcement of Vehicle and Traffic Law violations on this private property. The final plans, in 10, will require to distinguish between patios and decks, and I believe that condition has now been satisfied. MS. ARENT: It still has to be reviewed. MR. DONNELLY: We'll leave it in there. It's in your memo, though. MS. ARENT: It might have been in Bryant's. MR. DONNELLY: Let me then move it up EXETER BUILDING CORP. to say Bryant has to sign off on it. Condition number 11 related to the stipulation that had been entered into between the applicant and the Town, and I believe that stipulation has run its course and has been complied with and reference to it in the resolution is no longer required. We spoke a bit about ARB during the work session. We had occasion in that discussion to look at Section 185-59, Subdivision D of the Code. While the Planning Board has had a practice of allowing ARB approvals to be deferred at the time of site plan approval, they've always required that some form of conceptual ARB be reviewed in the early stages in terms of visual analysis. So that we don't lose that thread, the resolution is going to include a provision that the final ARB submission will need to be consistent with the renderings that were just on the board and reviewed at this evening's meeting, and we'll take a set of those and date them and put them in the file. Furthermore, consistent with 185-59 D, so that we don't lose track of this, no building EXETER BUILDING CORP. permit will be issued until ARB approval is in fact finalized. The conditions of the street scape and recreational space plan referenced the phasing plan which will need to be submitted, but the language requires in essence that phase I be just that, phase I, and must be started and completed before phases II and III. Although the applicant can construct all three phases at once, it just can not do phase I as part of the initial construction. In terms of the recreational space, the community center, and we had omitted but I now return to the language the pool and the picnic area shown as part of phase I shall be completed before issuance of the twenty-fifth certificate of occupancy for a residential unit anywhere within the project in any phase. Next, the picnic area, and I believe I'm correctly describing this but someone will correct me if I'm wrong, shown as part of phase II shall be completed before issuance of the thirteenth certificate of occupancy for a residential unit within that phase. EXETER BUILDING CORP. Finally, the tot lot area that's shown as part of phase III shall be completed before issuance of the eighteenth certificate of occupancy for a residential unit within that phase. The intent of this of course is to make sure that the amenities that are provided are provided at a time according to the schedule that is meaningful in recognition of people already living there. The next provision related to architectural review, and we're amending that language, as I indicated earlier, to require that it be submitted before the building permit and that it be consistent with the renderings submitted. The remaining conditions relate to required securities, that they be posted as a condition of the approval under the various provisions of the Ordinance. There is a condition at the bottom of page 11 which is a standard condition relating to outdoor fixtures that prohibits the construction of any outdoor fixture, amenity or wall that is not shown as part of the approved plans. EXETER BUILDING CORP. Condition number 20 relates to the requirement of the payment of fees in lieu of parklands for this multi-family project. I mentioned to the Planning Board during the work session that Mr. Golden, the applicant's attorney, had asked whether the Planning Board would be able to either waive or recommend a waiver to the Town Board on a partial basis given the fact that recreational space is indeed provided within the plan. What we discussed was the fact that the Town's recreational space plan, as I understand it, as part of its current master plan identifies the need for recreational space as more formalized space for athletic activities like soccer and baseball and the amenities you're providing here do not meet those Town needs, although they obviously address needs and provide an amenity for those who live there. The Planning Board will stand by the findings that are listed here but the language does not prohibit the Town Board from adjusting the amount of the fee in any fashion that you and the Town reach agreement on. Of course the general conditions EXETER BUILDING CORP. relating to what needs to be submitted and the timeliness of those submissions. I believe those conditions correctly track the preliminary approval and indeed reflect our earlier discussions. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Comments from Board Members. Frank Galli? MR. GALLI: No. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken Mennerich? MR. MENNERICH: No questions. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Joe Profaci? MR. PROFACI: No. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Comments from consultants. Pat Hines? MR. HINES: The only one I picked up here is under the stormwater it references public improvements and the word public should be removed. MR. DONNELLY: What number is that, or what page? MR. HINES: Page 9, your new section 15. I can just hand it to you. MR. DONNELLY: Because they're not public. Thank you. EXETER BUILDING CORP. MR. HINES: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Bryant Cocks, Planning Consultant? MR. COCKS: I have nothing further. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Karen Arent, Landscape Architect? MS. ARENT: Nothing additional. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Mark Sargent, Traffic Consultant? MR. SARGENT: No comments. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Mike Donnelly, Attorney for the Planning Board, the action then before the Board this evening is? MR. DONNELLY: You completed SEQRA, you granted preliminary approval. The resolution is for conditional final approval. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Having walked through and discussed the resolution for conditional final approval, having asked Board Members for any additional comments, also extending the same to our consultants, having one comment from Pat Hines our Drainage Consultant, at this time I would move for a motion to grant conditional final approval for the residential EXETER BUILDING CORP. site plan for Exeter Building Corp. MR. GALLI: So moved. MR. PROFACI: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Frank Galli. I have a second by Joe Profaci. Any discussion of the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a roll call vote starting with Frank Galli. MR. GALLI: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Myself yes. So carried. Thank you. MR. GOLDEN: Thank you very much. (Time noted: 7:40 p.m.) CERTIFICATION I, Michelle Conero, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify that I recorded stenographically the proceedings herein at the time and place noted in the heading hereof, and that the foregoing is an accurate and complete transcript of same to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATED: January 2, 2008 1 42 2 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ORANGE TOWN OF NEWBURGH PLANNING BOARD 3 -------------------------X In the Matter of 4 5 THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH (2004-54)(2007-35) 6 Route 300 7 Section 60; Block 3; Lots 41.3,41.4,48,49.1,49.22 & 49.21 Section 71; Block 4; Lots 7,9,10,11,12,13 & 14 8 Section 71; Block 5; Lots 15 & 16 Section 97; Block 5; Lots 13.3 & 20.3 9 IB Zone -------------------------X 10 SITE PLAN, ARB, FOUR-LOT SUBDIVISION & 11 LOT LINE CHANGES 12 13 Date: December 20, 2007 Time: 7:40 p.m. Place: Town of Newburgh Town Hall 14 1496 Route 300 15 Newburgh, NY 12550 16 BOARD MEMBERS: JOHN P. EWASUTYN, Chairman FRANK S. GALLI 17 KENNETH MENNERICH JOSEPH E. PROFACI 18 ALSO PRESENT: DINA HAINES 19 MICHAEL H. DONNELLY, ESQ. BRYANT COCKS 20 PATRICK HINES KAREN ARENT 21 MARK SARGENT 22 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: ROBERT WILDER 23 -------------------------X MICHELLE L. CONERO 24 10 Westview Drive Wallkill, New York 12589 25 (845)895-3018 THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'm going to go back on the agenda to Newburgh Retail Developers/Palmerone Farms, the site plan and phasing plan located on Route 300 and 17K in an IB Zone. Is Kevin Down here? MR. CUBBERLY: My name is Kevin Cubberly with Developers Realty. Kevin Down should be here within the next half hour. If you could move us further down the agenda we would appreciate it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: For the record, do you have a business card for the Stenographer? MR. CUBBERLY: Yes (handing). CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Thank you. The next item on the agenda is The Market Place at Newburgh. It's a site plan, ARB, four-lot subdivision and lot line changes. It's located on Route 300 and it's zoned IB. It's being represented by Robert Wilder. Mr. Wilder, what we'd like to do is we would like to take the order in which Ms. Post presented in her letter. We'll start then with item number 1, the referral of the subdivision application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. If THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH you would walk us through the requested variances. MR. WILDER: My name is Robert Wilder with Wilder, Balter Partners. With regard to the subdivision, I'm going to let Mark Grats from DTS Engineering walk you through the subdivision request. MR. GRATS: As Bob stated, my name is Mark Grats from DTS, planners, engineers and landscape architectural firm. What we have before the Board tonight is a four-lot subdivision primarily to carve out one parent parcel which will cover approximately 104.8 acres, a separate lot for what's shown on your site plans as building A of 7.28 acres, and that's proposed lot 2. Proposed lot 3 would be what's shown on your site plans as building E and it's an area of 16.11 acres. The last lot is the merging of about four I believe private residential parcels that were purchased, and it's going to be set up to create one new residential lot within the existing residential zone back in the Wintergreen area. Variances that are required largely THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH relate in some instances to setbacks. Typically within the IB Zone there's a requirement for 50-foot front yard setbacks, 60-foot rear yard setbacks and 50-foot --one 50-foot side yard setback as well. We have a situation wherein proposed lot 2, being the two big boxes, buildings A and B literally abut each other under the current plan. There would be a zero side yard for that lot. That is one of the variances that we would be requesting. The combined side yard width also would be less than the required 50-foot combination as the building is closer to what we call entry road B-1 as shown on your site plan drawings. MR. WILDER: Mark, I just wanted to say to the extent the public is here, and they are probably not as familiar as the Board is with this, this is an almost 800,000 square foot regional shopping facility. We came before the Board and have been before the Board for the last three-and-a-half years. Overall this development has no --is requesting no variances at all. So I want the public to understand, as I know the consultants do and I believe the Board does, that THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH the reason that we require variances is because two of the major purchasers or the major tenants, occupants of The Market Place have --it's a requirement for their involvement in this development that they actually own their parcel. In order to do that, legally you have to subdivide it out. The fact that the subdivision ordinances, not only in the Town of Newburgh but all subdivision ordinances really don't contemplate taking a development such as The Market Place and subdividing it out. So I just want the public to know that the reason we are requesting all those variances is really that we're --just the nature of dividing up parcels on a property that really almost doesn't want to be divided from a business and operations point of view requires this. MR. GRATS: Right. MR. HINES: It's not unique to you. The Town had experience with this before. The Stop & Shop and the Target mall have gone through a similar process. MR. GRATS: I think the other key point to emphasize here is when the site plan was THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH originally reviewed we still meet all the perimeter setbacks under Code for the IB Zone. There has been no change to that. All these variances are now coming up as we start to define these internal property lines. Just jumping back to lot 1. Maybe we'll walk our way through. There are three variances that are required on lot 1 and they all basically relate again to the side yard setbacks. Relating to buildings L-6 and L-7 here, we're currently showing 42 to 46 feet from the side yard setback to building A which under the Code should be up to 50 feet. We're also showing a --moving on to lot 2, we have actually five variances that are requested on this lot, one or two of them relating to side yard again. Once again, for lot 2 you have the zero setback between buildings A and B. The combined total of the side yards should be 100 feet, so we fall short there as well because of the side yard limitations on both sides of the building. We have a lot building coverage and a lot surface coverage variance that are required THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH as we're basically exceeding the zoning under those areas. That's primarily a function because as we've tailored the new lot to meet just the surrounds of the existing building we're short on some of the coverage items. Obviously the site as a whole we're well within the zoning boundaries. That pretty much wraps up the variances that we're requesting, a total of eight variances. MR. DONNELLY: I think the Planning Board Members have all those listed on this page. MR. GRATS: Yes. They're designated on the tables that were passed out as shaded in gray. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Bryant Cocks, Planning Consultant, would you like to add to this? MR. COCKS: Well, along with the variances that they requested is a residential lot, which is lot 4. They showed the building envelop. It would meet all the setbacks. They just need to show a house location on the final subdivision plans. THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Pat Hines, Drainage Consultant? MR. HINES: They have addressed our previous comments. This map meets the requirements with the information that's on it. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Karen Arent? MS. ARENT: I have no comment. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Mark Sargent? MR. SARGENT: I have a question. We don't have any comments related to the setbacks and the subdivision but I do have a number of site plan comments. Maybe those aren't germane here. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I think we'll address those comments --if the Board is in agreement, I think we'll cover that in item number 4, the letter presented by Deborah Post which covers issues relating to building architecture, building landscaping, site signage. I think we'll cover those issues under that umbrella if that's all right with you. MR. SARGENT: Yup. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Is that okay with the Board? THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH MR. GALLI: Yes. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Mike Donnelly, Planning Board Attorney, is that fine? MR. DONNELLY: Sure. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: What I'm going to motion for now is --as I said earlier, we have a letter that we received as part of the submittal dated December 7, 2007 by Robert Balter Partners and that letter was prepared by Deborah Post who is the vice president of that corporation. The number one item was, again I'm repeating myself, but referral of the subdivision application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Having discussed that in the last few minutes and having had a presentation of that, I'm going to move for a motion that we refer this to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. As it relates to lot number 1 for building B, the rear yard requirement is --excuse me, we were talking about the side yard requirement for building B is 50 foot, the applicant is proposing a zero side yard requirement. For building L-6 50 foot is required, the applicant is proposing a 46-foot setback. For building number L-7 he's proposing THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH a 42-foot setback and again the 50 foot is required. Also within that same referral for proposed lot number 2, the rear yard setback is required of 60 feet, he's proposing 50. MR. DONNELLY: 52 I think. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: 52. Correct. I stand corrected. A 52 foot. One side yard requirement of 50 foot is required, he's proposing a zero-foot setback. For both side yards 100 foot is requested --required, he's proposing a 7 foot setback. For lot building coverage, 33 percent is allowed, he's proposing a 32 percent coverage. For a lot surface coverage 80 percent is allowed and he's proposing a 90 foot --90 percent coverage. Having heard those I would move for the Board to refer this to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. PROFACI: So moved. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Joe Profaci. MR. MENNERICH: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Second by Ken Mennerich. Any discussion of the motion? THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH MR. MENNERICH: Yes. I notice there's several lot lines that have to be removed. Have we --we haven't acted on those yet. MR. DONNELLY: No. You're not acting on the subdivision now. You're referring the subdivision components that require variances to the Zoning Board. You will have to consider the subdivision after those variances are obtained, if in fact they are obtained. The last part of the subdivision is the reconfiguration of the residential lots. That does not require variances but will ultimately require your approval. MR. MENNERICH: But the ZBA would understand that these lot lines are going to be removed in determining their consideration on these variances? MR. DONNELLY: I think that has to do with the residential lots if I understand it correctly. I don't know that they would be concerned with - MR. MENNERICH: No. There's some in the main areas. MR. GRATS: There are a couple THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH interior. MR. DONNELLY: The existing tax map parcels. There is a requirement, I think it may be in the preliminary resolution, that they be consolidated for the purpose of treating this as a single site. I can pass that along with the referral letter if that will straighten things out. MR. MENNERICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Joe Profaci. I have a second by Ken Mennerich with discussion. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a roll call vote starting with Frank Galli. MR. GALLI: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: And myself yes. So carried. Number two on the same letter is a referral of the signage plan to the Zoning Board of Appeals for review and approval of required variances. At this time if you would walk us THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH through that. MR. DONNELLY: While they're putting the map up let me just put in context why you're doing it this way. The issue came up recently with another project, and that is when is the best time to refer to the Zoning Board a sign proposal that doesn't meet the area requirements of the Ordinance. In projects like this, given your ARB authority and the design guidelines, you have consistently required that a cohesive sign plan for the shopping center be provided so that there's an appropriate treatment and scale giving due allowance for the requirements of national chains. If, as we had done once before, we were to refer to the Zoning Board the request for the size of the signs without having looked at the cohesive sign plan, the scale and the treatment, then it's misleading to the Zoning Board and to the applicant. We thought it would be a better practice here, and will continue to recommend it in the future, that prior to that referral for the variances for signs that we first reach the point at which we can recommend the cohesive sign plan to you as a Board so that the plan that THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH you're sending to the Zoning Board is in fact one that meets your requirements of scale and treatment. The plan that is before you and for which the referral is being sought is a plan that is being recommended to you by your consultants, and I think it's important that if you do refer this to the Zoning Board that we note that in the referral. I think it might be helpful if we actually ask Karen to give some kind of a memo that explains to them the approach and the advantages, if I'm not putting too much on her plate, so that that board can better understand exactly how we got to where we are. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I believe that's a reasonable request. Frank Galli? MR. GALLI: Yes. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken Mennerich? MR. MENNERICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Joe Profaci? MR. PROFACI: Yes. MR. WILDER: I think before we start, again the Board and especially the consultants have been involved in this so much that they THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH really have a good understanding. I want to make sure the public understands because the word variance, why are they even entertaining variances, and especially sign variances. When we hear the amount of variances that we're requesting, I just want to make sure that the public is fully aware of what's happened in the past and what we're trying to --what we're requesting. The sign variance --some of this is argument, but the sign variance in the Town of Newburgh has not been changed for many years and most developers, commercial space, come in and ask for sign variances because the amount of signage you're permitted under the Ordinance is significantly less than anything that is typical. The Town Board, for a variety of reasons I guess, has just not made the change to their Ordinance. So the Ordinance --the variances that we're requesting tonight I think we've been going over with the consultants and they're consistent with other communities, and actually other developments in the Town of Newburgh. So with that as a sort of back drop; THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH 57 John, are you going to make this presentation? I think the Board has in front of them copies of all this hopefully because it's not easy for the public actually to see it either. Let me turn it over to John Bainlardi. MR. BAINLARDI: This particular drawing is designated as SW-3 in your package. This is showing the overall site plan with a blowup in the lower left-hand corner of the main entrance to the project at Route 300, and it also has laid out the proposed monument signs, pylon signage and directional signage as well as a proposed directory for the project. What we're proposing in the way of pylon signage is one pylon sign at the Route 300 entrance which would provide identification of the various major retailers in the center, primarily the tenants who would be occupying the buildings in the back and rear of the property as you get into the project. The height of this particular sign is 28 feet by approximately 20 feet wide. The panels themselves are about 14 feet wide by a total height of 19 feet. We've designed the signs to compliment each other. THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH In addition, the pylon sign which is proposed out at Route 300 would be a double-sided sign and would be perpendicular to the roadway so that drivers coming along from either direction would be able to view it easily and identify which tenants are in the center. In addition to the pylon sign we're proposing a monument sign at the Route 300 entrance which would identify The Market Place of Newburgh center. It will be a shopping center identification placard. We're also proposing at the two other entrances similar signs on a little smaller scale, monument signs to identify the shopping center at both the Route 300 --the Route 52 entrance at the roundabout as well as Route 52 at Fifth Avenue. Within the center itself, as you come along the access drives there are directional site signs which are proposed in the middle here on the right-hand side of the drawing. We're proposing twelve of those signs primarily at the intersections so that as shoppers are coming in and they want to know where the tenants are THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH located, the stores they're trying to identify. There will be directional placards so whatever the particular tenant is, retail A is this way, retail B is straight ahead, so on and so forth. Then the lifestyle center we will have a --we're proposing four directories. These are pedestrian oriented directories located at key points within the lifestyle center so that for the pedestrian who is out and about and walking through the center they can identify where the different stores are located more readily. Under the Ordinance we're permitted one --I believe it's one free-standing sign. MS. ARENT: Yes. MR. BAINLARDI: So we're going to require a variance because we're requesting nineteen free-standing signs and --I'm sorry, it's actually twenty. We'll require a variance for nineteen. Obviously at the entrances it's necessary to have some sort of identification for the public to be able to identify both the shopping center, and particularly at the Route 300 entrance to be able to identify the individual tenants since they won't be readily THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH visible from Route 300. With respect to building signage -actually I'm going to stop here first and ask if you have any questions regarding the freestanding signs that are proposed? CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Any comments from Board Members. Frank Galli? MR. GALLI: What size are the freestanding signs, the small placard type that you see? MR. BAINLARDI: These are --the directional signs? MR. GALLI: Right. MR. BAINLARDI: The directional signs are on a stone base and they are a total height of 7 feet. It's 7 foot 1 inch from the top of the corners down to the base to the ground. MR. GALLI: Okay. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken Mennerich? MR. MENNERICH: No questions. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Joe Profaci? MR. PROFACI: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Comments from Board Members --Consultants. Karen Arent? THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH MS. ARENT: I just wrote in my memo that the project --these type of signs that the guidelines --your Town of Newburgh design guidelines specifically discourage the use of the marquee type sign which is that sign that lists all the tenants in the plaza. The reason that they are requesting the variance is because none of these tenants are visible to the public, so this gives the public a way to know where they are located so they're not searching for these tenants. We purposely asked the applicant to design the plaza in such a way that these big box buildings aren't immediately visible from the main roads and the nicer architectural pedestrian scaled buildings are located more --closer and within view of the roads. I just want to make you aware that that is not, you know, in accordance with the guidelines but I think there's a very good reason for their request. MR. BAINLARDI: If I could add, with respect --specifically with respect to the pylon signage, I believe the Ordinance allows for a sign 35 or 40 feet but we've reduced the sign down to a total height of 28 feet. I think it's THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH a reasonably proportioned sign. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Bryant Cocks, Planning Consultant, would you like to add anything to this? MR. COCKS: Yes. The twenty freestanding signs they are going to need a variance for. Also this is going to be included in the total signage calculation for the whole site, then there's going to be --square footage, yes. They are going to take out a percentage for each different sign and then also percentages for each separate building. They came to a work session and we discussed this and gave out a percentage for each of the big box buildings and for each of the buildings inside the lifestyle center. We're going to try to proportion it out throughout the whole site but it is included in the total square footage. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: And by proportioning it out to the entire site, that would be keeping in harmony with the new guidelines? MR. COCKS: Yes. We're going to keep smaller signs on the big boxes than they THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH originally requested and also try to --minimize the signs on site but also let each business be able to be seen. MR. DONNELLY: Part of the approach is to be able to have a consistent sense of scale so that signs are sized to the building in a consistent fashion and there would be a cohesive approach to the signs in the lifestyle center. Quite a bit of time was spent in using both examples and arithmetic to calculate how that works. I think that what is shown is pretty well defined and I think it's something that your consultants recommend to you. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Frank Galli, any questions? MR. GALLI: No additional. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken Mennerich? MR. MENNERICH: No questions. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Joe Profaci? MR. PROFACI: No. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Mr. Bainlardi, please. MR. DONNELLY: Did we take action on the subdivision? THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Yes, sir. There was a motion by - MR. DONNELLY: I just wanted to make sure. You need to do that on this when you're concluded here. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: There was a motion by Joe Profaci. There was a second by Ken Mennerich. We had discussion by Ken Mennerich and then we had a roll call vote. MR. DONNELLY: I'll include the tables when I send them the referral letter rather than recite each one. MR. BAINLARDI: I believe that in Deborah's list we have the building signage being dealt with in the ARB review. Do you want me to defer talking - MS. POST: We need a variance for that. MR. WILDER: We should probably do it now. MR. DONNELLY: I'm trying to remember. There are variances required. MR. WILDER: Yes. MR. BAINLARDI: Maybe the thing to do is in the package we have a signage schedule THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH which has the signage area calculations. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Right. MR. BAINLARDI: I can take you through. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Let's take that as the overall action. MR. BAINLARDI: What we're asking for on the exterior roadways is that we be granted a one-half square foot per linear foot of road frontage. We have a total proposed road frontage of 6,609 linear feet. One half square foot per linear foot would give us a total square footage on that section of 3,304 square feet. In the village center we're proposing one square foot per linear foot of facade. When we add up all of the facades within the lifestyle component we get a total of 5,222 square feet. Then in the major retailers we went building by building and we did not include the rear of any of these buildings in the calculations. We kept the calculations to those facades which faced the parking area, a public area or a roadway, internal roadway. At building A we ended up with a total facade of 636 linear feet, building B of 671 square feet here, THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH building C utilizing the two facades at 717 square feet, building D adjacent to it also using two facades we have 598 square feet, building E which is this building here, we utilized the three facades and did not include the rear which faces the hillside in the back, and that gave us a total of 1,105 square feet for that building. Then building 2 here we utilized three facades and excluded the rear facade, and that gave us a total of 528 square feet. We added everything up and we have total allowable signage of 12,781 square feet. Permitted under the Code there's 3,304 square feet. So the difference is what we would be asking for the variance. We do have elevations of some of the larger buildings that can illustrate how the signage would actually play out. These are front --the front facades of three of the boxes. Down below is Costco, which is building E on your site plan. At the top is Best Buy, which is building 2. Building A here in the middle is J.C. Penney. I think you can see that the proportion of the signs to the overall square footage of the THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH facades of each of these buildings is proportioned and not overwhelming. We did work with the tenants, Best Buy for instance. Their prototypical plan would require a sign on the front of the building closer to 400 square feet. They reduced it to 236 square feet. We also have some side elevations for Best Buy. Again, on their --for the prototypical signage for Best Buy they typically want signage on all four elevations. We indicated to them that it was not something that the Board would like to see on the rear of the building. The two sides of the building face parking lots and/or internal access roads. Again they reduced those signs down by about 30 percent. The Costco building is here. They are proposing signage at their main entrance which is a smaller sign. Here on the building on this elevation here is this Costco Wholesale signage. They have a liquor sales pod here which there's some small indication of signage to indicate that that's what that section of the building is. They have a similar sign to what's on this facade here on this side of the building. On this THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH elevation as well they have the tire center, and similar to what they did with the liquor sales in black bold lettering they have small signage to identify that portion. Finally the Penneys building which has really three facades. On the rear there's no proposed signage as we've indicated. They do have two entrances, one which will face the lifestyle center and is at the end of the village main street. They have their typical J.C. Penney signage in block lettering. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Karen Arent, Landscape Architect? MS. ARENT: I think that their proposal creates a nice way to divide the signs and the square footage of signage for each tenant. It also allows flexibility for the store owners. It also has guidelines that encourage reasonable size and materials that are nice materials for the people to work with. What's nice to see is that it also encourages flexibility for that tenant, especially in the lifestyle center there's like all these different architectural elements and there's different places that signs THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH can be put. So it's a nice --I believe a nice way to plan for the --a nice plan on how to use the signage within the site. I do have a couple of comments regarding their tables. For example, on the illuminated sign table there's a reference to internally illuminated channel letters which the guidelines specifically discourage. The Planning Board has not allowed the internally illuminated signs any more, so that would have to be revised. They also reference neon tube illumination, and that would be something else that would have to be taken off of your table. The only other comment I have is that on The Market Place --I mean the lifestyle center there's a whole page in the drawing set that describes signage and how it's divvied up and all the guidelines. I think that you should prepare a similar sheet for the big box retails. Instead of having that one page that you have, put it on a sheet that's included with the set of documents so there's no confusion. That little page can be lost. Incorporate the big box guidelines with your lifestyle center guidelines THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH because there's nothing in the set of architectural documents that has the guidelines for the big box retail and I don't think anybody would think to look at a page somewhere in the whole --you know, in the whole --all the information that we have. I think it should be part of the set of documents. MR. SILVERMAN: If I might ask a question. I'm Saul Silverman, I'm the Architect for The Market Place. Internally illuminated letters, was the intent of the design guidelines that they were going to disallow or not allow I assume box type signs? MS. ARENT: Also internally illuminated channel letters is specifically referenced. MR. SILVERMAN: So individual letters like you would see on any major retailer? MS. ARENT: That's what the guidelines say. That's why I thought you were coming up with the halo lighting. MR. SILVERMAN: That is one of the types of lighting we're using. Obviously there will be the halo lighting. MS. ARENT: The guidelines specifically THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH say no internally illuminated channel letters on the signs. MR. SILVERMAN: So a tenant that has a color letter as its format, a red letter for argument sake, Target, Target would not be allowed? MS. ARENT: Not any more. MR. SILVERMAN: Not any more. Okay. The Target store over in the old Ames building? MS. ARENT: Right. These guidelines were adopted this year. MR. SILVERMAN: Afterwards? MS. ARENT: Right. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Mr. Bainlardi, have you come to a point in time where you can summarize your presentation as far as the referrals that are necessary for the ZBA? MR. BAINLARDI: Yes. With respect to the overall signage schedule and required variance, allowable signage under the Code is 3,304 square feet. We're asking for a total allowable signage package of 12,781 square feet allocated as previously indicated and laid out in our signage schedule. THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH With respect to the free-standing signs, we're asking for a total of twenty freestanding signs and one pylon sign. The twenty individual free-standing signs would consist of one pylon sign at the main Route 300 entrance, four village center directories, twelve directional site signs, one monument sign at Route 300 to identify the shopping center, and then two monument signs at the Route 52/Fifth Avenue and Route 52/Meadow Avenue entrances. Again that would be a total of twenty free-standing signs. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Thank you. Mike Donnelly, Attorney to the Planning Board, would you like to - MR. DONNELLY: Again I think it's ready for the referral. I would incorporate that chart into the letter and I would make specific reference with the assistance of Karen's follow- up memo for the methodology that was utilized so that they can readily understand what is being sent to them and why. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Okay. MR. DONNELLY: I think it's ready for THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH 73 referral. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: So in simple terms, I would be moving for a motion to refer this to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a signage variance. What is allowed under the current site plan is 3,304 square feet. What is being proposed is 12,781 square feet. What is allowable as far as free-standing signs is one. What the applicant is proposing is twenty. Is that the language? MR. DONNELLY: Yes. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Okay. Then I would move for a motion to refer this to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. GALLI: So moved. MR. MENNERICH: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Frank Galli. I have a second by Ken Mennerich. Any discussion of the motion? MR. MENNERICH: When this gets referred to the ZBA will they also be getting these documents here? MS. ARENT: They should be. MR. DONNELLY: I think they should. I THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH don't know --obviously the applicant is going to provide much of that. I think it would be helpful if again Karen could put together a memo explaining it and include those things if that's helpful. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Is that what you would like to see, Ken? MR. MENNERICH: Yes, I would. And certainly they would have to make the changes that Karen already discussed before. MS. ARENT: That's to the guidelines. It has nothing to do with the variances. MR. MENNERICH: Okay. MS. ARENT: If they include the chart they'll have to make the changes to the chart. Yes. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: So you'll be presenting as complete a package as possible for the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. BAINLARDI: Yes. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Frank Galli. I have a second by Ken Mennerich. I had discussion by Ken Mennerich. Any additional discussion by the Board Members? THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH (No response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a roll call vote starting with Frank Galli. MR. GALLI: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: And myself yes. So carried. Item number three is a referral to the Newburgh Town Board for approval of bond amounts with recommendations from the Planning Board. Karen, I know in reviewing your recent letter you had revised the cost estimate on certified material. MS. ARENT: I haven't received it yet. MR. DONNELLY: So then the bond that would be mentioned, item number B on this - MS. ARENT: They would have to revise that. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Pat, as far as the review of the site restoration bond - MR. HINES: We set that amount at the work session. That is in case the site is disturbed and the project for some reason doesn't THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH move forward. We've been using a number consistent with the DEC mining regulations of $4,000 per acre to reestablish vegetation on the site. I would also note that pursuant to the last project, Section 157-10 B requires bonding of the stormwater management improvements, and that's a number they'll have to work out with Jim Osborne. That should be added as a referral. That discussion came up at our previous work session with Jim Osborne during the water main reviews. MR. DONNELLY: I think there are a number of other bond items. I think the ones that are listed as being referred now are ones that are not as pegged to the actual cost of infrastructure and are less likely to be subject to changes over time. I think the idea was to refer this small number of them for the Planning Board's --for the Town Board's, you know, opinion, establishment of the amount. This is not all of the bonding that would be required. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Mike, how then do we refer item number B? The amount from Karen THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH Arent right now may not reflect the true amount for a referral. MR. DONNELLY: Then I would say it's premature if you're not ready to make the recommendation. MS. POST: We do have --Karen was very specific about the items that she wanted us to change. They were basically line items per unit items. We have no problem with those changes. It's just a matter of plugging them in. We would be willing to just flat out accept what Karen has suggested. We just didn't do the calculation. Subject to Karen just approving that we did the numbers correctly, if that would be okay with the Board that's how we'd like to proceed. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Would that be satisfactory to the Board. Frank Galli? MR. GALLI: Yes. MR. MENNERICH: Yes. MR. PROFACI: Yes. MR. DONNELLY: Two caveats. One is we'll send them along. The Town Board doesn't usually look at bonding until post approval, but I think it might be helpful for them to look at THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH it here now. Obviously anything they do will be subject to eventual modification depending on how much time goes by between the time they look at these numbers and the time they're ultimately posted. We certainly don't have a problem with the concept. If the Board is inclined, I'll write a letter that refers it. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Okay. Is the Board in agreement with that? MR. GALLI: Yes. MR. MENNERICH: Mm'hm'. MR. PROFACI: Yes. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Then I'll move for a motion to refer the bonding amounts for site restoration, the landscape bond subject to Karen Arent's review and final approval of the dollar amount, the well restoration bond to the Town Board for their review and consideration and possible approval. MR. MENNERICH: So moved. MR. PROFACI: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Ken Mennerich. I have a second by Joe Profaci. Any discussion of the motion? THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH (No response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a roll call vote starting with Frank Galli. MR. GALLI: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Myself yes. So carried. Item number 4, that being the last item - MS. ARENT: John, can I ask a question about the bonding? They've requested phased bonding. I wrote in my memo that the Town, if they consider phasing, consider requesting that any plant material on the landscaping that dies in one phase should be replaced before a building permit is issued for the next phase, and it would all be spelled clearly out in an inspection memo. I was wondering if I could send that along to the Town Board saying how the phasing --that we would recommend the phasing provided that we have these caveats. MR. DONNELLY: There are some benefits to the Town, and that might be part of the quick THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH pro quo that might enable the applicant to do the landscaping on a phased basis. I think that's worthy of consideration. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Frank Galli, is that reasonable? MR. GALLI: Yes. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken Mennerich? MR. MENNERICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Joe Profaci? MR. PROFACI: Yes. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: You'll prepare an outline to the Town Board in reference to considering phasing. The final item for discussion this evening is the ARB review, and that kind of covers a few items. It covers the street scape for the landscape center, it covers building signage, site signage, site landscaping, building landscaping and building architecture. I'll listen to your presentation, Mr. Silverman. MR. SILVERMAN: Saul Silverman. First I'd like to thank the Board for its contributions and the contributions of the consultants in THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH deriving this entire center. What we have before the Board of course is a multi-faceted retail center. For the purpose of this Board we'll leave it just to cover the site plan. I think the consultants have seen it. I think what we tried to do most of all was create a sense of place which we felt that the Town wanted, the region needed and the developers as well as the retail tenants that are coming in. We did advise, as Karen mentioned, softening the entire entrance to have a special center or a special street scape that would involve smaller tenants, a village style with a village center component. That would be the feature or our jewel. Together with that are the multi-faceted retailers that we have that are set in their own section and with the parking lots that they do require. What we've tried to do --we've shown you these drawings last time. This is a better visualization of the first drawing. They have shown looking from Route 300 to give you a better feel of what the materials might be. The board that we presented last time, and we have back THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH with us now, gives you the features of the different materials listed. They are hardy planks, they are stone veneers that are utilized throughout to enhance primarily. We've gone with a traditional design for the village center because in accordance with not only the Board's wishes we feel it's right for the area. When we came to the idea of the major retailers or the big box tenants that were in the area, we tried very hard to come up with a solution that would unite the general feeling of the big boxes. Utilizing the prototypes of the different major retailers we tried to incorporate it through palette, through texture, through materials and through general ideology, something that would be harmonious with the center but solve the retailers' needs. We think that we do have in many respects two different segments of this multi-faceted facility. We tried uniting it with landscaping throughout, and the landscaping is rather extensive for a project of this type, and we've done it with a signage characteristic we've shown before which is basically a relationship so you always know you're in The THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH Market Place at Newburgh, either if you're a pedestrian or you're driving in a car. The signage is very important, especially on the site to move traffic around because it is a regional center. It's not a local center where the same people come every single day and know exactly where everything is. There must be identification and there must be movement. As far as the street scapes are concerned, we presented plans for both the major retailers on a landscaping and a theory basis. What we're using is a landscaping of tiers, softening the building in its attraction or an attachment to the ground and utilizing the same type of design for all of the facilities that are in the big boxes, all right. We have separate landscaping plans for the signage that is at the entrance way and it also does --I'm looking for that board. Also a series of tiering to welcome the community. A miniaturization of this will appear in each of the other entrances. At 52 and the highway entrance will be a miniaturization of this. We like to use a great deal of annual flowers. Deborah is in charge of annual flowers. THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH This is the general design format that we do. We also did some street scape designs for, as requested, our feature area which is the village and the village green. That shows off very well in this photograph and this rendering. There's a meandering walk for privacy and a little bit of isolation for the shopper to seek a little bit of comfort and a little bit of quiet and sit with a baby stroller and have a sandwich. That's in the heart of this center. The objective of this is to create a village. It's a village like a small downtown that will be represented by all different types of architecture, all traditional and geared for the pedestrian, not the automobile. I heard an interesting term the other day. Because all these centers are designed very similarly, they have some parking on the streets and then they have larger lots on the outside. This parking, believe it or not, is called teaser parking because the idea is to tease you and have you drive through the village. Maybe you'll be lucky enough to find a spot on the street, otherwise you will drift into it. The shopper THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH has that notion and that idea as they go. We've tried to create entities within that are comfortable for the shopper to come to and stay there for quite awhile. If somebody is shopping at a Costco store they will do both and they will move their car. They definitely will do that, they will move their car because of the distance. There's a different type of shopper that comes to load on their goods and at the same time will go into the village, and that's where they will seek the sandwich for lunch and sit with their children and enjoy the outdoors. Each of the sidewalk areas --I'm looking for the sidewalk chart. This is a typical sidewalk that's in a store section. I think this one happened to be section B or section A and it was building L-4 and L-5 on the site plan. We have promised and we've gone to great detail with Karen that this is the format for design and will be used on every single one of the sidewalks. It will be a combination of concrete and decorative pavers and it will be done to allow for seating areas protected by low stonewalls, lighting throughout so that there's a THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH comfort zone, and that is pedestrian lighting, 14 to 16 feet. Much the same as the guidelines require. That's what we're utilizing through this. We're using a series of tree grates to allow for exposure of the stores and at the same time privacy to the street. So this, as I said, is typical, all right, of all of the centers. As we develop the plans for each and every building, individual building, whether it's L-7, we will be doing those plans to coordinate with it. This is the concept that we will hold to for all of the submissions. We worked on signage for the center. The signage in the center, the big box we've talked about, the major retailers, but the individuality of signage in the village centers themselves is very, very important. What we're trying to do is build a character so we will stay within a square footage requirement but we have to be able to give the tenant the flexibility, i.e. Starbucks, i.e. a specialty store, all right, that has different types of signage. We will control all of the signage. No tenant's THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH sign will be submitted --it will be submitted to the developer before it even goes in for a sign permit. The Town will have the assurance that the developer understands the cohesiveness of the design and has to implement it that way. Signage is very, very important. We see it, whether it's in New Hope, Pennsylvania or Mystic Seaport, the carved wooden signs. Items like that. We've listed types of signs that we like, sandblasted or carved wooden signs, gold leaf signs, etched, beveled or sandblasted glass. Those are the types of signs that we solicit the tenants to provide. Some will be on brackets so as you walk down the street it becomes a street scape. Others will be on the facades of the buildings. They'll be in script, they'll be in block letters. The variety is very, very important that we can expound upon. Other items that we're requested to look at, building landscaping for the lifestyle center, the power center. I think we covered that. The building architecture we elaborated on for the Board the last time. The general elevations of a typical section including the THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH handling of the rear of the stores. The object is to design a center that looks like it's there and is everywhere so that it's all part and parcel of a package, it's not just a front facade and the rest is left to chance. We recognize and understand that this center, especially these buildings, are seen from every angle by the pedestrian and by the motorist. The developer is agreeing to design the facade of everything as if there is not necessarily a front. I thank the Board. I would be more than happy to answer any questions and give out any other information. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Does the Board have any questions on the presentation that Mr. Silverman has just provided us with? Frank Galli? MR. GALLI: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken Mennerich? MR. MENNERICH: I guess I'm just curious, on the big box stores I had the impression that you were going to use internally lighted lettering. Do you have ideas on how you would do that differently? THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH MR. SILVERMAN: As I understand now the relationship of the requirements, Costco for one uses illumination on the building to illuminate their sign. I guess we will try to do the same thing whether or not --correct me if I'm wrong, a carved wooden letter with a light on it is acceptable but an internally illuminated letter, channel letter is not acceptable? MS. ARENT: Right. Correct. MR. SILVERMAN: That's the way we would address it. We'll address it with exterior lighting as we're doing with the site signs. We're basically going to be putting floods in the beds to illuminate them. MR. MENNERICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Joe Profaci? MR. PROFACI: Nothing now, John. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Karen, let's begin to discuss what the Board, with your recommendations, can give a conceptual approval to as far as ARB. MS. ARENT: I think that conceptual approval can be granted certainly for the lifestyle center. They've shown, in my opinion, THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH a very well designed street scape plan with the boulevard that we asked for and a plaza space. They have a very aesthetically pleasing facade developed and a street scape plan. They're planning to carry that throughout the plaza. They're asking for conceptual approval of the design --of that particular design because they can't go and design all of the facades right now being they don't have a tenant yet. The only thing I ask for them to do is to put a label on the drawing that says that all the mechanical units will be screened. We don't know where any of those are going right now. That's an important consideration in a project like this. Then wherever rooftop units are visible, the units will be screened architecturally. If the units are only marginally visible they can be screened by the parapet of the building so they blend with the architecture. Ground mounted units will be screened with fences and landscaping. If they'd put some kind of note on the plan like that, I think that will be acceptable. THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH MR. SILVERMAN: May I interrupt for a second? There's a note on SW-1 which says, "All HVAC equipment will be screened from view at the village center as well as all big box retail." MS. ARENT: Then you did that. I missed that note. I didn't really see the elevations for the Costco building. I just saw them now. I didn't really make sure that everything was labeled. I just see the backs of those buildings yet. As long as they're consistent with the front. The Costco building I didn't see the back of, or the J.C --I think it was J.C.Penneys. Best Buy I saw. That was included in the set of documents. There are a couple other minor details but I think that they are ready for conceptual approval for actually the three big boxes. I just would want to have a chance to double check all the drawings and make sure that they are consistent with the front facades. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Bryant, do you have anything to add to that? MR. COCKS: On the conceptual and THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH architecturals I have nothing further. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Mark Sargent, I haven't forgotten you. Comments from Board Members. Frank Galli? MR. GALLI: I think they did a nice job coming forward with the conceptual part of it. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken Mennerich? MR. MENNERICH: I'm good. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Joe Profaci? MR. PROFACI: I'm good. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Mike, the language for granting conceptual approval for the lifestyle center, the Costco building, J.C. Penney and Best Buy subject to any final reviews and sign off from Karen Arent, would you care to extend that please? MR. DONNELLY: I don't think you need any formal resolution. As you know, it isn't really a formal component of your process. However, for us as consultants to begin to review the more detailed plans it's helpful to know what concept will satisfy you, and of course for the applicant when they have to go line up tenants THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH they need to know what restrictions and what does work and what doesn't work. I think it's a good idea. I don't think we need a resolution. I think the approval will be just as you put it John, a conceptual approval of the ARB for the lifestyle and for the big box area subject to Karen's sign off on those plans. I think it should have the formality of a vote but I don't think it needs a specific resolution to be filed. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Thank you. Then I would move for a motion for conceptual approval for the lifestyle center, the Costco, J.C. Penney and Best Buy subject to a final letter from Karen Arent that that all is satisfactory. MR. PROFACI: So moved. MR. MENNERICH: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Joe Profaci. I have a second by Ken Mennerich. Any discussion of the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a roll call vote starting with Frank Galli. MR. GALLI: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Myself. So carried. Karen, item number A on this is street scape for the lifestyle center and power center. They are asking for final approval of the design concept. What's your recommendation? MS. ARENT: Final approval of the design concept is fine. The only concern that I would have is that I have a chance to --this is a Board decision. There has not been an actual landscape plan with species identified on it or anything like that. I would want to have a chance to review that before building permit time. I guess that would be on the site plan. There are some details that I listed in my memo that have not been submitted yet but they could be submitted after they receive approval. MR. DONNELLY: Maybe I'm not remembering exactly. I don't know exactly what we mean by final as distinct from concept because it isn't site plan and it isn't final ARB. I thought you just needed an endorsement that this was satisfactory to the Board. What's the THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH distinction you're asking for? MS. POST: We had discussed at the - MR. DONNELLY: I'm trying to remember. MS. POST: --that there were certain items that had been brought to a level where they were really done, and so we wanted to get basically the ARB seal of approval on certain things. For example, the landscaping plan for the entire site, for example, gets an ARB approval or that just comes along with the final site plan approval. MR. DONNELLY: My memory of what you had is you had specific landscaping for certain areas like the perimeter and what not that was worked out. Of course if there's phasing, that has to be done in most cases initially. You then had concept landscaping for the buildings where you had spacing, mix of species, locations on the site plan dedicated to those things, and I thought you just wanted to get from the Board an indication that from a street scape, and from a landscaping, and from a signage and design point of view that this is a direction that ultimately you're going to be knocking on the door for your THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH final ARB and final site plan approval, that this concept that you're working toward is one that you know will pass muster. I don't know exactly what final concept or final ARB might mean for an individual component but I don't disagree that you need to have that policy direction from the Board. I think you have that. I know I was at the meeting and I should remember exactly what we talked about but it's a little fuzzy. MR. BAINLARDI: Could I ask this question? Let's take for instance the Costco building. If we've obtained conceptual ARB approval and then we get to the point where we get final site plan approval, would final ARB approval be a condition of that site plan approval? MR. DONNELLY: There is one site here, and the first of the perhaps myriad of site plan approvals, or at least several site plan approvals will be a site plan for the entire site. I thought we discussed at the consultants' meeting that it is conceivable that when you ask for that conditional final site plan approval some of the buildings may not yet be fully THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH finalized. As to those you would have already received some type of conceptual approval. You would then, as you finalize the tenants and the actual final design, come for what I would call an amended site plan approval. It still remains one site as those buildings come in but there would not be a case where you got a site plan approval for one piece or one tenant before the entire site plan was approved. In other words, I think there's going to be a single site plan approval followed in all likelihood by a series of amendments as tenants are finalized, but in the meantime you wanted to see a concept for landscaping for the parking islands, for public amenities within the walking areas, for the street scape, for the signs. I think that that's the direction we're going. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: If I understand correctly, the bonding for the individual box stores would be separate onto itself also. So in following the thought concept that we're having now, I agree with Mike Donnelly, I think what we'll be doing is really giving a conceptual approval of the street scape and moving in that THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH direction. MR. GRATS: I think probably the easiest distinction to make is all plants shown on SP-4, which is included in the engineering drawings, and all the plants shown on the landscape series 1 through 7 cover all the plantings that have been discussed at some length. I think we pretty much agreed on names and locations of those as distinct and separate from the original plantings around the big box stores, between the box and the sidewalk and around some of the stores in the lifestyle center. MR. DONNELLY: Those you've given a sample but not an exact - MR. GRATS: Right. If we could break out that example. I think this plan, I'm relatively confident, I see Karen nodding, is at a point where we might consider final approval. We always did consider and agree that as those buildings, the actual footprints and siding and treatment and all are finalized, that that conceptual approval, those plants associated with the buildings would be the part that would fall THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH into the conceptual. MR. DONNELLY: I would say it's certainly more specific and more definite but there can not be a site plan approval until you've obtained the various other agency approvals. I think it's good for the public, it's good for you and it's easier for the Board that as we become more and more certain as you develop this plan that you periodically visit the Board and get some idea as to whether you're going in the right direction. The first site plan approval is when you're eligible for site plan approval. I agree that some of it is at a higher level of development and certainty but I don't know that anything is ready for any type of final approval, be it site plan or ARB. I think we're talking about the same thing but the semantics, I don't know that anything is ready for any kind of finality. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: What I would like to do then is for semantics and going back and forth, at this point let's --I'm going to move for a motion for a conceptual approval of the street scape. THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH Karen, would you agree with that? MS. ARENT: Yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Bryant Cocks? MR. COCKS: Yes. MR. PROFACI: So moved. MR. MENNERICH: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Joe Profaci. I have a second by Ken Mennerich. Any discussion of the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a roll call vote starting with Frank Galli. MR. GALLI: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Myself. So carried. Building signage, we've pretty much discussed that. We're making the necessary referrals to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the variance. Site signage, I think we pretty much covered that. Site landscaping, do you want to just THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH go for a conceptual approval of the - MR. DONNELLY: I think it's conceptual at two levels. There is illustrative samples for landscaping for the buildings that are not yet definite. Yet the landscaping plan for items like the perimeter and the buffer areas, what's to be put along 300, how it's to be preserved during construction, those things are I guess final with a small F in the sense that they are well developed and definite but they're not ready for final action. I think they're all ready for conceptual type review by you at those two levels, one being illustrative, one being well developed, if that's a helpful distinction. MS. ARENT: And I think that the landscape plan is ready for approval but it's hard to --we never - MR. DONNELLY: You can't give anything approval. MS. ARENT: We don't separate it out ever but it is developed to such a detail that if they had all their outside agency approvals it would be acceptable because they wrote on every single building that the facade landscaping would THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH be approved during architectural review. So that's how we were going to handle the - MR. DONNELLY: I think we're all on the same wave length. My resistance is to calling it final when it's not really final. MS. ARENT: We never really do that. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Having heard from Counsel, then I would move for a motion that we grant conceptual approval for the site landscaping. MR. GALLI: So moved. MR. MENNERICH: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Frank Galli. I have a second by Ken Mennerich. Any discussion of the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a roll call vote starting with Frank Galli. MR. GALLI: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Myself yes. So carried. I think that covers all the items THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH except for item number 5 and comments from Mark Sargent. I'm looking for a general consensus from the Planning Board on site lighting. Karen, I know in part of your review you said they were willing to work with the guideline standards as far as lighting but there may be a need for the big box stores to have light fixtures of approximately 35 foot in height. MS. ARENT: Yes. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Bryant Cocks, if you could join together on that. This is just a consensus. MS. ARENT: They were showing the smaller scale lighting around the pedestrian areas and larger 35 foot tall lights within the big box parking areas. Along the boulevard you're showing 25-foot high poles. MR. SILVERMAN: Yes. MS. ARENT: So they are scaled down along the boulevard. They didn't want to use the pedestrian scale poles on the boulevard because THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH 104 there would be too many of them they felt, so they showed 25 foot poles along the boulevard and the lifestyle center parking areas but 35 foot high poles for the big box retailers just because it was a lot less lighting, a lot less light poles. I felt that was kind of in scale with the buildings because the buildings are big. I thought that would be better than having a lot of poles in the parking lot. That's my opinion. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Bryant Cocks, Planning Consultant? MR. COCKS: I received the letter today from the lighting company. It was forwarded to me by John Bainlardi. They indicated to me if you drop from 35 foot to 25 foot poles in the big box parking lot it would be 40 percent more poles. So it would basically be, you know, a pole I think every 40 feet now instead of every 60 feet. It would be a significant increase. I mean in those big parking lots by the big box lights I think that would be fine. As Karen indicated, the 25 foot lights are going to go in the lifestyle center parking lot. Those are kind of right up in the front of the site, too. The THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH pedestrian lights, there would just be an excessive amount of them in the parking lots. So I agree also. We also have to phase the lighting plan to go along with the phased landscaping plan. Other than that, just the lighting symbols on the lighting plan, they just came up really small and they were kind of blurry. It was hard to tell what the symbols were for the 35, 25, 20 foot poles. If you guys could just try to make that a little more clear. MR. BAINLARDI: We're asking and the lighting consultant is changing the scale of the plans. There will be more sheets but they'll be more easily readable. MR. COCKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'm looking for a consensus from the Planning Board in reference to the applicant is proposing 35 foot light posts for the big box stores and 20 foot height light posts for the lifestyle center. Is the Planning Board in favor of that? MR. GALLI: Yes. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken Mennerich? THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH MR. MENNERICH: Just one question on the meandering type of sidewalk. There would be the 20 foot high poles there, too? MS. ARENT: That's 16. MR. MENNERICH: Fine. That's fine. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Joe Profaci? MR. PROFACI: Yes. With that change it's fine. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Then we have a consensus among the Planning Board that the proposed light posts for the big box stores of 35 feet, the lifestyle center 25 feet and the pedestrian areas of 16 feet is satisfactory to the Planning Board. At this point I would like to turn to Mark Sargent from Creighton, Manning who had some questions as far as the site plan. Mark Sargent. MR. SARGENT: Okay. I have a letter here dated December 5th written by my colleague, Ken Wersted, a review letter with some site plan comments. I'm not sure if you received it or not but I'll hand deliver it to you tonight. It is in response to a set of plans dated November 9th. THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH He recognized that you issued another set of plans after that and you may have addressed some of these comments. I'll just run through them quickly and then if they've already been addressed don't worry about them. Apparently there was a concern about the number of ADA parking spaces. Specifically at certain buildings we believe there's a shortage. There are some comments about specific signing and striping. These are not the kind of signs you're talking about, it's traffic control signs. The placement of a few of those signs. Speed limit signs and striping, adding a few notes, adding some stop bars. There were things of that nature which are red lined on here. I won't go through every one because there are a number of them. There were apparently some raised crosswalks and raised intersections on the plans. We had some thoughts about removing some of those and actually incorporating them into other areas. These should be coordinated with the drainage. There's a comment here about the total THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH parking count. The site plan was off in certain areas. There are some bus pull-offs that are shown on the plans and we raised the question about is that appropriate. It doesn't look like there are any amenities next to the bus pull-offs, benches and things like that. It would be better just to have a regular curbside bus stop, more sidewalk area with amenities because the sidewalks appear to be narrow in the area of the bus pull-offs. We wanted a note added to sheet SP-1.1 to make reference to the signal plan, the signal plan on SP-8. We had some cueing concerns about the major intersection in the middle of the site and we were looking for some cueing analysis there. Picking up on Bryant's comment about not being able to read some of the sign symbols, we were looking for a legend in the set of plans. There are some areas on site where it seems like intersection sight distance will be obscured by some of the walls and things. I know there are some walls that will be placed within THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH the site but it's going to make it difficult to see if they are too far up, so that needs to be checked. There's one particular intersection and it is at an askew angle, it is entry road F to building E, the Costco building. You had mentioned how these tenants had specific parking requirements. We would like to talk to you about a possible realignment in there, look at the layout of that intersection a little bit. Let's see here. We were looking for two exit lanes on road A onto the main aisle. There's a single lane now. There's a couple other references here. Label some existing contour lines which are red lined on here. We had also reviewed the noise barrier walls. There's reference to a noise barrier but it needs to be spec'd out as an STS-32 heavy wall noise barrier. Apparently we are looking for some standard traffic signal detail --details, excuse me. The plans don't include all the details and we need to see those. THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH Finally, we are suggesting that there be some mechanism that would allow the Town to come in and work with you in the event that there is a sight distance or traffic control issue on the site, to work with you to resolve it, to fix the sight distance issue or something like that after the site is up and running. What I would like to do if you don't have this is give you this letter along with the red line comments for you. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Okay. MR. GRATS: Just to sum up real quickly, we do have the December 5th letter. We had a consultants' workshop meeting on November 27th. A lot of those comments that Mark just basically went through in the letter are actually addressed in the December 6th set of plans that you have. There was a question relating to plans and additional mark-ups that Ken was going to forward to us. They got lost in the mail and just ended up getting returned to Ken only a couple days ago, so I'm picking them up tonight which would cover the last ten to fifteen percent THE MARKET PLACE AT NEWBURGH of the comments. The majority of those were addressed in the December 6th set of plans that you have. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Why don't you make your submittal tonight and make sure it's been hand delivered and it hasn't been lost. I trust he revised the plans the way he said but all together we'll complete this one more time. MR. SARGENT: Good. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Brief summary, update. Outside agencies is part of your list. Do you want to bring us along on that? Is there anything to comment on? Do you have any outside agency approvals at this time? MR. WILDER: Well -CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Yes or no? I mean it's as simple as that. MR. WILDER: No. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Thank you. I wish you all a happy holiday. Good seeing you. (Time noted: 9:08 p.m.) CERTIFICATION I, Michelle Conero, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify that I recorded stenographically the proceedings herein at the time and place noted in the heading hereof, and that the foregoing is an accurate and complete transcript of same to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATED: January 2, 2008 1 113 2 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ORANGE TOWN OF NEWBURGH PLANNING BOARD 3 -------------------------X In the Matter of 4 NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS/PALMERONE FARMS 6 (2005-33) 7 Route 300 & Route 17K Section 97; Block 2; Lot 34 8 IB Zone 9 -------------------------X SITE PLAN & PHASING PLAN 11 12 13 Date: December 20, 2007 Time: 9:08 p.m. Place: Town of Newburgh Town Hall 1496 Route 300 14 Newburgh, NY 12550 16 BOARD MEMBERS: JOHN P. EWASUTYN, Chairman FRANK S. GALLI KENNETH MENNERICH 17 JOSEPH E. PROFACI 18 ALSO PRESENT: DINA HAINES 19 MICHAEL H. DONNELLY, ESQ. BRYANT COCKS PATRICK HINES KAREN ARENT MARK SARGENT 21 22 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: KEVIN DOWN 23 -------------------------X MICHELLE L. CONERO 24 10 Westview Drive Wallkill, New York 12589 (845)895-3018 NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS/PALMERONE FARMS CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Going back on the agenda one more time, is Kevin Down here this evening? Going back to the second item on the agenda, Newburgh Retail Developers/Palmerone Farms. It's here tonight to discuss a site plan, a phasing plan and what will then be an amended site plan located on Route 300 and 17K in an IB Zone. It's being represented by Kevin Down. Mr. Down, would you give your presentation. MR. DOWN: Yes. My name is Kevin Down, River --excuse me, Newburgh Retail Developers, L.L.C. I'm also joined by Kevin Cubberly, our construction manager. On November 19th I had submitted to the Board and then provided copies to the consultants with the phasing plan. I followed that up with a letter which had a narrative as far as the phasing of construction for the site. There's been a slight change as far as an increase or a kind of an acceleration of work that's going to be done. The green area is all under construction right now. All of the underground, which includes the conduit, the sewer, the water, NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS/PALMERONE FARMS is complete. The Chili's is under construction. Construction is scheduled to be completed in March of 2008 with an opening thereafter. We currently have binder down on the property and the binder will be striped in the spring before they open. The wearing course, which is the final top coat, would be placed in one complete application in late spring. All of the site lighting, pylon signage will be fully operational when the Chili's is open. Seventy percent of the landscaping has already been installed. The portions that have not been installed yet are in this area where the pylon is going to be installed. Also down here where the rock wall will be installed. It didn't make sense to put that landscaping in until those items are complete, which will be in the spring. There were also a couple of plantings that were not currently available due to the time of year, so those will be available in the spring and then placed. Obviously to get Chili's open in March of `08 we would be looking for a CO. Bonds are NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS/PALMERONE FARMS in place. There may be a requirement for some other type of bonding for any perimeter landscape around Chili's just because of the time of year. The red area is the Starbucks. That pad has been delivered to Starbucks but they have elected to start construction in March of `08. We would expect them to be operational in the summer. The yellow area is Longhorn. This is the one area that is different from my letter. We had originally thought that they were going to start construction in the spring. They actually have now decided to start construction in January. The reason there was a little bit of a hold up with Longhorn, if you follow the trade publications Longhorn was purchased by Darden Restaurants and they had to --essentially had a quiet period to figure out if they were going to move forward with the project. Fortunately for us they said love the site, want to get going, and have decided to start, as I mentioned, in January. We would expect them to be open and operational by May. The blue area in the back, which is the NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS/PALMERONE FARMS rear retail building, we also contemplate starting construction on that building in January with completion in May. The entire structure will be finished with two tenants who would open in May, Panaro Bread, which is on the end cap closest to 17K. Next to that would be Verizon. The balance of the space has not yet been leased but the building will be finished, the tenants would come in and do their interior fit up. Passersby from the outside would not see anything different than the glassed-in building. The signal work will start in January and will be fully operational in May. MR. DONNELLY: Are you then abandoning the need to phase? It sounds like you're back to building the whole thing again. MR. HINES: They want the CO for Chili's. MR. DOWN: You get into semantics with phasing. Phasing to me is for larger projects. When I had discussions with staff that we were not going to essentially do a grand opening for all four buildings at the same time, the suggestion was made to come back and address it NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS/PALMERONE FARMS with the Board. What we're talking about is instead of opening everybody in May, we're going to be fully complete with construction early fall of `08. The three pad tenants out in front, Chili's, Starbucks and Longhorn, will be open. The rear building, Panaro and Verizon, will be open. The building will be complete --depending on how leasing goes, I could have everybody completely open by the fall of `08. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I guess it goes back to traffic control. MR. HINES: Traffic, landscaping and the requirements for bonding those improvements prior to opening the other buildings. MR. DOWN: We do have bonds in place right now. I believe the one bond for the landscaping was $107,000. That was previously placed with the Town. My understanding on the bonding would be for perimeter landscaping around each of the buildings. MR. HINES: And the delay in putting in the feature at the intersection, the wall which is currently bonded. I think your expedited construction NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS/PALMERONE FARMS schedule as you just explained, which is different than we heard when we previously met with you, may take some of the concerns away that we had, that being that we initially heard that Longhorn wasn't coming and what that area was going to look like if nothing was built for two years. MR. DOWN: That was our big concern, too. We knew it was a concern for the Town. Unfortunately when you're dealing with these national tenants we're subject to what they have going on. It was really out of the blue when we were told Longhorn, which we knew was successful, they were then being sold to Darden. MR. HINES: The concern we heard from the code compliance supervisor was also internal traffic control as it relates to construction equipment in there, being some delineation on the site so what was open for the general public to access while Starbucks, Longhorn and the other buildings were being constructed. There needs to be some notes and such on the plans how fencing of those areas will be accomplished. MR. DOWN: We're certainly going to NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS/PALMERONE FARMS work with staff and code compliance and the building officials. If we're talking about Chili's opening in March and we have construction going here, we're certainly going to be cording that off to protect the general public and the patrons that come to the site. All of your access points will be in, your site lighting will be in, all of the underground is done, the pylon signage will be done. It will just be --you may have construction areas. This obviously will be under construction and these two will probably be under construction at the same time. MR. HINES: At work session we were concerned with tying in COs with the work required. It looks like their construction schedule may work with accomplishing that requirement, not issuing the CO for the Longhorn building until all site amenities are in. MR. DOWN: We certainly have no objection if staff believes it's appropriate to increase, modify bonds for the protection of the Town. We're certainly not going to object to that. MR. HINES: The code compliance office NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS/PALMERONE FARMS is looking to us and the Planning Board to give them a guide. That's what we're working with right now. That's what we discussed at work session, how to implement these various improvements in the timeframe that fits your construction schedule. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Karen? MS. ARENT: It sounds like the stonewall --the construction of the stonewall which is not bonded could be tied in with the certificate of occupancy for the building that follows Chili's, for the next building on the site. It shouldn't receive a certificate of occupancy until the stonewall is installed. Perhaps that would work now. MR. DOWN: My only concern with that is again you just get into a timing issue. We have a rough winter and --I'm not a construction person. You have a rough winter and this wall can't go in or can't be complete until June. My preference would rather be tie it to either the issuance of the CO or we place an appropriate bond with the Town. MS. ARENT: I was agreeing to the NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS/PALMERONE FARMS C of O for say Starbucks. Starbucks' CO. The next building. Whatever building you want to open after the Chili's. You get the Chili's C of O. Whatever building you want to get after that, the stonewall would have to be installed before you can ask for that C of O. MR. DOWN: That would be fine. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Bryant Cocks, Planning Consultant? MR. COCKS: The only thing we're going to need is just this phasing plan with one sheet with just the list narrative of what's going to be going when. That will just give code compliance one reference sheet instead of having to look at like a narrative. If you can just kind of condense everything onto there. MR. DOWN: That's fine. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Can I make a suggestion if the Board agrees with it? As stated earlier, there may be a change as far as the head of the building department. If we think we have enough detail now, maybe we should, either at the next consultants' meeting, have this applicant back to meet with the new code NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS/PALMERONE FARMS compliance officer or within the course of the next one or two weeks, three weeks get together to make sure we have a clear outline - MR. GALLI: I have no problem with that. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: --so everything is translated. There's going to be a change in the head of the department. I don't know how to put this all together. Mike, you're good at words. MR. DONNELLY: That part is easy. They are going to have to satisfy his concerns. I'm trying to work on the resolution. I think we can call this a phasing resolution. The first condition will be it's subject to all of the conditions of the original site plan approval. Number two, if I'm listening correctly, it will say the Chili's building shall be eligible to receive a certificate of occupancy whenever construction of that building and all access improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of, and I'll saying the Planning Board engineer, subject of course to code compliance issues as determined by the code NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS/PALMERONE FARMS compliance department. Additional bonding to the satisfaction of the Town Board. Another condition includes bonding to secure construction of the stonewall shall be posted before the Chili's CO is issued. No further certificates of occupancy shall be issued until the stonewall is completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board engineer. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Karen, you wanted to make a correction on that? MS. ARENT: I think we can eliminate the bonding and just tie it into the C of O for the following building. We do need to collect landscape bonds for the individual buildings, too. MR. DONNELLY: That was fixed as part of the original - MS. ARENT: No. MR. HINES: We also want the traffic light up. In that January timeframe is what you mentioned for the traffic control. MR. DOWN: They're going to start the underground work in January. I don't think all of the lighting will be --the arm mast and the NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS/PALMERONE FARMS actual signal itself won't be there until probably May. MR. HINES: Starbucks opening was May? MR. DOWN: Yes. MR. HINES: That still works. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Mark Sargent, would you like to add to that or educate us on that? MR. SARGENT: Actually I have more questions than I do statements. You have your highway work permit for your signal? MR. DOWN: Do we have that? MR. CUBBERLY: The only thing we don't have is the contractor has to post it with the local office, but everything is all set to go. MR. SARGENT: So your plans are in, they have been approved? MR. CUBBERLY: Yes. MR. SARGENT: There's some final paperwork. MR. CUBBERLY: We have to fill in the name of the contractor and - MR. SARGENT: Permit to operate and install, pay the 1,200 bucks annual fee to NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS/PALMERONE FARMS maintain it. MR. CUBBERLY: I'm not sure about - MR. HINES: I think the contractor has to post the bond. MR. CUBBERLY: I don't know what the annual fee is. The local office has approved all the plans for the installation. Once we finalize the agreement with the contractor we'll be able to obtain the permit to do the install. MR. SARGENT: I'm just curious to know who your contractor is. MR. CUBBERLY: I forget the gentleman's name. It's a local contractor. MR. SARGENT: So you'll have that, and you also have the driveway on 17K. MR. DOWN: With the Thruway. MR. SARGENT: That's the Thruway? MR. DOWN: We're going over some Thruway land. MR. HINES: The Thruway owns it. MR. CUBBERLY: We're working through the final stuff with the Thruway right now. MR. SARGENT: Is there some kind of contingency on receiving the permits also in NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS/PALMERONE FARMS there? MR. DONNELLY: It may have been in the original resolution. It sounds familiar to me. MR. HINES: The original resolution said if the 17K access wasn't obtainable they would come back and address that. MR. DONNELLY: This is subject to approval by the New York State Thruway Authority upon written agreement between the applicant and New York State Thruway authorizing access across Thruway Authority lands to the site. Site work may, with the approval and authorization of the Town of Newburgh Code Compliance Department, begin before said approval is obtained. Should the New York State Thruway Authority require changes in either the location or configuration from what is shown on the plans, the applicant must return to the Planning Board for further review. MR. SARGENT: So it doesn't actually say DOT highway work permit. MR. DONNELLY: That's a different section. This approval in that condition is subject to approval by the New York State NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS/PALMERONE FARMS Department of Transportation of the two proposed driveway utilizations in substantially the same location and configuration as shown on the plans. Again, should there be any changes they would have to return. I think there must be one regarding the traffic light as well. MR. SARGENT: I guess that would be part of the permit. MR. DONNELLY: I think that's how we covered them at that time. MR. SARGENT: So obviously you need your permits to build your driveways before you can open the store. Right? MR. DOWN: I need the permits --I have my permits here. I'm squared away with the DOT. It got into an issue of the Thruway did not want to act, or at least begin to act until the DOT issued their permits. DOT now issued their permits. We're back at Thruway going through their process to cross a 25 --I think it's a total of 2,500 square foot pie shape. It's probably about a 10-foot crossing and it's just --it's going through the bureaucracy of getting that stuff, you know, all in line. This will be NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS/PALMERONE FARMS the main access point. This is a benefit for tenants, patrons, and as I said we're working through the final stuff with the Thruway Authority right now. MR. SARGENT: I don't see any reason that should hold up the occupancy schedule you're talking about. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Okay. Comments from Board Members. Frank Galli? MR. GALLI: No additional. The road is built and in place. All they have to do is take the guardrail down and it's open. MR. SARGENT: Which road? MR. GALLI: The Thruway one. MR. CUBBERLY: 17K. MR. GALLI: 17K. Everything is in place. The guardrail is covering it. MR. HINES: Actually the other road is constructed, too. MR. DOWN: That's already been in. This is in. It's the widening in here for the decel coming in. MR. GALLI: No additional comment. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken Mennerich? NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS/PALMERONE FARMS MR. MENNERICH: No questions. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Joe Profaci? MR. PROFACI: No thanks, John. MR. DONNELLY: I've revised then the second of those new conditions to say additional landscape bonding for the individual buildings to the satisfaction of the Town Board shall be posted before the Chili's certificate of occupancy is issued. No further certificates of occupancy shall be issued until the stonewall is completed and the traffic light is installed, both to the satisfaction of the Planning Board engineer. Is that how we're going to cover it then? MR. HINES: That's fine. MR. DONNELLY: Karen? MS. ARENT: That's fine. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Rather than making it subject to a consultants' work session, can the Board move to have Pat Hines meet with Jerry Canfield and Pilford to define whatever - MR. HINES: Whatever additional notes. MR. DONNELLY: Do you want me to add that as a condition? NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS/PALMERONE FARMS CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Please. MR. CUBBERLY: I think we would like to meet with them as well. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: That's what I'm saying. Meet as a group. Right. MR. CUBBERLY: We can work out what we need to to make sure everyone is satisfied. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: So this won't be an amended site plan, this is just - MR. DONNELLY: It's an amended phasing resolution. MR. DOWN: We're not changing the site plan. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Mike, can I move for that motion? MR. DONNELLY: Yes. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a motion to approve the amended phasing plan for Newburgh Retail Developers. MR. PROFACI: So moved. MR. MENNERICH: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Joe Profaci. I have a second by Ken Mennerich. Any discussion of the motion? NEWBURGH RETAIL DEVELOPERS/PALMERONE FARMS (No response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a roll call vote starting with Frank Galli. MR. GALLI: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Myself yes. So carried. Thank you. MR. CUBBERLY: Thank you. MR. DOWN: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. (Time noted: 9:25 p.m.) CERTIFICATION I, Michelle Conero, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify that I recorded stenographically the proceedings herein at the time and place noted in the heading hereof, and that the foregoing is an accurate and complete transcript of same to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATED: January 2, 2008 1 134 2 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ORANGE TOWN OF NEWBURGH PLANNING BOARD 3 -------------------------X In the Matter of 4 IL CENA COLA RESTAURANT 6 (2007-45) 7 228 South Plank Road Section 60; Block 2; Lot 51 8 B Zone 9 -------------------------X CONCEPTUAL AMENDED SITE PLAN 11 12 13 Date: December 20, 2007 Time: 9:25 p.m. Place: Town of Newburgh Town Hall 1496 Route 300 14 Newburgh, NY 12550 16 BOARD MEMBERS: JOHN P. EWASUTYN, Chairman FRANK S. GALLI KENNETH MENNERICH 17 JOSEPH E. PROFACI 18 ALSO PRESENT: DINA HAINES 19 MICHAEL H. DONNELLY, ESQ. BRYANT COCKS PATRICK HINES KAREN ARENT MARK SARGENT 21 22 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: MARK OLSON 23 -------------------------X MICHELLE L. CONERO 24 10 Westview Drive Wallkill, New York 12589 (845)895-3018 IL CENA COLA RESTAURANT CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: The last item of business we have this evening is Il Cena Cola Restaurant. It's a conceptual amended site plan, it's located on 228 South Plank Road, it's in a B Zone and it's being represented by Mark Olson. MR. OLSON: Good evening. Just a brief description of what we're proposing for this project. There is an existing approximately 3,200 square foot building/restaurant on the site, small parking area to the south of the existing building, and the front of the parcel is pretty well continuously paved out onto the road. What our proposal is is to add a substantial addition for catering purposes for the same proprietor to run. He would have a restaurant entry separate from the catering facility entry which would be on the other side with more of a formal approach and entry. We would develop --our intent is to develop two separate traffic entries, one specifically for the restaurant usage and one specifically for the catering usage in that for catering when you come into the restaurant you IL CENA COLA RESTAURANT would want more of a formal entry, more valet parking, that type of thing whereas the restaurant would be less formal. Our intent to exit the parcel from only one point was to alleviate stacking and congestion on the site, allow stacking along this here to exit onto Route 52 more central to the parcel. We got several comments on the project being in a conceptual state. We are working on different aspects of these comments on a conceptual basis. You know, with the wall that we're proposing along the front I know that Karen made the statement that she would like to see the stone. Absolutely. I would agree. This is an illustration here along the bottom of the wall. Our client had a stucco Mediterranean thing going on that he liked but to tie it in with the water table we're proposing on the building --I would agree. The elevations are something like this. We're utilizing a clay tile roof, stucco for the upper walls, stone for the water IL CENA COLA RESTAURANT 137 table, developing a portico over the entrance to the catering facility for that formal drop-off valet type of entry. There was one question with reference to a refuse enclosure. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I think at this point we have a general idea of the concept and the issues you're touching upon as far as the stonewall. They are all kind of fine but they're really not down to where we should be beginning with this site. MR. OLSON: All right. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'm going to turn to Mark Sargent to review Ken Wersted's items. I know we talked about the need for an actual survey but we have to get down to some hard facts now that are missing. Mark Sargent. MR. SARGENT: Okay. I guess Ken faxed you this letter dated December 14th. You answered the first question. He wants to know a little bit more about how the site would function. Confirming the number of seats, it IL CENA COLA RESTAURANT appears that there's a capacity of 440 people in total, and the number of employees. This kind of gets to the issue of traffic and trip generation, concerns about the radius on site and turning in. MR. OLSON: For the portico I think it was - MR. SARGENT: The drop off. Even the radius or radii from 52. You'll have to get DOT involved. Obviously you know that. Confirming the delivery vehicle size and characteristics so that that can be --make sure that's accommodated. I also noticed, Bryant, your comments picked up on the same thing. We have a concern potentially about parking capacity. It appears that it meets Code. I'm not really a Code guy but one space per four seats equates to 110 parking spaces being proposed on site. With the type of facility that this is we have a sense that there might be a potential that you could use up all 110 spaces. I guess we're looking for a little more information to substantiate that that's going to be sufficient. Talking with DOT about a highway work IL CENA COLA RESTAURANT permit and the landscaping right-of-way, the stonewall sight distance issue. In other words, make sure when you get out to the edge of the road you can see well enough. You're proposing a two-way driveway and a one-way driveway. We didn't get into that in detail because that overlaps with DOT's review and we don't want to send you in one direction and tell you what you need and have them tell you you need something else. We'll work with them on that. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Pat Hines? MR. HINES: I know you have my comments. Conceptually the site currently is not curbed and the Planning Board has a policy that when commercial sites come before them that curbing is required. That's going to force you to have to work with stormwater management a little better also. They have consistently required that of all commercial sites, regardless of the size, and certainly this is much larger than some of the ones that haven't been curbed in the past. That will need to be worked into your concept. IL CENA COLA RESTAURANT The flood plain. There is a flood plain along the creek there. That needs to be delineated to make sure you're outside of that or a flood plain development permit will be required. We're looking for that existing conditions plan. I found it difficult to compare what was there versus what was proposed. That would be helpful. Water and sewer utilities, jurisdictional determination. A lot of these are beyond the concept but I think for concept the existing conditions, the curbing. There are no provisions for stormwater management on the site. You might able to get away with Chapter 9 redevelopment. You can take a look at that. That will be something that needs to be addressed along with the rest of my comments. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Bryant Cocks, Planning Consultant? MR. COCKS: Just to echo Mark Sargent's comments, we feel if it's going to be a catering hall, a lot of these events like weddings, people usually come in couples. The one for every four seats plus employee parking might not be enough, IL CENA COLA RESTAURANT especially if the restaurant is going to be functioning at the same time as the catering hall. We want to take a hard look at the parking. There are not really many uses adjoining the site or anything like that that would be able to spill over if they could have an agreement. That's going to be a big issue. As Pat mentioned, there are some wetlands on site and we're going to need to see delineation. We're going to need to see some signage. I notice there were a couple entry and exit signs. We're going to need the details on whatever signage will be on there and also on the building. You discussed the wall with Karen, about changing that, so that's going to be adjusted. It just looked like it needed to be extended on the southern side of the site. For concept that's about it. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Karen Arent? MS. ARENT: I think for concept, I think you might have mentioned this Pat, but that IL CENA COLA RESTAURANT he needs to show some grades to make sure that it works with the curb and existing site features. I have to say it's nice to see that the building is oriented to the pond and the terraces and the decks are overlooking the pond. That would make a nice amenity for the building. There's a couple things I think Ken should review also. I noticed that the parking area to the south of the building, the dimensions aren't to Code and they look like they're trying to do a one-way circulation system and that it should be angled. It's not the standard 24 width aisles. I was also wondering about the turning radius inside the site for limos. Like once they go through the canopy to get out --I don't know if --it looks like a limo wouldn't make that turn. I would imagine limos are going to be going in there. I was hoping to see landscaping match the beauty of the interior of the site and for the owner to consider hiring somebody that knows landscaping because I think the inside of that building is really beautiful. It would be nice IL CENA COLA RESTAURANT to see landscaping to match your proposed architecture as well as the interior. Then just to prepare a lighting plan. That's it. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Comments from Board Members. Frank Galli? MR. GALLI: No additional. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Ken Mennerich? MR. MENNERICH: The only thing I was wondering is the dumpster location is right by the main entrance to the restaurant. MR. OLSON: As it is right now. MR. MENNERICH: It doesn't sound like too good an idea. MR. OLSON: I would tend to agree, however to enable us to really very well disguise the enclosure and not have it be a separate building, take up space in the parking lot, it's how he operates now. We were able to pretty much enclose it in very similar construction so it's well disguised. MR. MENNERICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Joe Profaci? MR. PROFACI: Nothing at this time. IL CENA COLA RESTAURANT CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I guess you're going to have to bring some qualified people on board to work with you on this. MR. OLSON: Mm'hm'. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Okay. I think at this point we'll wait to get revised plans before we go to concept. MR. OLSON: Thank you. (Time noted: 9:40 p.m.) CERTIFICATION I, Michelle Conero, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify that I recorded stenographically the proceedings herein at the time and place noted in the heading hereof, and that the foregoing is an accurate and complete transcript of same to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATED: January 2, 2008 1 146 2 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF ORANGE TOWN OF NEWBURGH PLANNING BOARD 3 -------------------------X In the Matter of 4 6 MID-VALLEY AMALL (2001-13) 7 8 ZBA Variance/Planning Board Resolution 9 -------------------------X BOARD BUSINESS 11 12 Date: December 20, 2007 Time: 9:40 p.m. 13 Place: Town of Newburgh Town Hall 14 1496 Route 300 Newburgh, NY 12550 16 BOARD MEMBERS: JOHN P. EWASUTYN, Chairman FRANK S. GALLI 17 KENNETH MENNERICH JOSEPH E. PROFACI 18 ALSO PRESENT: DINA HAINES 19 MICHAEL H. DONNELLY, ESQ. BRYANT COCKS PATRICK HINES KAREN ARENT 21 MARK SARGENT 22 23 -------------------------X MICHELLE L. CONERO 24 10 Westview Drive Wallkill, New York 12589 (845)895-3018 MID-VALLEY MALL CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: We just have one item to discuss this evening. Dina, do you want to bring that on board? MS. HAINES: The first one is Mike Donnelly for the Mid-Valley Mall regarding signage and the ZBA variance. MR. DONNELLY: This related to that issue we spoke of earlier of the timing of the cohesive sign plan and the discussion we had last week. I've prepared a resolution that I called an approval of the cohesive sign plan and ARB. It essentially says that the cohesive sign plan is hereby approved --I'm sorry. The cohesive sign plan hereby approved shall govern this site and all individual stores within the site. Notes should be added to the site plan referencing a requirement that all signs throughout the mall shall be governed by the approved cohesive sign plan. Limited exceptions for national franchise operations may be considered in the future, and we have a condition that references the original site plan approval. You discussed this last week. This was the issue about having done this out of order and how we got a little out of MID-VALLEY MALL whack. They presented a cohesive sign plan. Although it might be as wonderful as you would like, it does not utilize the full extent of the size variances granted by the Zoning Board and it has, under the circumstances, been recommended to you as something that you consider approving. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Okay. So at this point I believe what's being held up here is there's an application to put up a sign for Planet Fitness. Jerry Canfield needs to hear back from the Board on this. MR. DONNELLY: I'll send him this resolution. MS. ARENT: The date of the cohesive sign plan would be 11/30/07. MR. DONNELLY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Do we need to move for a motion? Do you want to one more time present that for the Board? MR. DONNELLY: It will reference the original site plan and impose a requirement that all signs in the mall for all individual stores must comply with the terms of that cohesive sign plan that Karen has just told us is dated MID-VALLEY MALL November 30, 2007. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for that motion. MR. GALLI: So moved. MR. MENNERICH: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Frank Galli. I have a second by Ken Mennerich. Any discussion of the motion? (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I'll move for a roll call vote starting with Frank Galli. MR. GALLI: Aye. MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: And myself yes. Who is going to contact - MS. ARENT: I'll contact them. I can e-mail them. There's copies of the cohesive sign plan. Would you like them for your record or do you want him to mail them in? CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: What do you recommend? MS. ARENT: I would just take them MID-VALLEY MALL right now. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: You are? MR. TANDY: Patrick Tandy from DLC Management. MS. ARENT: One for your records and one for Jerry. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Give the balance to Dina. Does anyone on the Board want one? Give them to Dina and we'll distribute them. One goes to Jerry, the balance we'll put in everyone's box. MS. HAINES: All right. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: Thank you so much for your patience. Does everyone want to go home? I'll move for a motion that we close the Planning Board meeting of the 20th of December. MR. GALLI: So moved. MR. MENNERICH: Second. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: I have a motion by Frank Galli. I have a second by Ken Mennerich. I'll ask for a roll call vote starting with Frank Galli. MR. GALLI: Aye. MID-VALLEY MALL MR. MENNERICH: Aye. MR. PROFACI: Aye. CHAIRMAN EWASUTYN: And myself. So carried. (Time noted: 9:45 p.m.) CERTIFICATION I, Michelle Conero, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify that I recorded stenographically the proceedings herein at the time and place noted in the heading hereof, and that the foregoing is an accurate and complete transcript of same to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATED: January 2, 2008