Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes1 Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board Meeting #104 Monday, June 27, 2022 Marcham Hall – 7:00 pm Minutes Present: Planning Board Members Chair F. Cowett, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, Attorney R. Marcus, Clerk J. Walker, Deputy Clerk A. Jacot, Alternate Member M. Johnston, Mayor L. Woodard R. Varn, Starland Builders Members of the Public Item 1 – Meeting called to order • Chair F. Cowett opened the meeting at 7:04 pm. • Chair F. Cowett stated that Board Members J. Leijonhufvud and M. McMurry are unable to attend the meeting, and Alternate M. Johnston is appointed a full voting member of the Board for this meeting. Item 2 – May 23, 2022 Minutes • The Board reviewed the minutes of the May 23, 2022 meeting. Motion: R. Segelken Second: M. Johnston RESOLUTION No. 356 APPROVING MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2022 RESOLVED, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of the May 23, 2022 meeting are hereby approved. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, M. Johnston, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed – None Item 3 – Public Comment No members of the public wished to speak. 2 Item 4 – Site Plan Review – 211 North Sunset Drive • Chair F. Cowett stated that the Board will continue site plan review for this project, a single family residence on a previously vacant lot which was created by a subdivision approved by the Board in September 2018; the Board conducted preliminary site plan review at its May 23rd meeting and scheduled a public hearing at this meeting. • The public hearing commenced at 7:06 pm. • No members of the public wished to speak. Motion: E. Quaroni Second: R. Segelken RESOLUTION No. 357 TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING RESOLVED, that the public hearing regarding the site plan review for the proposed residence at 211 North Sunset Drive be closed. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, M. Johnston, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed – None • The public hearing closed at 7:07 pm. • Chair F. Cowett stated that, since the May 23rd meeting, the applicant has installed corner stakes indicating the residence footprint and marked with red paint trees to be removed; the location of the driveway where it intersects North Sunset Drive has also been marked on the street pavement. • R. Varn confirmed the above. • Chair F. Cowett stated that a TG Miller survey prepared in support of the 2018 subdivision which created this lot showed a private sanitary sewer lateral bisecting the lot for which there is a private easement agreement; the survey also identified two possible building locations, one to the south of the sewer lateral and one to the north, each of which could be connected to North Sunset Drive via curving driveways with slopes less than 10%; § 305-123.D.1 of the Village’s Zoning Law states, that for all subdivisions, “The maximum grade for any new driveway shall be 10%, except in cases that the Planning Board determines that, because of physical constraints affecting a particular lot, an increase in driveway grade should be permitted, provided the increase is the minimum increase required and the driveway grade does not exceed 15%;” between the two building locations identified in the subdivision review, the applicant has chosen the location in the northern portion of the lot which, based on the TG Miller survey, is the steeper of the two portions; this choice, coupled with the applicant’s preference for a straight driveway rather than a curving one, has resulted in a proposed driveway with a slope exceeding 10% and approaching if not 3 exceeding 15%; the site plan provided by the applicant states that the average driveway slope is 14%, but the topography in the site plan suggests a driveway slope exceeding 15%; the proposed driveway's grade cannot exceed 15% without a variance from the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals. • Chair F. Cowett further stated that a site plan showing the driveway length and its beginning and ending elevations is needed by the Board to confirm the driveway’s slope and the applicant has failed to provide such a plan despite repeated requests. • R. Varn replied that he does not know the precise elevations of the driveway’s beginning and end, but that S. Gibson, professional engineer, a consultant on the project, has stated that the average driveway slope is 14%; he has also been told by S. Gibson that the FFE of the garage will need to be two feet lower than the FFE of the residence to reduce the driveway slope to less than 15%. • Chair F. Cowett stated that the FFEs of the garage and residence are not shown on the site plan and can only be estimated from topo lines shown in the plan; he asked Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross if S. Gibson informed him that the FFE of the garage will need to be two feet lower than the residence. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that he has not been so informed, but that lowering the FFE of the garage by two feet would likely achieve a driveway slope of less than 15%; hard numbers are still needed to confirm this can be achieved. • Chair F. Cowett asked Attorney R. Marcus whether, in the absence of clear evidence that the average driveway slope is 15% or less, the Board could include as a condition of site plan approval a requirement that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant provide the Village’s Code Enforcement Officer a cross-section view or a profile of the driveway overlaid on the existing grades, showing the driveway length and its beginning and ending elevations, sufficient to establish that the average driveway slope is equal to or less than 15 percent. • Attorney R. Marcus replied that the Board could include such a requirement as a condition of site plan approval. • Chair F. Cowett asked Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross if he would be comfortable enforcing such a condition. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that he would. • R. Varn stated that another possibility for reducing the driveway slope would be to “flip” the house; the highest part of the house containing the garage would be moved from the northern side of the residence to its southern side where the topography is less steep, and the long side of the house would be moved to the northern side; he has not yet discussed this with the property owner, but will do so. • E. Quaroni stated that moving the garage to the residence’s southern side had also occurred to her as a way to reduce the driveway slope. • Chair F. Cowett asked Attorney R. Marcus whether flipping the house and moving the garage to the residence’s southern side would be a substantial enough change in the site plan to require the submittal of a new site plan to the Board for consideration. 4 • Attorney R. Marcus replied that the residence’s envelope would essentially remain the same if the house was flipped and the garage moved to the residence’s southern side, and the residence’s aesthetics would not be materially changed by such a move; therefore, it would not require the submittal of a new site plan to the Board for consideration, but would require the approval of the Code Enforcement Officer prior to the issuance of a building permit. • Chair F. Cowett asked the Board members if they were prepared to move forward with site plan review by requiring as a condition of site approval that the driveway slope be 15% or less and with the possibility that the house might be flipped and the garage moved to the residence’s southern side. • Board members replied that they were prepared to move forward. • Chair F. Cowett stated that the applicant has provided the Board with a stormwater management plan developed by S. Gibson; because the disturbed area for this project is less than the 1 acre threshold for full SWPPP compliance, the applicant has been asked to reduce runoff from the disturbed area to the maximum extent practicable; the applicant’s site plan demonstrates that runoff from the disturbed areas is captured and managed by means of an elongated retention basin and discharged through a controlled outlet which has been designed for a 10-year precipitation event; post- construction peak runoff will be less than pre-construction peak runoff for 1 and 10 year storms, but will be greater than pre-construction peak runoff for 100 year storms; if the basin outlet was sized for 100 year storms, it would allow more discharge during a 10 year storm; Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross believes this is a good tradeoff since 10 year storms occur more frequently than 100 year storms and the outlet as currently designed will regulate discharge from a 100 year storm at the 10 year rate until storage volume is exceeded, at which point the overflow will flow out from an emergency weir and into the roadside ditchline; water quality will be improved for 1 and 10 year storms due to the basin’s vegetated bio-swale underdrain that provides filtration before runoff is discharged; the applicant has provided a detail showing the underdrain installed below multiple strata of various materials facilitating filtration. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross confirmed the above. • E. Quaroni stated that a straight driveway to a garage on the southern side of the residence would bisect the proposed retention basin in the stormwater management plan. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that such a change in the location of the garage and driveway would require revising the proposed stormwater management plan; changes made could still provide the same mitigation of stormwater runoff as does the current plan; for example, the retention basin could be made more circular than elongated if needed. • Chair F. Cowett asked Attorney R. Marcus whether the Board could include as a condition of site plan approval a requirement that change to the project’s stormwater 5 management plan would require the approval of the Code Enforcement Officer before a building permit could be issued. • Attorney R. Marcus replied that the Board could include such a requirement as a condition of site plan approval. • Chair F. Cowett asked the Board members if they were prepared to move forward with site plan review if such a requirement was included as a condition of site plan approval. • Board members replied that they were prepared to move forward. • Chair F. Cowett asked Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross if he still has concerns about the site plan showing the back of the residence at an elevation of 651 and the front of the residence at an elevation of 643. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated his concerns are that the site plan shows contour lines passing through the residence rather than warping around it to explain how the site will be graded; prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant will need to provide a site plan showing contour lines that reflect site grading. • M. Johnston asked whether a grading plan separate from the site plan should be submitted by the applicant. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that there is no need for a separate grading plan to be submitted; he would be comfortable with a revised site plan incorporating the revised contour lines. • E. Quaroni stated that she does not fully understand how the residence will interact with the existing topography. • R. Varn replied that the site can be excavated sufficiently to facilitate residence construction. • E. Quaroni stated that elevations from all sides of a building are typically provided to the Board so the Board can understand its features in relation to site topography, but such elevations have not been provided by the applicant to the Board. • Chair F. Cowett stated there was a question at the May 23rd meeting as to whether the project would connect to the private sanitary sewer lateral bisecting the lot, which would mean less work for Village DPW, or connect to the Village sewer main on North Sunset Drive; has the applicant contacted the users of the lateral? • R. Varn replied that he has not yet contacted the lateral users. • Chair F. Cowett asked Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross to confirm that, if the project does not connect to the lateral, a connection can still be made to the Village sewer main on North Sunset Drive. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross confirmed that a connection to the Village sewer main can still be made. • Chair F. Cowett stated that there was a question at the May 23rd meeting as to whether the residence would employ a geothermal heat pump or more conventional forced air heating and cooling; has the applicant made a decision? • R. Varn replied that a decision has not yet been made. 6 • Chair F. Cowett asked about the applicant’s plans for landscaping the site. • R. Varn replied that landscaping is not typically part of his contract with a property owner and he leaves it to the property owner to make their own landscaping plans. • Chair F. Cowett stated that the Board wants to know about landscaping at the site; the Board is likely to require as a condition of site plan approval that, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a finalized landscape plan containing the species and genera of new plantings, and the number and location of such plantings, will be submitted to the Planning Board for its approval. • E. Quaroni asked if fewer trees will need to be removed if the garage is moved to the residence’s southern side. • R. Varn replied that the same number of trees will likely need to be removed if the garage is moved since the residence’s footprint will not change much. • Chair F. Cowett asked if there were any additional questions from the Board. • There were no further questions from Board members. • Chair F. Cowett stated that, because the Board categorized the project as a Type II SEQRA action at its January 24 meeting, the applicant did not need to complete Part 1 of the SEQRA Short Environmental Assessment Form, nor did the Planning Board need to complete Parts 2 and 3 of that form or make a SEQRA finding for the project’s environmental impact; however, the Board will consider environmental factors when making findings for site plan review per § 305-117.B of the Village’s Zoning Law. • 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 211 North Sunset Drive in the Village’s Residence zoning district. The Tompkins County property class code is 311 for residential vacant land. o Nature and intensity of the use: The proposed use is a four bedroom single family residence with a four-car attached garage, one curb cut, and one driveway. The nature and intensity of this use are consistent with the Residence zoning district and with neighborhood character. o Size and topography of the site: The site is 0.87 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. The lot is bisected by a private sanitary sewer lateral which 7 connects via a private easement agreement from a residence at 600 Cayuga Heights Road to a Village sewer main on North Sunset Drive. The residence will be located on the lot’s northern portion and will avoid any disturbance of this sewer lateral. 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 curb cut and one driveway. 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 four-car attached garage and driveway provide at least two off-street parking spaces. Therefore, parking provisions are compliant with the Village’s Zoning Law. o Relationship of improvements and lot size to the parking area: Improvements include a residence, four-car attached garage, and driveway. The parking area is located north of the residence and consists of the garage and a driveway apron which provides space for a vehicle turn-around and two exterior parking spaces if needed. o Traffic and noise generated by the proposed use: The proposed use is a single family residence in the Village’s Residence zoning district. The site is currently a vacant lot and improvement with a one-family dwelling will generate some increase in vehicular traffic, but this increase is likely to be slight. Similarly, the proposed use will generate some increase in noise, but this increase is likely to be slight. o Landscaping: Approximately thirty trees will be removed. These include trees adjacent to North Sunset Drive to permit construction of the residence, garage, and driveway. Trees will be preserved along the lot’s northern boundary line to create a vegetative buffer with the neighboring property. o Architectural features: The residence will be modern in style with Hardie panel vertical siding, stone columns, and casement windows with transoms. The roof material will be architectural shingles. 8 o Location and dimension of the improvements: The residence is located approximately 50 feet east of the western property line and 20 feet south of the northern property line. Lot coverage is approximately 9% and the driveway has an estimated average slope of 14%. The lot was previously approved by the Planning Board in an August 2018 subdivision review, and building height, yard setbacks, and lot coverage are compliant with the Village’s Zoning Law. o Impact of the proposed use on adjacent land uses: The project is a single family residence. Adjacent land uses are single family residences. Therefore, the proposed use is consistent with adjacent land uses and its impact on adjacent land uses is expected to be slight. o Impact of the proposed use on the environment: The site is currently a vacant, wooded, undeveloped lot. The proposed use will remove approximately thirty trees and introduce impervious surfaces to an unimproved site with the potential to increase stormwater runoff. Proposed stormwater practices, including a retention basin southwest of the residence, will reduce stormwater runoff to less than pre-construction volumes for most precipitation events. Calculations provided establish that post-construction peak runoff will be less than pre-construction peak runoff for 1 and 10 year precipitation events, but will be greater than pre-construction peak runoff for 100 year precipitation events. Runoff water quality will be improved for 1 and 10 year storms due to the retention basin’s vegetated bio-swale underdrain that provides filtration before runoff is discharged. 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. Its utilization of these facilities will not substantially impact them. The proposed use will introduce impervious surfaces to a previously unimproved site and proposed stormwater practices will mitigate stormwater runoff for most precipitation events. 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: The project has made no provisions for reducing energy use or incorporating renewable energy systems into project design. 9 o Effect on population density, if any: The site is currently a vacant lot and will be improved with a single family residence with one dwelling unit. 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. Motion: M. Johnston Second: E. Quaroni RESOLUTION No. 358 TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 211 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 site plan for the proposed project at 211 North Sunset Drive is hereby approved with the following conditions: (1) Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit: (a) The applicant shall provide to the Village’s Code Enforcement Officer a cross-section view or a profile of the driveway overlaid on the existing grades, showing the driveway length and its starting and ending elevations, sufficient to establish that the average driveway slope is equal to or less than 15 percent; and (b) Material changes to the proposed stormwater management plan shall require approval by the Village’s Code Enforcement Officer. (2) The applicant shall provide the Village a copy of an agreement signed by the applicant and the users of the private sanitary sewer lateral bisecting the lot that permits the waste water line from the house to connect to this lateral. (3) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a finalized landscape plan containing the species and genera of new plantings, and the number and location of such plantings, shall be submitted to the Planning Board for its approval. 10 Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, M. Johnston, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken Opposed – None Item 5 – New Business • The Board’s next meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 25, 2022 at 7:00 pm. Item 6 – Adjourn • Meeting adjourned at 8:08 pm.