Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-10-23Planning Board October 23rd, 2014 Page 1 of 4 Town of Dryden Planning Board October 23, 2014 Members Present: Joe Laquatra (Chair), Marty Hatch, John Kiefer, Heather Maniscalco, and Craig Anderson Staff: Jane Nicholson (Planning Director) and Dave Sprout (CEO) Conservation Board Liaison: Craig Schutt Guests: Jennifer Foster, Bottoms Up, and Bryan Paine, GrassMasters The meeting opened at 7PM. Reading and approval of minutes from September 25, 2014. M. Hatch moved to approve the minutes, J. Kiefer seconded and the minutes were unanimously approved. J. Laquatra abstained. Reviews: Jennifer Foster - Bottoms Up 119 North Street J. Laquatra asked for clarification on a statement in the Planning Department review. As an existing structure, does the applicant have to go to a full site plan review? J. Nicholson said that is up to the Board, they need to decide whether to accept the sketch plan as the final site plan or require the applicant to have a full site plan review. The Board is unable to make a decision this month because the application has to go through County 239 review and the Village Planning Board. J. Kiefer asked what work, other than maintenance, needs to be done. D. Sprout said the parking lot is the major issue; the grass has grown up and it is hard to see the stripes on the pavement. J. Laquatra added a couple comments: Design Guidelines under Access Management and Circulation states “provide clear crossing areas where cars and people must come together.” Should we have designated crossing areas for pedestrians within the parking lot? J. Nicholson said that it doesn’t need one but the Board can require it. Service and Roof screening it states that dumpsters musts be screened. He asked if the dumpster is screened now. It is enclosed in a wooden structure attached to the rear exit of the building. J. Nicholson recommended the Planning Board wait until they have the responses from the Village and County before reviewing SEQR. Ms. Foster said they have GreenScene coming out to do a review and offer an estimate on doing work with the parking lot. J. Nicholson said she hopes the PB will have the responses they need and can make a decision next month. Brian Payne (GrassMasters) 1922 Dryden Road Applicants were required to go to full site plan review in July. J. Laquatra asked what kind of siding will be on the building? The Design Guidelines say that you cannot have metal siding in an instance such as this. Currently the plan shows an off-white, taupe colored steel. The roof will be green. Planning Board October 23rd, 2014 Page 2 of 4 H. Maniscalco asked if they could go with something more earth tone, can we waive the requirement? Mr. Payne is willing to put a muted or earthy tone steel on the walls and he will put board and batten under the porch roof. As per the drawing, he will have a faux stone wall to the chair rail height. J. Kiefer asked about the design guidelines and the requirement for a sidewalk. J. Nicholson stated that there is nothing she can do about it because it is the law. The applicants presented several logical reasons for exempting the sidewalk requirements. J. Nicholson said she will talk with the Town attorney. Another option will be for the applicants to go through a zoning variance. J. Laquatra asked, with the support of the rest of the Board, that J. Nicholson let the attorney know that the Planning Board is willing to exempt this property from the sidewalk requirement. PB Review from the Zoning Ordinance 1. Location, arrangements, size, design, and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting, and signs; See discussion from July 2014. 2. Adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers, and traffic controls; Overflow parking in front of the building was removed based on the design guidelines (page 19/23) which recommends minimal parking along Route 13 and Route 366 frontages. Another issue was the placement of the handicap parking spots. Mr. Payne agreed to use double doors at both of the entrances to provide equal access to the building no matter where customers park. J. Nicholson asked if they were willing to move the building closer to the road thereby keeping the parking to the side and rear of the building. Mr. Payne was willing to consider the idea but to prevent crowding or damage (large trucks delivering goods and customer traffic) the building set back is better. J. Nicholson said they also need to put parking islands between every 10 parking places. She said she will help them with a minimalistic design. H. Maniscalco asked about the gravel parking lot and the amount of dust that will be generated? Mr. Payne said he will have to deal with that issue. He was considering keeping the drive watered down until the fines have worked themselves down. He pointed out that it is in his best interests to keep the dust to a minimum. H. Maniscalco suggested an alternative driveway material that is a honey-comb design which allows water to run off under the driveway. Further discussion determined that gravel was the best, most cost-effective solution. Mr. Payne agreed they will keep the dust down. 3. Location, arrangement, appearance, and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; See above. 4. Adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; See above. 5. Adequacy of storm water and drainage facilities; Planning Board October 23rd, 2014 Page 3 of 4 The Town engineer (TG Miller) is looking at it and the report will be returned in time for next month. 6. Adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The property has a new septic and existing well. The Town Engineer and the Health Department will both be reviewing the facilities. 7. Adequacy, type, and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other landscaping constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant’s and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation; The Board agreed that the applicant has met this requirement. 8. Adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; No fire hydrants are nearby. J. Nicholson suggested that the Planning Board has the option of asking the fire department to review the site to ensure it meets their requirements. H. Maniscalco made the point that the applicants have ensured the driveway can accommodate large trucks. She doesn’t believe there is any reason to involve the fire department and the Board agreed. 9. Adequacy of the site’s ability to support the proposed use given the physical and environmental constraints on the site, or portions of the site; The Board agreed that the applicant has met this requirement. 10. Special attention to the adequacy and impact of Structures, roadways and landscaping in areas susceptible to ponding, flooding and/or erosion; The Board agreed that this issue will be dealt with via Storm Water. 11. Conformance with the Town’s Residential and Commercial Design Guidelines to the maximum extent practicable; Note: Refer to the Rural Highway Corridor Character Area (page 21-24) of the Commercial Design Guidelines. □ Parking and Access Management □ Landscaping □ Site Details The Board determined they have already covered this question. 12. Completeness of the application and detailed site plan in light of the Board’s requirements following the sketch plan conference. The application is complete. J. Kiefer had a couple comments regarding the SEQR. He pointed out a couple of places that the information was incomplete or missing. Other Business: Due to conflicts with holidays, the Planning Board decided to meet on Tuesday the 25th of November and Tuesday the 23rd of December. C. Anderson asked the status of the banking credits question? At this point, J. Nicholson is fairly certain that the Planning Board cannot bank credits from one year to the next. What if a person gets excess training in a particular year? Training receive in excess of four hours in any one year may be carried over into succeeding years. However, the statute does not say a year must be a calendar year. While a calendar year makes sense for town planning and zoning board members, members of county, Planning Board October 23rd, 2014 Page 4 of 4 city and village boards may want to have the “training year” correspond with the municipality’s “official year.” http://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/lut/mandatory_training.html C. Anderson asked about the status of Incodema. Right now they have permits to complete the bathroom, they have painted and done some minor maintenance. The Planning Department is still waiting for the landscaping design. C. Anderson also asked if anyone on the Planning Board has read over the County Comprehensive Plan. He was interested in the thoughts others have had since we are going to be working on Dryden’s soon. J. Nicholson shared information regarding Steve Winkly, NY Rural Water Association. He gave a presentation to the Town Board. He is funded through USDA to conduct water studies around NYS. He has been focused on this area recently and is currently working with Danby and Caroline to create a water resources plan. Dryden is next on his list. He will work with us exclusively to create our own plan. The plan right now is to put together a committee to work with Mr. Winkly. The hope is to get one member from each of the Town’s boards and commissions, a representative that currently works with the Cayuga Lake watershed, a Town Board member and a couple of Town residents. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:02PM. Respectfully Submitted, Erin A. Bieber Deputy Town Clerk