Source: https://www.savecraryville.org/information/2019/1/18/dec-6-2018-save-craryville-letter-presented-to-copake-planning-board-david-k-gordon
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:12:05+00:00

Document:
This office represent the citizens group Save Craryville. We understand that GRJH has revised its site plan proposal and submitted a new set of plans. We have received the new set of plans, dated November 26, 2018, just a few days ago. We offer the following preliminary comments on the revised layout.
As an initial matter, the new plans are, literally, a substantial step in the right direction.
In the prior plan, the main building was nowhere near the roads, which is a requirement of the zoning code as well as a necessity for village-scale development. The new plans move the building to a substantially better, and compliant, location on the site. However, even in light of the improvements, the plan is still noncompliant with the zoning code and with other essential elements of hamlet design. The Planning Board should correct for all these.
While the new layout has made progress toward complying with the setbacks, the plans still show a driving lane, several parking spaces, and a dumpster enclosure within the minimum setback areas. The zoning code has a specific requirement for vehicle fueling stations: “The area for use by motor vehicles, except access drives thereto, as well as any structures, shall not encroach on any dimensional requirements in Section 232-8A.” § 232-16.13(B). The exception in the code for access drives allows, for a driveway to cross the front setback, as it must to provide access to the site from the road. However, there is no allowance for the access road to continue lengthwise through the side and rear setbacks, which would essentially allow the setbacks to be devoted to roadways – the exact opposite of the intent of the cited protection in the code. The applicant must further revise the plan to remove all structures and paved areas from the setback areas.
The Floor Plan in the new plan set shows a kitchen and dining room, which indicate that the applicant is proposing a sit-down restaurant use along with the convenience store. The restaurant appears to encompass more than half of the building’s floor area.
This is the first specification that a sit down restaurant is planned for the project. The Zoning Board of Appeals did not consider a restaurant use when conducting the project’s SEQRA review or issuing the special use permit, raising the specter of unplanned and unreviewed environmental impacts.
Among other things, the site does not have enough parking area for a restaurant. The parking requirement for a restaurant use is 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor space (plus employee spaces), or more than 24 spaces here. § 232-13(A)(6). The restaurant should be removed from the plans so that parking does not need to increase, as there seems to be little room on the site for additional parking.
Additionally, the septic system capacity would need to be reevaluated for a restaurant use.
The Site Requirements table on the Site Layout and Utility Plan states that required parking is 9 spaces, and that the plan provides 14 spaces. The applicant calculated 2.75 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor space to compute a minimum of 9 spaces. Actually, the code calls for 2.75 spaces per 1,000 square feet for retail uses, plus one space for each employee. § 232-13(A)(4), (11). The employee spaces must be added to the required minimum.
The Hamlet Business district allows a maximum building height of 35 feet. § 232-8. The plans do not show a height measurement for the building or fueling canopy. The table of Site Requirements erroneously states the maximum height is 40 feet and states that the project will be “<40’.” The maximum height must be correctly noted, and the Planning Board must ensure that all structures on the site comply.
The zoning code provides the following requirement: “All roofs shall be pitched with a minimum pitch of 5” vertical rise for each 12” horizontal run and have a roof overhang of traditional proportions on all structures.” § 232-21(J)(18)(e). The current design shows a flat-topped roof, which would not comply with the requirement that “[a]l roofs shall be pitched.” The design must be changed to a sloped roof.
In addition, the code requires that “[r]oof shapes, slopes and cornices are consistent with the prevalent types in the area.” § 232-21(J)(18)(a). Accordingly, in light of the architectural vernacular in the Craryville area, a gable roof should be utilized.
The flat roof should also be withdrawn because it will be used to site utility fixtures. Aside from being architecturally inconsistent with the hamlet, this modern commercial design is especially problematic because the roof will be easily visible from the adjacent land to the north, which is much higher than the project site.
The zoning code requires: “Buildings shall be designed so that entrance doors and windows, rather than blank walls, garages, side walls or storage areas, face the street.” § 232-21(J)(18)(b). The applicant has included a door on the Route 23 side of the store, but the Craryville Road side should also be designed with an entrance door.
The zoning code prescribes a maximum size of 24 square feet for a freestanding business sign. § 232-14(D). The sign sketch on the Site Landscape and Lighting Plan shows a 36 square foot sign, when framing is included. Accordingly, the size must be reduced.
The zoning code states: “Sidewalks should be encouraged in the hamlet districts.” § 232-11(H). This implements the Comprehensive Plan’s directive: “Make streetscape improvements like lighting, landscaping, sidewalks, pathways, gathering spaces, banners in downtown and hamlets whenever possible.” (VI)(G)(3)(c). The plan shows the location of a “future sidewalk.” This sidewalk, along with the connecting path to the front door, should be installed as part of the current site plan. Benefits include linking the store to the street, building connections to neighboring sites, creating a main street feel, and calming traffic. The sidewalk should also be enhanced with appropriate pedestrian infrastructure, such as pedestrian-level lighting, benches, shade trees, and other landscaping.
These comments represent an initial review by Save Craryville given the documents available. We intend to comment further as more details and explanation come through the public hearing. We expects the Planning Board’s careful attention to the many impacts this substantial proposal could have on the Craryville hamlet.
We reiterate our request that the Planning Board require a Visual Impact Report to fully analyze visual impacts. Code § 232-21(H)(3)(c). In addition, a revised Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be necessary to evaluate the new layout of the site. Code § 232-21(H)(3)(d). A groundwater impact analysis is also advisable considering the location of the site over a mapped aquifer, and the prior use of the property. Code § 232- 21(H)(3)(a).

References: § 232
 § 232
 § 232
 § 232
 § 232
 § 232
 § 232
 § 232
 § 232
 § 232
 § 232
 § 232