Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020_0518_Planning Board Minutes1 Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board Meeting #93 Monday, May 18, 2020 Via Zoom – 7:00 pm Minutes Present: Planning Board Members Chair F. Cowett, J. Leijonhufvud, A. Monroe, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, Attorney R. Marcus, Deputy Clerk P. Rich, Trustee M. McMurry, Alternate Member K. Sigel S. Yoon, 103 North Sunset Drive G. Bush, SPEC Consulting M. Haney, Carina Construction Members of the Public Item 1 – Meeting called to order • Chair F. Cowett opened the meeting at 7:13 pm. Item 2 – April 27, 2020 Minutes • The Board reviewed the minutes of the April 27, 2020 meeting. Motion: R. Segelken Second: J. Leijonhufvud RESOLUTION No. 316 APPROVING MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2020 RESOLVED, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of the April 27, 2020 meeting are hereby approved. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, J. Leijonhufvud, A. Monroe, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed – None Item 3 – Public Comment • No members of the public wished to comment. 2 Item 4 – Site Plan Review – 213 North Sunset Drive • Chair F. Cowett stated that at at the April 27, 2020 Planning Board meeting, the Board accepted the proposed single family residence at 213 North Sunset Drive for site plan review, scheduled a public hearing for site plan review of the project at this meeting, and declared itself lead agency for SEQR review of the project. • The public hearing commenced at 7:17 pm. • No members of the public wished to speak. • The public hearing closed at 7:18 pm. • Chair F. Cowett asked Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross to discuss the project’s updated site plan prior to the Board’s SEQRA review of the project. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that the updated site plan made changes to stormwater management; runoff is no longer diverted from the southeast corner of the property around the driveway and allowed to flow into the roadside drainage swale along North Sunset Drive; instead, runoff is directed to a catch basin and piped under the driveway; the pipe daylights into a small swale on the northern side of the driveway where runoff then flows to the small intermittent stream on the property’s northern boundary line; this change replicates pre-development drainage on site. • Chair F. Cowett asked if piping runoff into the driveway swale could potentially cause erosion given the grade of the driveway. • G. Bush, SPEC Consulting, replied that once vegetation is established in the swale there should not be any erosion. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that temporary check dams could be used during project construction to prevent erosion prior to vegetation establishment. • Chair F. Cowett asked if such check dams should be included in an erosion and sediment control plan applicable to construction activity and if Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross would support incorporation of such a plan as a condition of site plan approval. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that he would support this. • Chair F. Cowett asked about the small impoundment area near the culvert where the intermittent stream runs under North Sunset Drive; this area is the same size as in the previous version of the site plan, but now receives added runoff from the driveway swale; is the area large enough to handle this additional runoff without causing problems for the stream culvert running under North Sunset Drive. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that he is comfortable with the small impoundment area being able to handle additional runoff from the driveway because post-development runoff from the overall project site into the stream approximates pre-development runoff in distribution and rate. • E. Quaroni asked about stormwater runoff north of the project site flowing into the intermittent stream. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that there is some runoff flowing into the stream from the adjoining property to the north, but that the applicant is not required 3 to mitigate this runoff; additionally, there is runoff from Cayuga Heights Road flowing to the project site in large precipitation events; were the Village to resolve drainage issues on Cayuga Heights Road, it would mitigate the amount of amount of runoff flowing to the project site. • The Board discussed the project in relation to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) which it has categorized as an Unlisted SEQRA action and reviewed the applicant’s responses to the questions in Part 1 of the SEQRA short form. • Chair F. Cowett stated that the NYS DEC EAF Mapper responded Yes to Question 12b regarding archaeological sites, but that had contacted the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) regarding this project and OPRHP had determined that no archaeological and/or historic resources would be impacted by this project. 4 5 6 7 8 • The Board accepted the applicant’s responses to the questions in Part 1 of the SEQRA short form. • The Board reviewed Parts II and III of the SEQRA short form. 9 10 Motion: R. Segelken Second: A. Monroe RESOLUTION No. 317 TO DETERMINE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN AN ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RESOLVED, that the Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board has determined that the proposed project at 213 North Sunset Drive will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, J. Leijonhufvud, A. Monroe, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed – None • The Board discussed § 305-117.B of the Village’s Zoning Law, “Factors to be considered by the Planning Board in site plan review,” and made the following findings: o Location and site of the use: The site is located at 213 North Sunset Drive in the Village’s Residence zoning district on a subdivided lot approved by the Village’s Planning Board on October 22, 2018. Per Tompkins County, the property class code is 311, the description for which is residential vacant land. o Nature and intensity of the use: The proposed use is a three bedroom single family residence with two-car attached garage and driveway. The nature and intensity of such use are consistent with neighborhood character. o Size and topography of the site: The site is 0.72 acres. The land is sloped with approximately a 14% slope from the lot’s western property line to its eastern property line which would not preclude construction under the Village’s Zoning Law. An area in the northeast portion of the lot having a grade in excess of 25% is not large, and there is sufficient building area with a slope less than 15% for residence construction in conformance with the Zoning Law. 11 o Location of the site in respect to road access: The site is adjacent to North Sunset Drive on its western property line. Access to North Sunset Drive will be provided by one driveway and curb cut. o Provisions for parking: § 305-90.F.1.a of the Village’s Zoning Law requires that, for a one-family dwelling, two off- street parking spaces be provided. The project is a single family residence with one dwelling unit, and the two-car attached garage and driveway provide at least two off-street parking spaces. Therefore, parking provisions are consistent with the Zoning Law. o Relationship of improvements and lot size to the parking area: Improvements include a residence, two-car attached garage, driveway, and a rock garden and stormwater retention basin. The parking area consists of the garage located to the rear of the residence and an apron containing two exterior parking spaces on the opposite side of the driveway to the south of the garage. Parking spaces provided are sufficient given that the residence contains three bedrooms. An apron nearby the garage enables vehicles to back up and turn around. o Traffic and noise generated by the proposed use: The project is a single family residence in the Village’s Residence zoning district. It is likely that noise generated by the proposed use will be minimal. The site is currently a vacant lot. Improvement with a single family residence may generate increased vehicular traffic, but this increase is likely to be slight. o Landscaping: The landscape plan emphasizes native plantings in the front and back yard gardens. Northwest of the residence there is a rock garden associated with a stormwater retention basin. The driveway has been sited to minimize impact to several large eastern white pines located between the residence and North Sunset Drive. o Architectural features: The residence is modern in style with recyclable metal siding and roofing. There are elevated porches to the front and rear of the residence and a two car attached garage with solar panels on its roof to the rear of the residence. 12 o Location and dimension of the improvements: The residence is located approximately 95 feet east of the western property line. The two car attached garage is located to the rear of the residence. Lot coverage is 7.4% and the driveway has an average slope of 12.7% and a maximum slope of 14.5%. The location and dimension of these improvements conform to zoning regulations for setbacks, building height, and lot coverage. o Impact of the proposed use on adjacent land uses: The project is a single family residence. Adjacent land uses are residential and consist primarily of single family residences. Therefore, the proposed use is consistent with adjacent land uses and its impact on adjacent land uses can be expected to be slight. o Impact of the proposed use on the environment: The residence has been located to avoid construction on steep slopes and the driveway has been located to avoid disturbing several large eastern white pines. A small intermittent stream on the lot’s northern border has not been mapped by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and is not incorporated in the Village’s Natural Resources Overlay Zone. Post-development runoff from the site into the stream and a drainage swale on North Sunset Drive approximates pre-development runoff in distribution and rate. The Planning Board categorized the project as an Unlisted Action under SEQRA, conducted a SEQRA review, and made a negative declaration of adverse environmental impact and found compliance with SEQRA. o Impact of the proposed use on infrastructure and existing Village services, including sewer, water, stormwater management, solid waste disposal, fire protection, police protection, and road maintenance: The project will connect to public potable water and public wastewater treatment facilities, but its utilization of these facilities will not substantially impact them. The stormwater rock garden retention basin to the northwest of the residence mitigates runoff from the residence and is sized for a 90th percentile (10 year) storm in conformance with the NYS Stormwater Management Design manual. Additionally, a backyard catch basin and pipe running under the driveway mimic pre-development drainage patterns by enabling stormwater from that part of the site to continue flowing to the stream. Runoff from the driveway is directed to a small impoundment area near the stream’s culvert under North Sunset Drive; this area will serve as retention volume in the event that the pass-through flow from the stream and this site exceed the capacity of the culvert pipe. Post-development runoff from the site into the 13 stream and a drainage swale on North Sunset Drive approximates pre-development runoff in distribution and rate. The project will not significantly impact other Village services. o Provisions made for reducing energy use or incorporating renewable energy systems into project design: Solar panels are located on the garage roof and the residence utilizes geothermal heating. o Effect on population density, if any: The site is currently a vacant lot and will be improved with a single family residence and attached garage. Population density will be increased, but this increase will be slight and does not conflict with neighborhood character. o Any other factors reasonably related to the health, safety, and general welfare of Village residents and consistent with the Village's current Comprehensive Plan: Recommendation 1.4 of the Village’s current Comprehensive Plan advocates that the Village continue its historic role as a residential neighborhood. This project is consistent with that recommendation and with the health, safety, and welfare of Village residents. • The Board discussed whether to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the proposed project. • Chair F. Cowett stated that there had been discussion by the Board at its April 27 meeting as to whether future improvement of the residence’s unfinished basement with a kitchen, bedrooms, and a bathroom could create an accessory apartment and if creating an accessory apartment would trigger site plan approval by the Board. • Attorney R. Marcus stated that creating a separate dwelling unit in the basement would represent an increase in the intensity of use and would therefore trigger site plan review in accordance with the Village’s Zoning Law; he recommended including language to this effect as a condition of site plan approval for the current project. • The Board discussed language for such a condition of approval. • K. Siegel stated that the Village’s Zoning Law already requires site plan approval were a separate dwelling unit to be created in the basement and questioned the need for any condition. • Chair F. Cowett replied that, notwithstanding the Zoning Law, there is no harm in making clear to the applicant the basis on which this project has been considered by the Board and that improving the basement as a separate dwelling unit would trigger site plan review. 14 • R. Segelken asked whether the rental of such a dwelling unit would affect triggering site plan review. • Attorney R. Marcus replied that whether such a dwelling unit was or was not rented would not affect triggering site plan review. • E. Quaroni asked whether the residence’s geothermal heating would be a horizontal or vertical system. • G. Bush replied that geothermal heating would be a vertical system. Motion: A. Monroe Second: J. Leijonhufvud RESOLUTION No. 318 TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 213 NORTH SUNSET DRIVE RESOLVED, that, based upon the findings made by the Planning Board in consideration of § 305-117.B of the Village’s Zoning Law, the proposed project at 213 North Sunset Drive is hereby approved subject to the following condition: (1) The proposed project is a single family residence containing three bedrooms, one kitchen, and an unfinished basement. Should the owner propose to improve the basement to create a separate accessory dwelling unit, site plan approval by the Planning Board shall be required. (2) Prior to the Village’s Code Enforcement Officer issuing a building permit, the Village’s Stormwater Control Officer shall approve the applicant’s Erosion and Sediment Control Plan applicable to construction activity. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, J. Leijonhufvud, A. Monroe, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed – None Item 4 – New Business • R. Segelken asked about the status of the Upland Heights project. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that there has been no activity on the project in the last thirty days. • Trustee M. McMurry stated that, given the high level of public interest and involvement in the Upland Heights project, Mayor L. Woodard would prefer to delay the next meeting on this project until a live meeting is possible. • R. Segelken asked about the status of Cornell’s North Campus Resuidential Expansion (NCRE) project. 15 • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that his current involvement on the project is focused on stormwater management and Cornell’s road use agreement with the Village; stormwater management is going well; there have been small issues with the road use agreement which needed to be resolved. • R. Segelken stated that he has witnessed some outgoing truck traffic proceeding east on Hanshaw Road from Pleasant Grove Road presumably headed towards Route 13. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that any such truck traffic proceeding east on Hanshaw Road would be in violation of the road use agreement. • The Board’s next meeting is scheduled for Monday June 22, 2020 at 7:00 pm, either via Zoom or in person at Marcham Hall, to be determined. Item 5 – Adjourn • Meeting adjourned at 8:39 pm.