Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-03h 4e Town of Dryden Planning Board Minutes Thursdav M=h 1 S'h 2004; ?PM to 9:20PM Planning Board Members Present* Barbara Caldwe ]1 (Chair), David Weinstein, Joseph Laquatra IT -, LiSa Stuttle Others Present: George Frantz ({;consultant), DF bbie Oross (Environmental Planner), S imQn St, Laurent (Rcsident), Kathleen Mrfsaac (Resident) Minutes ■ Debbie Gross spoke with Pen ni Lisi on the phone- As Pe, nn i cannot make it to today's meeting, Debbie is taking minutes today- Penni says that she has difficulty making it to planning board meetings in the winter w1i1le her husband is working late for the high%►lay &partnlent. However, she w it I make it to future meetings beginning with the April 15 meeling- She understands now that the planning board does not need a word for word transcript, but a summary of actions and key discussion points- She will brim about 5 of the earlier backlog of minutes to the April 15L' meeting; and from then ors, she will have the minutes ready within hyo weeks of each meeting, * Planning Board members stressed the impartanm; of having a goad record short ly after each meeting; and they hope that this will work out in the coming months. Upcoming Training Opportunities f 141eetings ■ Debbie Cross announced an April 36 training opportunity in Corn ing, and a local training opportunity on Stormwater Management, April 151"- Barbara Caldwell, David Weinstein, and Lisa Stuttle expressed interest in the April 151" training, which would run from 4 to 6 Pm. in Cayuga Heights, be fore a Planning Board meeting on the same evening, • It was agreed that the April 29`n' public meeting on the County's Drat Comprehensive Plan should be h6d in a larger spoke, such as the Neptune Fire Station. pebble Gross will take care of finding a location, Joe Laquatra and Lisa Stuttle p]an to attend, and others will attend If they can. blew'Responsibititiies for the Planning Board? • At a previous 'town Board meeting (February 12, 2004), there had been some discussion of whether the Planning Board would be interested in serving the Town with more project review responsibilities, such as Site Plan review and perhaps Special Use Permit revi+ew- ■ Planning Board membk rs wondered whether such review would mean providing assistance to the Town Board, or actually doing the reviews- Debbie Cross said that this clarification would have to come from the Town Board, and that at this point -this is a]1 only discussion, Other questions included haw far in advance materiais could be shared with the Planning Board, how many prole cts come before the Town Board per year, whalt. Site Plan Rj:,view IC i entails, etc. It was agreed that the Nanning Board would have good Insights for such n views, especially with respect to implementing the . new Compmhensive Pian (once it is adopted). The ollawing resolrrdan was moved, seconded, and approved by all 4 members present; I'he Planning Board would welcome the ability to provide comments for Site Plan Review ,and Special Permit Review -" Relationship with the Conservation Board • Pianning Board members received a copy ofthe Local Law which converts the ConservatiOrr Advisory Counnil into a Conservation Beard. Aftcr reading through the text of the ]a , Planning Board members understood that they ran ask the Conservation Board to review prajeecs, at their discretion, and that the Conservation Board will serve as an advisory body - Thty also recognized that the law dues not specify the exact process, and that this will be worked out over time as the Conscr+ration Board begins to re view more projects- David i ein stein made the ful %wing maliol#, iphioh was wcoaded and approved by all 4 members present: "The Planning Board would like to semi the Wood Read and Yellow Barn Road subdivision proposals to the Conservation Board for review." Comprehensive Pian Revisioos; Hamlet Areas • As a basis for this discussion, Planning Board members were considering several documents: a summary cfthe Planning Board's February 10 discussion prepared by David Weinstein, a summary of public comments on the draft comprehensive plan prepared by Debbie Cross, an e -maii from Martha Robertson (Resident), and a suggested revised Hamlet section of the plan prepared by David Weinstein, * The discussion addresscd the following issues: o What would be Cite process for hrtrrging denser residential development to some phrcer w0hiu the hamlet areas•, Without dromalivally increasing density in all areas? It- %vas agreed that the best approach would be to require a developer to seek a zoning change in order to develop a particular parcel at a greater density. This requires the developer to demonstrate that the project will be good for thu community. The process could be streamlined by the use of floating zones for "multiple residence districts ". L Perhaps there would be one floating zone for multi- family developments in hamiet areas; and a diffimnt one for multimflanij1v developments in suburban' residential areas. o How to produce a heterogenious mix ofderreitie,s in the Ho let areas? George Frantz suggested that the floating zone far higher density residential developmcat could include a requirernent for a wrtain distance between multiple residence districts in order to space them out throughout the community o How iu encourage a balance between renters and owner occupanry? In the Sapsucker aiea they have tried selling 4 p] exes to one owner, who would then rent out 3 of tlsem- This has been a "disaster" because there has been little interest from buyers and students are renting the units and packing more people than intended into each unit. One good measure is a requirement that a maximum of three unrelated persons can live in any dwelling unit. Barbara Caldwell says this requirement is currently in place in Dryden. o Is it a good idea to set an overall density far the hamlet areas? George Frantz suggested that community associations and the Town could informally monitor density within hamlet areas to see whether proposed projects would fit in or not. However, David Weinstein points out that any one project will have a small impact on overall density (a drop in the bucket), so at this point it is hard to assess whether new projects fit the character of the neighborhood or not based on overall density. o Looking at the numbers: Simon St. Uurent has made maps of the hamlet areas, using the yellow boundaries in the current draft comprehensive plan. The Varna hamlet contains about 150 acres. There are currently about 368 households and 679 residents. You can see Simon's data here: http //s iinonsti.com /drvde»/archivc s/00041 I .htm l httpa /sinionsti.coni/d ryden/arch ives /000413.htnil These numbers are interesting and may help to inform future discussions. o What kind ofdensity would you need to support a convenience store? Barbara Caldwell asked the question, and George Frantz said he recently read an article about this. A rule of thumb is that you need to have the store on a road with 101000 to 12,000 vehicles per day, or with 2,500 people living within a half mile radius (or some halfivay combination of the two). 366 through Varna currently gets about 8,000 cars per day. (It would be interesting to take a closer look at these numbers and arias using Simon 's maps). You also have to ask whether residents would prefer higher density,'or living without a convenience store. o What sizing requirements for multifamily housing in hamlet areas would be reasonable? There was general agreement on a 2 story maximum, and discussion of limit to 20 units per development... or limiting developments to 2 acres, with a limit on the number of dwelling units per acre. o Is there any benefrt to keeping density low and then allowing a density bonus as incentive ,for certain desirable elements (ciflordability, design, etc.)? George Frantz identified two concerns with density bonuses. The first is that land values are relatively low, so a density bonus is not a strong incentive. Secondly, it is challenging to monitor that the requirements are fullfilled. You would have to monitor rents charged, and this would be a time drain on the town, o Meat is the best way to ensure availability ofaffordable housing (both rental and owner occupied)? Joe L,aquatra has seen evidence that community based public- private partnerships work best. For example, communities could partner with Better Housing to make applications to HUD. Funds are out there. David Weinstein made the following motion, which was seconded by Joe l ayuatra and approved by all 4 members present: "To add a section on Housing (a general policy to address affordability) to the plan at the beginning of Chapter 5 (after the introduction)." [ Here is what I wrote down for suggested wording from Joe: "Research has shown across the country that the most successful approach to affordable housing is development at the community level through public / private partnerships. This plan encourages partnerships both fbr the rehabilitation of older houses and for the development of new small scale multi- unit housing with an emphasis on owner occupation." .j David Weinstein made the following motion, which was seconded by Lisa Muttle, and approved by all 4 members present: "To replace the Hamlet Areas section of the Draft Plan (in Chapter 5) with David Weinstein's amended text (as of 1/22), once modified by George Frantz and David Weinstein to include George's suggestion for the best mechanism to control density (option 3 from David Weinstein's e-mail dated February 20th) and to include a section on floating zones for multi - family housing with a minimum distance between floating zones." ( Here is some draft text I had copied while George Frantz was speaking: "Mu ttifamily units should be limited in size and scattered throughout the community. The maximum size should be limited to 20 units, and specifics will be defined in new zoning w a floating zone... (or 2 floating zones — one for hamlet areas and one for suburban residential areas). • Simon St. Laurent asked about the other Hamlet areas shown in yellow on the draft Future Land Use map, which arc in McLean near the municipal border and north of the Village of Dryden. George Frantz noted that McLean is already well developed as a hamlet area, and that the Town of Dryden has less influence; in this area. The area north of Dryden Village is also currently densely developed. It was agreed*to keep it yellow as a hamlet area so that if there is any redevelopment it will remain dense. Someone asked whether mobile home parks can be redeveloped and the response was that yes, they can, and this is often a concern since the homeowners do not own the land. • George Frantz is investigating the idea of involving a Connell City and Regional Planning Class in conducting inmdcpth community planning and design exercises for the hamlets of Varna and Etna. The CRP department is considering this suggestion, but would need some financial commitment from the Town to offset the cost of the course. The amount would be roughly $10,000 to $15,000. Potential benefits to the town include creating a favorable environment for new development which would, increase the tar base without placing undue stress on natural resources or town services. Plus, involving current residents in the planning process would help to enhance their quality of life, maintain their commitment to living in the town, and provide for smoother future decision- making. G Industry/Office/Research Area Near Etna • George Frantz brought in a revised map for the formerly suggested Industry/Office /Research area near Etna. The revisions expand a conservation area near the Etna preserve, suggest suburban residential_ status for part of the area that is already developed with residences, and suggest a small extension of the route 13 overlay area into the south east corner which already has some commercial development. If necessary there could also be a small extension of industry/office /research area from the existing blue area near NYSEG. See George's map for more details (a large copy is at the Town Hall). There was discussion of whether some of the area identified as suburban residential should be conservation land in order to ensure a wooded buffer between Etna and Route 13, George Frantz suggested keeping it as suburban residential but encouraging conservation subdivisions if development goes in there. Water and Sewer • It was suggested to add a sentence on P.71 (in the section on Water and Sewer Service) to clarify that the plan does not advocate immediate extension of water and sewer unless increased development warrants it. In other words, there is no intention to expand water and sewer first in the hopes that development will follow, but only in order to meet a need if it comes to pass... if there are water quality / quantity issues or failing septic concerns. Agriculture • George Frantz will be meeting on April 28'h with (sorry, Barbara and George, 1 didn't get the details, can you fill in ?). • George recently met with staff from the NY Dept of Agriculture and Markets for a review of the new zoning in Town of Ulysses. Ag and Markets now has the power to review local zoning and if it creates a problem for agriculture (based on several criteria), the commissioner can write a letter indicating that aspects of the zoning will not apply in agricultural districts (did I get that right ?). • Ag and Markets wrote a 6 page letter of comments on the Ulysses zoning and in the end it passed their review. The main concerns were: language on junkyards, which had to be changed to exclude "materials generated and used in the course of farm operation" and the ability to operate farm stands, which only required some clarification (the state would not want to see legitimate agricultural enterprises allowed only by special permit in an agricultural district). George reported that all 25 people left the meeting satisfied. • Planning Board members remembered public comments on Dryden's Draft Comprehensive Plan saying that the current draft does not include enough language in support of currently active farmers. • Ag and Markets is challenging the Town of Ithaca's new zoning. George started talking about this just as the meeting was ending and the discussion was not finished. i Industry/Office/Research Area North of Dryden Village • Regarding the blue square of industry /office/research area showm on the future land use map north of the village of Dryden, the owner of the Book Barn of the Finger Lakes, Vladimir ( ?) suggests that it should be moved to the south away from Mott Road because there are wetlands directly south of Mott Road. The group discussed making the boundary between the industrial area and the suburban residential area along the stream corridor there so that the stream would serve as a buffer between the two uses. Residential development could use a cluster subdivision to avoid the wetland area. (To facilitiate further discussion, 1 have attached a map. The map shows the blue industrial area north of the village overlaid with tax parcels; streams, and wetlands. The wetland shown in this area (green cross hatching) is a federal wetland from the National Wetlands Inventory. These boundaries are approximate and would need delineation, As you can see, this wetland is actually more in the western portion of the blue area, while the several stream tributaries are in the northern portion.] Industry /Office /Research Area North of Dryden Village Joe Laquatra suggested keeping the Town Board posted about the Planning Board's progress on comprehensive plan revisions. The neat Planning Board meeting will be April 15'" at 7PM. The topics for discussion regarding comprehensive plan revisions will be Agriculture and Transportation (time permitting). Respectfully submitted by Debbie Gross, April 1, 2004 Town of Dryden Environmental Planner,