“The purpose of tonight’s meeting is for the planning board to determine specific areas/studies which we believe will be critical for the decision making process with regard to the Kingstonian” – Wayne Platt, Chair of the Kingston Planning Board
At last night’s special Kingstonian meeting, the mood was oddly calm. In about 1 1/2 hours, the planning board and applicant moved through their plans of what studies would be required in order for the board to make a determination of significance (pos or neg dec). Outside of the planning board chair, only two members of the board posed any questions to the applicant, though they voted unanimously to pass a resolution for studies. The applicant will provide its studies to the planning board for distribution in early July. A meeting will be scheduled for September for the planning board to make a determination or, to request more information from the applicant.
Here’s a quick summation of the key points from the meeting:
- The planning board as lead agency presented potential impacts to the applicant submitted by New York State (State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Department of Transportation (DOT)) as the key potential impacts for the applicant to study. The Kingston’s Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission (HLPC), also attached, we learned was being ‘deliberated’ and therefore, any recommendations that they made (outside of any similarities to SHPO) were not included in the planning board’s resolution.
- The pedestrian bridge that connects two buildings on Fair Street (not to Herzog’s Plaza) was voluntarily removed from the project design.
- Of the 420 parking spots, 290 of them will be designated to the city and 130 will be for the project specifically. An allocation of some spaces within the Kingston Plaza will be made available for employees and/or residents that want a second car. Additional parking discussions are being had regarding a multi-use building near Dutch Village. Once SEQR is complete, the applicant will ask to waive the 1 1/2 car per apartment clause in Kingston’s zoning because there’s a municipal lot and two nearby properties controlled by the applicant nearby.
- The applicant will be responsible to build and operate the parking garage and to charge rates that are compatible with other public parking in the area.
- It is unclear how the planning board will implement the relevant public concerns including affordable housing requirements and Kingston’s comprehensive plan, the overlay zoning confusion and community character (outside of visual impacts as it pertains to community character) as they were not raised last evening.
It appears as though the applicant and planning board as lead agency are doing their own version of scoping (as predicted in earlier months) to bring the project to a neg dec come September. As a coordinated review, the planning board’s decision on the environment will apply to all of the involved agency’s discretionary decision making once SEQR concludes (a neg dec) going forward.
Tune into Radio Kingston today at 4:30pm. KingstonCitizens.org Radio will discuss what happened at last night’s meeting.
6:39 Concerns raised by NYSHPO. Visual Impacts, facade, etc.
24:45 Concerns raised by the NYSDEC. Protections of waters, wetlands, cultural resources, endangered species, sewer/water.
38:21 Traffic demand and impact analysis (NYS DOT)
51:10 Regarding the Kingston Common Council as an Involved Agency “….we can’t do anything with the Common Council taking action until a determination of significance is made under SEQR so any discussions have been preliminary at they point, but this is a coordinated review for SEQR so though that documentation has been sent to the Common Council, they’re free to comment during the pendency of SEQR…”
This is precisely what the Kingston HLPC provided, also an involved agency, in their letter submitted to the planning board back in March. Their concerns were mostly disregarded last evening due to recent ‘deliberation’.
0:00 The planning board states that they would rather not comment on the Kingston Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission letter at this time.
“Is this the official comment of the HLPC or are they still debating?” (Jacobson)
“I believe that there’s still some debate going on with that.” (Platt)
“There’s a question about deliberation on that.” (Cahill)
“Are we going to get more input from them regarding these comments?” (Jacobson)
“This is the preliminary letter that is part of the public record right now. It’s available for folks to see on our website, but there is some further deliberation going on by the HLPC and we’re waiting for further comment from them at this time.” (Platt)
“Is it time to make comments on architectural aspects of the project?” (Jacobson)
“I think it’s ok that we comment on architectural comments outside of what the HLPC recommends.” (Platt)
9:56: Timeline for studies to be done for a determination to be made.
“What do you believe would be an appropriate timeline to get all of these studies together?” (Platt)
“Early July.” (Larios)
“Joint meeting in September?” (Jacobson)
19:30: Resolution read into the record VIEW
“The City of Kingston Planning Board in review of the Kingstonian Development LLC….along with a portion of fair street extension determining specific areas/studies which the planning board believes to be critical for their decision making process….one, a visual impact study with points as defined below the recommendations followed in the SHPO letter that was provided an archeological report and geotechnical report which includes plants and animals identified potential endangered species, a water supply report, sewer report, wastewater report, traffic impact analysis with parking demand and delivery applications for demolition HLPC notice for preservation and green technologies / energy efficiency and a timeline anticipated section – that the following location points will be examined for a visual impact analysis of the project…the appropriate agencies will be notified and materials will be posted on the city website that this meeting will be reconvened…” (Platt)
“The resolution doesn’t just limit us to these items, correct? I mean, if we get these materials and want further study we have the ability?” (Jacobson)
“….the following studies/reports to be submitted for further review and final determination on any environmental significance and or supplemental information that this board deems necessary…” (Platt)