Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes1 Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board Meeting #94 Monday, April 26, 2021 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, Deputy Clerk P. Rich, Trustee M. McMurry, Alternate Member K. Sigel Guy Donahoe, Donahoe Group Members of the Public Item 1 – Meeting called to order • Chair F. Cowett opened the meeting at 7:06 pm. • Chair F. Cowett informed the Board that Attorney R. Marcus is unable to attend the meeting. Item 2 – May 18, 2020 Minutes • The Board reviewed the minutes of the May 18, 2020 meeting. Motion: R. Segelken Second: A. Monroe RESOLUTION No. 319 APPROVING MINUTES OF MAY 18, 2020 RESOLVED, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of the May 18, 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 – 317 East Upland Road • Chair F. Cowett stated that the the Village’s 2018 Zoning Law gave the Planning Board authority to conduct site plan review of new homes on vacant, unimproved land in the Village’s Residence zoning district; the proposed project is a single family residence on a vacant, unimproved lot at 317 East Upland Road in the Residence zoning district. • Chair F. Cowett asked G. Donahoe, Donahoe Group, if he is representing the project at the meeting. • G. Donahoe replied that he is representing the project. • Chair F. Cowett explained to G. Donahoe the process and chronology of site plan review by the Village’s Planning Board. • G. Donahoe stated that he understood the site plan review process and chronology. • Chair F. Cowett reviewed the site plan provided by the applicant; calculations provided by the applicant and confirmed by Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross show that lot coverage complies with the 12% lot coverage maximum contained in § 305-20 of Village code; building height and front, side, and rear setbacks are also code compliant; the two car garage satisfies § 305-90.F.1.a which requires two garage or off-street parking spaces for each dwelling unit; and the lot complies with the required minimum average lot width of 125 feet and depth of 150 feet, and with the required minimum of 75 feet of frontage on a public street. • Chair F. Cowett stated that § 305-59 of Village code requires Planning Board approval for improvement of slopes with a 15% to 25% grade; the applicant’s site plan shows some improvement of slopes with such a grade on site. • G. Donahoe stated that there are two areas containing slopes with a 15% to 25% grade; the area on the northern lot boundary line consists of concrete debris from an old driveway; this debris will be removed and used as the base for the new driveway, and the slope will be regraded; the area near the southeastern lot boundary line will not be disturbed. • J. Leijonhufvud stated that the site plan provided by the applicant shows the area on the northern lot boundary line extending south to the rear of the house and beyond the area containing the concrete debris, and that this area has been regraded. • G. Donahoe stated that regarding in the rear of the house is intended to return the slope to the natural grade as much as possible; a landscape architect has been hired to advise on revegating the slope for slope stability, as well as to advise on stormwater management on site; details on revegetating the slope and stormwater management will be provided to the Board prior to its next meeting. • G. Donahoe stated further that improvement of the slope on the northern lot boundary line was conditioned on positioning the house to take advantage of the topography on site; the property owner wanted a one-level ranch style house, the driveway comes in to the property from the northen end at approximately the same 3 eleveation as the garage, and there is a walkout at grade from a lower level towards the south; locating the house farther on the lot to the east also provides more area for stormwater management in the lot’s southwest corner which is the property’s low point; siting the patio and spa facing the southern lot boundary line also provides landscape views without seeing neighboring houses or property. • E. Quaroni asked about driveway width; § 305-90.E.2 of Village code limits maximum driveway width to 24 feet and the driveway width shown on the site plan appears to exceed 24 feet in one section. • G. Donahoe replied that the driveway needs to be wider than 24 feet in that section to permit vehicles to back up and turn around after exiting the garage. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that the driveway section being discussed functions as a t-turnaround, which is in effect two 24 foot intersecting sections, and suggested to G. Donahoe that the driveway be redrawn on the site plan in order to better reflect the 24 foot width maximum. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated further that he was asked by the applicant to inspect the proposed driveway location in the lot’s northwest corner, and approved this location since it provided adequate site distance in both directions onto and from East Upland Road and did so better than if the diveway was located to the south. • Chair F. Cowett asked G. Donahoe about plans for landscaping. • G. Donahoe replied that there would be replacement plantings for trees and vegetation to be removed; the intention would be to create an informal woodland setting rather than a formal garden; the berm shown in the site plan between the house and East Upland Road is intended to provide privacy. • Chair F. Cowett asked G. Donahoe to describe the house’s architectural features. • G. Donahoe replied that the house is modern in style emphasizing horizontal lines and utilizes a mix of materials including exposed stone foundations and a steel roof. • Chair F. Cowett asked G. Donahoe if provisions were made in designing the house to reduce energy use or incorporate renewable energy systems. • G. Donahoe replied that the house complies with the updated energy code. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross explained to G. Donahoe that the Tompkins County Energy Initiative encourages projects to consider energy use reductions, such as high energy efficienct equipment, in project design. • G. Donahoe stated that he was unaware of this county initiative and will discuss with the property owner. • R. Segelken stated his unhappiness with the proposed removal of mature pine trees in the northwestern corner of the lot; he asked G. Donahoe if these trees needed to be removed, and more specifically if a sidewalk near the house shown on the site plan could be relocated so as to avoid the removal of five trees. • G. Donahoe replied that he is unhappy as well with the removal of the pines, but some trees need to be removed for the driveway and, due to the positioning of the house, additional trees need to be removed lest the house be in their dripline. 4 • R. Segelken asked about the removal of the line of small flowering trees adjacent to the sidewalk. • Chair F. Cowett replied that these trees are old multistem Amur maples which are not in great shape and this species is sometimes considered invasive; he is not opposed to their removal. • R. Segelken stated that some neighbors are upset at the prospective loss of trees at the site and anticipates hearing their comments at the project’s public hearing. • Chair F. Cowett stated that the loss of trees is unfortunate, but many trees are not in good condition; also, given that invasive Rosa rugosa is prevalent on the property and the previous property owner removed trees some years ago, this is not a pristine, natural setting; he expects the project’s landscaping plans will include the planting of trees to replace those that will be removed; and, although concerned about tree loss, he is even more concerned about stormwater management which has also been an issue of concern to neighboring prioperty owners. • J. Leijonhufvud also stated concerns about stormwater management; the site already experiences stormwater runoff and the project will increase runoff potential. • G. Donahoe replied that the project includes a series of roof gutters and dry wells to deal with runoff. • J. Leijonhufvud stated that the dry wells detain runoff from the house roof, but do not deal with runoff from other parts of the site. • Chair F. Cowett stated his concern with the way in which the site plan concentrates runoff from the slope east of the house, then channels it to the south around the patio and towards the southwestern corner of the property. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that he has discussed the stormwater issue with the project design team; he has informed them that the Village is prepared to connect a stormwater feature on site to the Village’s stormwater conveyance system which is located farther south along East Upland Road. • E. Quaroni stated concern about the efficacy of the proposed dry wells given the clay and silt composition of site soils. • A. Monroe stated concern that, based on the contours shown on the site plan south of the patio, runoff from a significant rain event will not be contained by the swale on the plan and will discharge onto the neighboring property. • G. Donahoe replied that a swale was proposed for this area rather than a stormwater device because he did not want any device failure to cause damage to the house. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that be believes the swale grading can be fine-tuned so that runoff is not discharged onto the neighboring prioperty, but he also believes that some engineering will be required to deal with stormwater on site. • R. Segelken asked G. Donahoe if he is concerned about the possible presence of asbestos in the concrete debris from the old driveway. • G. Donahoe replied that he inspected the debris and it looks to be clean concrete fill. 5 Motion: J. Leijonhufvud Second: R. Segelken RESOLUTION No. 320 TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 317 EAST UPLAND ROAD FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW RESOLVED, that the Planning Board accepts the proposed project at 317 East Upland Road for site plan review. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, J. Leijonhufvud, A. Monroe, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed – None • The Board discussed the project in relation to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and whether to categorize the project as a Type 1, Type 2, or Unlisted SEQRA action. Motion: J. Leijonhufvud Second: E. Quaroni RESOLUTION No. 321 SEQRA REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 317 EAST UPLAND ROAD RESOLVED, that the Planning Board declares itself lead agency for SEQRA review of the proposed project at 317 East Upland Road which the Board categorizes as an Unlisted SEQRA action and the property owner is to complete Part 1 of the Short Environmental Assessment Form. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, J. Leijonhufvud, A. Monroe, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed – None • Chair F. Cowett stated that the Board’s next meeting is scheduled for Monday May 24 at 7:00 pm. 6 Motion: A. Monroe Second: J. Leijonhufvud RESOLUTION No. 322 TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 317 EAST UPLAND ROAD RESOLVED, that a public hearing will be held on Monday May 24, 2021 at 7:10 pm regarding site plan review for the proposed project at 317 East Upland Road. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, J. Leijonhufvud, A. Monroe, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed – None • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross encouraged G. Donahoe to have the project design team reach out to him as soon as possible to discuss stormwater management for the project. • G. Donahoe replied that he would ask the design team to do so and thanked Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross for his assistance with the project. Item 5 – New Business • Chair F. Cowett stated that, pursuant to site plan review by the Planning Board in April 2019, four oak trees are scheduled to be planted at 103 Berkshire Road, which satisfies a condition of site plan approval. • Chair F. Cowett also stated that there there are three amedments to zoning law being considered by the Board of Trustees that could impact site plan review by the Planning Board; the first has to do with cutting live trees with a trunk diameter six inches or greater on vacant land in anticipation of development prior to site plan review; the second has to do with telecommunications towers which were regulated by the Village beginning in 1997, but which were inadvertently not included in the revision of Village zoning in 2018; and the third has to do with regulating portable on-demand storage containers (PODs) and dumpsters. • The Board’s next meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 24, 2021 at 7:00 pm, either via Zoom or in person at Marcham Hall, to be determined. Item 5 – Adjourn • Meeting adjourned at 8:34 pm.