Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes1 Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board Meeting #99 Monday, February 28, 2022 Via Zoom – 7:00 pm Draft Minutes Present: Planning Board Members Chair F. Cowett, A. Monroe, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, Attorney R. Marcus, Deputy Clerk P. Rich, Trustee M. McMurry, Alternate Member M. Johnston J. Gorsky, Sciarabba Walker L. Butts, TWMLA E. Anderson, Holt Architects F. Santelli, T.G. Miller Members of the Public Item 1 – Meeting called to order • Chair F. Cowett opened the meeting at 7:10 pm. • Chair F. Cowett stated that Board Member J. Leijonhufvud is unable to attend the meeting, and Alternate M. Johnston is appointed a full voting member of the Board for this meeting. Item 2 – January 24, 2022 Minutes • The Board reviewed the minutes of the January 24, 2022 meeting. Motion: A. Monroe Second: M. Johnston RESOLUTION No. 335 APPROVING MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2022 RESOLVED, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of the January 24, 2022 meeting are hereby approved. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, M. Johnston, A. Monroe, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed – None 2 Item 3 – Public Comment No members of the public wished to speak. Item 4 – Site Plan Review – 408 East Upland Road • Chair F. Cowett stated further that, since the January 24 meeting, the applicant has submitted a revised SEQRA short Form Part 1, a revised planting plan, and an exterior lighting plan; the applicant has also committed to signing a Stormwater Management Agreement with the Village which affirms the applicant’s responsibility to maintain all stormwater management practices associated with the project and gives the Village the right to perform such maintenance if the applicant fails to do so; in addition, the applicant realized after the January 24 meeting that a variance for lot coverage would be needed because the roof overhang length of the proposed new building is greater than three feet and therefore requires the full roof area to be included in the lot coverage calculation which the prior submission did not; with the overhang included, the building footprint is 6,477 square feet and the revised lot coverage is 26.5% which exceeds the 25% lot coverage permitted in the Commercial zoning district by the Village’s Zoning Law; the applicant will accordingly seek a variance for lot coverage from the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals in addition to variances for front, side, and rear yard setbacks; finally, documents pertaining to these changes were posted to the Planning Board’s webpage well in advance of this meeting and have been freely available to the public. • The public hearing for both site plan review and the review of the special use permit application for the project at 408 East Upland Road commenced at 7:15 pm. • I. Lambiase, 406 East Upland Road, stated that she has met with the project’s design team and appreciates being consulted by them; she is pleased that the proposed building is one story which is in keeping with the character of the residential properties to the south and west; she also likes the driveway location on the north side of the site and also the plantings and green space associated with the project; she noted for the record that, contrary to the minutes from the Board’s January 24 meeting, her kitchen and dining room as well as her garage are adjacent to the 408 East Upland Road property line and is therefore concerned about light and privacy; she is also concerned about the tall trees proposed for the vegetative buffer between her residence and the proposed office building. 3 • Chair F. Cowett asked I. Lambiase if she has seen the project’s revised planting plan in which the tall trees have been removed from the vegetative buffer adjacent to her property. • I. Lambiase stated that she had not seen the revised planting plan; she is pleased overall with the project plans and the developers who she believes want to be good neighbors; she likes the building’s design and thinks the new building will be a good replacement for the existing building; she also values the project’s incorporation of green design and sustainability. • J. Barr, 3 Triphammer Lane, stated that her backyard abuts onto the project property; she is happy that the new building will be only one story and believes it will be an improvement on the existing building; she is concerned about the project’s impact on drainage as the drainage on her property has been worsened since the construction of the medical office building in the Corners Community Shopping Center. • I. Lambiase stated that drainage at her property has also worsened since the medical office building’s construction and is concerned about the stormwater associated with this project. • M. Johnston asked if any emails or letters have been received by the Village pertaining to the 408 East Upland Road project. • Chair F. Cowett and Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that they have not received any emails or letters pertaining to the project. Motion: R. Segelken Second: A. Monroe RESOLUTION No. 336 TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING RESOLVED, that the public hearing regarding the site plan review and the special use permit application for the proposed project at 408 East Upland Road be closed. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, M. Johnston, A. Monroe, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed – None • The public hearing closed at 7:25 pm. • Chair F. Cowett asked Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross to respond to concerns expressed about the stormwater associated with this project. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that this is the first time he has heard from any Village residents about drainage issues possibly associated with the construction of the medical office building and would like I. Lambiase and J. Barr to contact him to discuss; with regard to this project, the site currently has no stormwater management; this project takes stormwater management into account and deals with stormwater to the maximum extent practicable; the rain garden detains 100% of runoff from the 4 building and a hydrodynamic separator treats stormwater from the parking area; these practices are a significant improvement over the current situation; the project will not create any additional stormwater problems and in fact could improve existing issues. • Chair F. Cowett stated that calculations provided by the applicant establish that post- construction stormwater runoff from the project will be less than pre-construction runoff from 1 year to 100 year storm events. • E. Quaroni stated concern about site topography and the ability of the rain garden to receive stormwater from the building’s roof. • F. Santelli, T.G. Miller, stated that topography was somewhat challenging with regard to the rain garden in that the site slopes from the street towards the back of the building; the rain garden basin will be 2 ½ feet below the building floor; roof runoff will be collected via downspouts on the roof’s south side and then piped underground for discharge into the rain garden; this piping will be close to the surface and there is a ½ foot fall from the pipe input into the basin; these dimensions are tight, but should be adequate to convey stormwater from the roof to the rain garden. • M. Johnston asked about the dimensions of the proposed setbacks on the property’s west and south sides. • L. Butts, TWMLA, replied that rear yard setback on the west side will be 13 feet and the side yard setback on the soth side will be 10 feet. • M. Johnston asked whether a second rain garden on the building’s southeast corner is needed to handle any potential overflow associated with the rain garden and mitigate any stormwater from the roof impacting the property at 406 East Upland Road. • L. Butts replied that the property slopes from south to north and so an additional rain garden is not needed. • M. Johnston asked about the proposed vegetative buffer and revisions to the project’s planting plan. • L. Butts replied that list of plants is the same, but their distribution has changed; for example, tall growing trees are no longer proposed for the building’s south side, in part to avoid shading the roof’s photovoltaic cells; shrubs on the property’s west side will supplement the trees existing on the neighboring property and reinforce what’s already there. • E. Quaroni asked about the change in lot coverage due to the roof overhang and whether this impacts the metric for the building’s floor area. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that the building’s footprint in terms of floor area has not changed. • A. Monroe asked about stormwater drainage on the property’s northwest corner and where the stormwater goes. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that stormwater goes into an existing, well-established waterway that flows west between 1013 and 1017 Triphammer Road before being piped under Triphammer Road. 5 • Chair F. Cowett asked if this waterway is adequate to handle stormwater discharge from the project site. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that this waterway has proven to be adequate in the past and runoff from the project site will in fact be attenuated from current levels due to the project’s stormwater management practices. • M. Johnston asked if the rain garden will require maintenance over time. • L. Butts replied that maintenance will be required for the rain garden and will likely consist primarily of replacing mulch every couple of years. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that the stormwater management agreement with the Village which the applicant has agreed to sign requires the applicant to provide adequate maintenance for stormwater management practices associated with the project including the rain garden. • The Board discussed the project in relation to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and reviewed the applicant’s responses to the questions in Part 1 of the SEQRA short form. 6 7 8 9 • Chair F. Cowett stated that, in addition to Renwick Brook and Pleasant Grove Brook which have been identified by the applicant in Question 13a, there is a small wetland identified by Tompkins County across from 400 East Upland Road extending eastward from the east side of the street which this project does not impact. • The Board accepted the applicant’s responses to the questions in Part 1 of the SEQRA short form. • The Board reviewed Parts 2 and 3 of the SEQRA short form. 10 otion: M. Johnston Second: E. Quaroni RESOLUTION No. 337 TO DETERMINE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN AN ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board has determined that the proposed project at 408 East Upland Road will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, M. Johnston, A. Monroe, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed – None • Chair F. Cowett stated for the record that this finding for SEQRA shall apply to both site plan review and the review of the special use permit application. • 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 § 305-128.C of the Village’s Zoning Law, “Factors to be considered by the Planning Board in reviewing special use permit applications.” • Chair F. Cowett stated that this project requires both site plan review and the review of a special use permit application; § 305-117.B of the Village’s Zoning Law states sixteen factors to be considered by the Planning Board in conducting site plan review, and § 305-128.C of the Village’s Zoning Law states nine factors to be considered by the Planning Board in reviewing a special use permit application; the nine factors stated in § 305-128.C are identical to nine of the sixteen factors stated in § 305-117.B; the Planning Board will consider concurrently the factors contained in § 305-117.B and § 305-128.C and state for the record when this occurs. • The Board made the following findings for § 305-117.B and § 305-128.C of the Village’s Zoning Law: o Location and site of the use: [SPR + SUP] The site is located at 408 East Upland Road in the Village’s Commercial zoning district. The Tompkins County property class code is 465 for professional building. o Nature and intensity of the use: [SPR + SUP] The proposed use is a new single story 5,500 square foot building containing professional offices with one curb cut, one driveway, and parking consolidated on its northern side. o Size and topography of the site: [SPR] 11 The site is 0.56 acres. The land is relatively flat and slopes towards the lot’s northwestern corner. o Location of the site in respect to roadaccess: [SPR + SUP] The site is adjacent to East Upland Road on its eastern property line. Access to East Upland Road will be provided by one driveway and one curb cut on the building’s northern side. o Provisions for parking: [SPR + SUP] § 305-90.F.4.a of the Village’s Zoning Law requires that, for an office building, one off-street parking space shall be provided for every 200 square feet of gross leasable office space. The proposed office building consists of 5,023 square feet of gross leasable office space. The site plan provides 25 off-street parking spaces, including one handicapped space, and is therefore compliant with the Village’s Zoning Law. o Relationship of improvements and lot size to the parking area: [SPR] Improvements include a one story 5,500 square foot building containing professional offices on a 0.56 acre lot. The building’s parking area containing 25 off-street parking spaces is located on its northern side and is consolidated with its one curb cut and driveway. o Traffic and noise generated by the proposed use: [SPR + SUP] The proposed use is a new 5,500 square foot building containing professional offices in the Village’s Commercial zoning district. It replaces a 3,700 square foot building also containing professional offices. The increase in size between the old and new buildings may generate an increase in employee numbers and increased vehicular traffic, but the traffic increase should not be significant per NYS DEC SEQRA guidelines and will be offset in part by the relocation of 8 to 10 Sciarabba Walker employees from the adjacent building at 410 East Upland Road. By consolidating the building’s curb cut, driveway, and parking on its northern side, and by providing vegetative buffers with residences to the west and south, any noise generated by the proposed use will be attenuated and likely to be slight. o Landscaping: [SPR] Trees and shrubs will be planted on the southern and western lot boundary lines to provide a vegetative buffer with residences in the adjacent lots to the south and west. A rain garden to the building’s east will reduce stormwater runoff from its roof and other impervious surfaces. 12 o Architectural features: [SPR] The proposed new building is a simple rectangular building with a single standing seam metal roof which slopes from north to south to accommodate photovoltaic panels. Building materials include linear wood panel siding along half of the building’s east and west façade, storefront windows open to the north and wrapping along the east and west façades, and a precast concrete or stone base which anchors to the ground the storefront windows and north-facing building entrance. o Location and dimension of the improvements: [SPR] The new building is located 10 feet from the side yard property line to the south, 13 feet from the rear yard property line to the west, and 30 feet from the front yard property line to the east. These front, side, and rear yard setbacks are not compliant with the requirements contained in § 305-38 of the Village’s Zoning Law and the project requires area variances for setbacks from the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals. In addition, because the building’s roof overhang length is greater than three feet, lot coverage is 26.5% which exceeds the 25% lot coverage permitted in § 305-39 of the Village’s Zoning Law and the project requires an area variance for lot coverage from the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals. o Impact of the proposed use on adjacent land uses: [SPR + SUP] The project is a new professional building replacing an existing professional building. Adjacent land uses to the south and west are single family residences and land uses to the north and east are commercial and include professional offices. The proposed use is consistent with the adjacent commercial land uses and its impact on these uses is likely to be slight. The transition to the residential land uses to the south and west will be moderated by vegetative buffers, the building’s single story, and consolidation of the building’s curb cut, driveway, and parking on its north side. Therefore, the impact of the proposed use on the adjacent residential land uses is expected to be slight. o Impact of the proposed use on the environment: [SPR + SUP] The new building increases the amount of impervious surface on the site, but calculations provided establish that post-construction peak stormwater flows for 1 year to 100 year storm events will be less than pre-development stormwater flows due to stormwater practices, such as the rain garden located east of the building. In addition, the building will be net zero with respect to CO2 emissions. The Planning Board categorized the project as an Unlisted Action for SEQRA, conducted a SEQRA review, made a negative declaration of adverse environmental impact, and found compliance with SEQRA. 13 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: [SPR + SUP] The new building will connect to public potable water and public wastewater treatment facilities, but its utilization of these facilities will not substantially impact them. Stormwater practices will mitigate the impact of stormwater runoff on Village stormwater management and the proposed use will not significantly impact other Village services. o Provisions made for reducing energy use or incorporating renewable energy systems into project design: [SPR] The new building will be net zero with respect to CO2 emissions. Its sloped roof is designed to accommodate photovoltaic panels and maximize interior daylighting. Additional energy reduction features include heating and cooling interior space with either air source heat pumps or geothermal ground source heat pumps, providing domestic hot water with either a hybrid heat pump water heater or an electric resistance tanked water heater, maxing out roof insulation at R40 and increasing wall insulation beyond code minimum, LED lighting, and an electrical vehicle charging station. The pole lights along the north side of the parking lot will be equipped with light dimmers and a motion sensor; lights will run at 50% output until the motion sensor sees activity, resulting in low light levels when nobody is around. o Effect on population density, if any: [SPR] The site is currently occupied by a 3,700 square foot building containing professional offices. This building will be replaced by a 5,500 square foot building containing professional offices. The number of employees at the site and in the Community Corners area will increase, but the increase will be offset in part by the relocation of 8 to 10 Sciarabba Walker employees from the adjacent building at 410 East Upland Road. Therefore, population density in the area will increase, but this increase will be slight and will not conflict with existing 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: [SPR + SUP] Goal EC1 of the Village’s current Comprehensive Plan advocates that the Village maintain and enhance the economic vitality of the Village and in particular its retail and commercial center in the Community Corners area. This project is consistent with that goal and with the health, safety, and welfare of Village residents. 14 • A. Monroe asked about maintenance of the hydrodynamic separator. • L. Butts replied that maintenance of the hydrodynamic separator is incorporated in the Stormwater Management Agreement which the applicant will enter into with the Village and that F. Santelli will provide the Village with additional details concerning its maintenance. • M. Johnson asked if renewable energy features convey with the property or could be removed by a new property owner. • Attorney R. Marcus stated that renewable energy features could be removed by a new property owner. • Chair F. Cowett asked if the Planning Board has the authority to include as a condition of approval that renewable energy features could not be removed by a new property owner. • Attorney R. Marcus stated that the Planning Board does have such authority. • E. Quaroni stated that it might not be wise to dictate to future property owners that renewable energy features could not be removed. • M. Johnson agreed with E. Quaroni and noted that technology does change. • R. Segelken stated that building signage is important for vehicular wayfinding and asked about signage for the new building. • J. Gorsky, Sciarabba Walker, replied that building signage will likely be similar to the signage for 410 East Upland Road and will clearly state the building address, but no substantive discussions have yet occurred about building signage. • The Board discussed the area variances required by the project and whether or not to recommend to the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals that the variances be granted. • E. Quaroni stated that the concerns she expressed at the January 24 Board meeting about the proximity of the building to the southern property line have been allayed and she therefore recommends that the Village’s Board of Appeals grant the area variances for front, side, and rear yard setback variances. • R. Segelken stated that the lot coverage variance is required due to a design feature in a building which the neighbors have described as attractive and an improvement to the neighborhood; the increase in the roof overhang from three to five feet is relatively minor and he therefore recommends that the Village’s Board of Appeals grant the area variance for lot coverage. • M. Johnston stated agreement with R. Segelken. • A. Monroe asked if the roof overhang will extend over the sidewalks outside the building. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that it will. • A. Monroe stated his support for the lot coverage variance. 15 Motion: A. Monroe Second: R. Seghelken RESOLUTION No. 338 TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CAYUGA HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTAREAS VARIANCE FOR FRONT, SIDE, ANDREAR YARD SETBACKS AND FOR LOT COVERAGE AREA FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 408 EAST UPLAND ROAD RESOLVED, that, based upon the findings made by the Planning Board in consideration of § 305-117.B and § 305-128.C of the Village’s Zoning Law, the Planning Board recommends that the Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals grant area variances for front, side, and rear yard setbacks and for lot coverage for the proposed project at 408 East Upland Road. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, M. Johnston, A. Monroe, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed – None • The Board discussed whether to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the site plan of the proposed project. Motion: R. Segelken Second: E. Quaroni RESOLUTION No. 339 TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 408 EAST UPLAND ROAD RESOLVED, that, based upon the findings made by the Planning Board in consideration of § 305-117.B of the Village’s Zoning Law, the site plan for the proposed project at 408 East Upland Road is hereby approved with the following conditions: (1) Site plan approval is conditioned upon the granting of any variance required for this project by the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals, and the satisfaction of any condition associated with the granting of a variance by the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals; (2) The applicant shall sign a Stormwater Management Agreement with the Village stating that it is the applicant’s responsibility to maintain all stormwater management practices and that the Village has the right to perform such maintenance if the applicant fails to do so; (3) The applicant is responsible for providing adequate maintenance for the hydrodynamic separator, which shall occur at least twice in its first year of operation and thereafter at least once annually, and the applicant shall keep a log notating the occurrence and description of 16 any maintenance and also provide annually a maintenance inspection report to the Village’s Stormwater Management Officer; and (4) All exterior light fixtures must be full cutoff and Dark Sky compliant according to the specifications of the International Dark Sky Association (IDA) including lamps with a CCT rating of 3000K or lower. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, M. Johnston, A. Monroe, R. Segelken Opposed – None • The Board discussed whether to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application for a special use permit by the proposed project. Motion: A. Monroe Second: M. Johnston RESOLUTION No. 340 TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 408 EAST UPLAND ROAD RESOLVED, that, based upon the findings made by the Planning Board in consideration of § 305-128.C of the Village’s Zoning Law, the special permit for the proposed project at 408 East Upland Road is hereby approved with the following conditions: (1) Site plan approval is conditioned upon the granting of any variance required for this project by the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals, and the satisfaction of any condition associated with the granting of a variance by the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals; (2) The applicant shall sign a Stormwater Management Agreement with the Village stating that it is the applicant’s responsibility to maintain all stormwater management practices and that the Village has the right to perform such maintenance if the applicant fails to do so; (3) The applicant is responsible for providing adequate maintenance for the hydrodynamic separator, which shall occur at least twice in its first year of operation and thereafter at least once annually, and the applicant shall keep a log notating the occurrence and description of any maintenance and also provide annually a maintenance inspection report to the Village’s Stormwater Management Officer; and (4) All exterior light fixtures must be full cutoff and Dark Sky compliant according to the specifications of the International Dark Sky Association (IDA) including lamps with a CCT rating of 3000K or lower. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, M. Johnston, A. Monroe, R. Segelken Opposed – None 17 • Chair F. Cowett thanked the applicant and the project design team for their work on the project and, in particular, their consultation with the neighbors and the iterative communication process stemming back to developer conferences with the Village. Item 5 – New Business • Chair F. Cowett stated that, at the Planning Board’s January 24 meeting, the Board accepted for site plan review the project at 893 Highland Road and scheduled a public hearing for its February 28 meeting; continuation of site plan review for the project including the public hearing has been postponed pending the submission of additional documentation, including a grading plan showing stormwater management practices and a planting plan; the public hearing will need to be rescheduled by the Board for its March 28 meeting. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that there has been a change in professional support associated with this project since the Board’s January 24 meeting; T.G. Miller is now associated with the project, but was unable to fully prepare documentation in time for the Board’s February 28 meeting; he is confident that documentation will be provided for the March 28 meeting and with sufficient lead time to accommodate an iterative communication process between the applicant and the Village. Motion: R. Segelken Second: A. Monroe RESOLUTION No. 341 TO RESCHEDULE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 893 HIGHLAND ROAD RESOLVED, that the public hearing regarding site plan review for the proposed project at 893 Highland Road be rescheduled for Monday, March 28, 2022 at 7:05 pm. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, M. Johnston, A. Monroe, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed – None • Board’s next meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 28, 2022 at 7:00 pm. • Attorney R. Marcus stated he will be unable to attend the Board’s March 28 meeting. Item 6 – Adjourn • Meeting adjourned at 8:43 pm.