Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05-24PB 5-24-18 Page 1 of 6 Planning Board May 24, 2018 Present: Marty Moseley, Craig Anderson, Jim Skaley, John Kiefer, Marty Hatch, David Weinstein Absent: Tom Hatfield, Joe Wilson Town Staff: Ray Burger, Planning Director Bambi Avery, Town Clerk Liaisons: Dan Lamb (Town Board) Chair M Moseley called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. J Skaley, alternate, was given voting privileges. Approval of Minutes – J Kiefer noted that he was quoted in the minutes as saying that Cornell was putting in 1,000 beds for freshmen. He had been told that by the Director of Campus Life Facilities, but it turns out that is not the case. They are putting in a bunch of beds, but the intent is to offer housing to all undergraduate students who wish to live in the dorms. He just wanted to clarify that. Approval of minutes was moved by J Kiefer, seconded by D Weinstein. Aye: Kiefer, Hatch, Weinstein, Skaley No: none Abstain: Moseley, Anderson Public Comment – Hilary Lambert said she has learned there may be discussion about a proposed construction yard on Hanshaw Road just north of the Eight Square Brick School House. R Burger said there is no application yet, but the Planning Department has been told they will be applying. When received, the matter will come to the Planning Board for site plan review. H Lambert said her land extends to the proposed location. She is concerned about water and woods protection there and her well water. It is jarring to have light industry right next to residential property like that. She wants to see what this unfolds as and make sure it is done as carefully as possible. She also has concerns with noise and light. There are already a lot of noises from that area. Consideration of Proposed Zoning Amendment from the Ag Committee and Possible Recommendation to the Town Board – C Anderson said the Ag Land Protection Plan developed by the Ag Committee was adopted by the Town Board. Part of the recommendations for that was to bring the town’s zoning into compliance with Ag and Markets Law. He referred to the Ag Committee’s memo of May 10, 2018, to the Planning Board (attached). He would like to get a recommendation from the Planning Board to the Town Board to get these amendments into the Zoning Law. D Weinstein generally agrees and said that when the zoning was reconstructed about six years ago there were concerns about activities in rural areas of the town that would involve agricultural enterprises, particularly such things as horticultural sales that could generate a lot of traffic. This amendment essentially says there is no problem in worrying about these things because site plan review would take PB 5-24-18 Page 2 of 6 care of any proposal like that. Our site plan law does not give authority to evaluate things like general traffic in a certain vicinity. C Anderson stated State Ag & Markets will allow an expedited site plan review (in-house). It’s not a long, drawn-out process. There was discussion on what kind of approval Ag and Markets will allow the town to do and whether in fact Ag & Markets law provides that farmers can do whatever type of business they want to do and the town has to change its zoning to match that. It doesn’t matter what zone it is in if it’s an ag-related business; agriculture is allowed in every district. Comments: Can an agri-tourism facility pop up that wasn’t directly related to an adjacent farm? Farm worker housing must be on the enterprise itself. There could be more specificity in the two items above. The town attorney and Ray Burger should take a closer look at these definitions. The board could tweak a site plan review for a farm enterprise; there are guidelines in Ag & Markets law to allow that, but it probably wouldn’t come in front of the Planning Board. There is no power of community to evaluate anything that is proposed. It could generate huge amounts of traffic. This supersedes whatever we have in our Comp Plan. There are sound agricultural practice review procedures under Ag and Markets Law and there is a procedure for investigating and adjudicating those. Information about this would be useful before taking action. This is an opportunity to have more specificity in our law and not leave such gray areas; ag related enterprise and be a pretty all-encompassing. We need good solid definitions throughout the zoning law. What other parts of our law would be impacted if this is adopted? When our zoning law was being considered for adoption, the Ag Committee sent it to Ag & Markets for their review and a lot of these suggestions come from Ag & Markets response to their review. The Ag Committee is looking for consistency with Ag & Markets law. R Burger will check the definitions and do word searches to see what else may be affected. He can refine this and bring it back to the Planning Board. D Weinstein and M Hatch will follow up with Bob Somers of Ag & Markets and come back with recommendations. Consideration of Varna Options for Development and Possible Moratorium - D Weinstein presented information (attached) on development in the Varna Hamlet district. There appears to be a mismatch on the goals of the Varna Plan and the allowable density in our zoning. The Varna Plan (2012) had a goal of the addition of approximately 450 bedrooms to the then 650 bedrooms over the next 20 or 30 years. We are well on the way to achieving that goal. The town has approved 231 bedrooms (converting units to bedrooms) if we include the 83 bedrooms at 1061 Dryden Road which is in the hamlet, but not in one of the three hamlet zones. If you calculate what is allowable in the zoning, upwards of 2900 bedrooms could potentially be built (if the entire hamlet were converted to townhouses). Zoning has also failed to encourage owner-occupied single family houses over apartments. The plan recommended a ratio of 1.1 apartments to every single family house and they are PB 5-24-18 Page 3 of 6 being added (depending on how you look at Tiny Timbers 7 to 1 or 13 to 1. Depending on discussions with the town engineer, there was capacity for 250 connections into the sewage treatment plant before any of these units were approved. It appears that there are 157 connections left. If the town approves 157 units now, from the town line to NYSEG there could be no more connections. There is no indication that the Ithaca sewage treatment plant is interested or able to add capacity. The problem is that the density of zoning that was put in the plan is allowing development at a much larger rate than was the goal in the plan. It makes sense to rethink this zoning density and re-do it completely. D Weinstein suggested there could be a moratorium on any further development in the hamlet of Varna while the matter is studied. Another alternative would be to re-establish the zoning densities to allow for an additional 400 to 600 bedrooms to be added, setting limits and creating an average density of about 4 units per acre. That would be four times what it was in the previous plan and four times what the rural residential area allows. It would allow a measured growth in Varna that would wind up producing over the next 10 to 20 years the number of bedrooms that was identified by the Varna plan as a goal that essentially doubled the size of Varna. He said most residents in Varna didn’t like the idea of doubling at the time, but because everyone recognized there is importance to having greater density in Varna they were willing to accept it. But not a ten-fold increase in Varna as our current zoning will allow. Comments: The cap for the sewer capacity is 63,000 gallons per day; that will be hit at 157 units. That is a self-imposed threshold, but more capacity can be negotiated. The entire sewer district will pay for the additional capacity. The Trinitas project could use all the available capacity. There should be a closer mix of single family and multi-unit under the Varna plan. Residents would like to see some commercial development at the corner of Mt Pleasant, an area where people can congregate. There is a need to revisit goals and objectives of the Varna plan. What is the vision in terms of making Varna a sustainable community? If it becomes like Collegetown East that raises other possible concerns. Approving things on an incremental basis makes it difficult to see the endpoint. It seems that what is happening in the hamlet is not what was anticipated and it appears it will continue. The only single family homes added have been at Tiny Timbers. It looks like mistakes were made and limits that needed to be in place weren’t there. Comparing it to zones in the Town of Ithaca, it may have been obvious that this would happen. The sewer limitations can be solved by the people who want to do the development. The data demonstrates that things aren’t rolling out the way they were anticipated. Allowing these larger density developments may prohibit businesses promoting small home ownership business from being able to purchase property. Greater density generates more traffic. The commuting traffic through Varna increases steadily. Housing is needed for the people who work at Cornell or downtown and commute from Cortland or other areas. Cornell owns about 40 acres near the proposed Trinitas project that could be a nice housing development; that hamlet needs that kind of development to function. There is other development going up that will accommodate Cornell students and employees. Because of that we could say that we want to stand by the Varna plan; it’s more appropriate. PB 5-24-18 Page 4 of 6 The mobile home park sits on a large parcel; what will happen there? Before we plop odd developments in places that are incongruous we should think about the totality of the picture. Martha Robertson has stated that even before the proposed developments on campus and East Hill Village, the apartment market is already getting soft. We don’t want to end up with large apartment complexes that are half-full and then not maintained by the owners. We don’t want to send a message to developers that we are interested in this dense development. Trinitas was asked about doing mixed use housing and they did not give a satisfactory answer; they focus on college towns and student housing. The Trinitas project does not integrate into the community; this is no place to over-step the plan. That project includes facilities (club house, swimming pool) for its residents and doesn’t integrate into the community. D Weinstein presented a proposed resolution requesting a 6 month moratorium and/or recommending resetting the densities according to the table he distributed. Both require town board action. This could mean rezoning and eliminating certain uses from some areas. There are several options that need to be looked at in a comprehensive way and we need time to do that. The proposed resolution was moved by D Weinstein, seconded by M Hatch and reviewed and revised by the board. Points during discussion and revision: The resolution contains a broader scope than just development in the hamlet not proceeding according to the Varna Plan. Does the Comprehensive Plan also need to be reviewed, since it can be assumed that it and the Varna Plan were compatible when adopted? Large developments haven’t helped bring Varna back to a community that works together. If things are happening that cause the Varna plan to come off the rails, something needs to be done fairly quickly. The scope should be limited. Cost of the work and who will do it? Planning Board will do analysis; no consultant needed. A lot of resources were available to us when the Varna Plan was created. J Skaley will work with D Weinstein as a committee. Restricting growth in Varna will cause developers to look at other parts of the town. The only way that can be done now is through a PUD. The resolution should ask for a product including putting zoning in place that would cause development to occur in the housing type ratios contained in the table. A moratorium can be extended. The Comprehensive Plan may also need to be amended. Zoning is based on the Comp Plan. R Burger will attend the subcommittee meetings when possible. The Town Board can negotiate with developers. This proposed moratorium appears to be in reaction to a current proposal. The Town Board could ask developers for more owner-occupied units. Zoning by law should reflect what is in the Comprehensive Plan, not the other way around. The bulk density table was a problem in the original zoning and advisory group from Varna did not have input into that final component. Can the zoning be re-examined without the moratorium? PB 5-24-18 Page 5 of 6 It is important for the Planning Board to make known what they want. Resolution #10 - Recommending that the Dryden Town Board Establish a 6-month Moratorium on Development in the Hamlet of Varna D Weinstein offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: Whereas there is increasing pressure by developers to propose large projects for the purposes of increasing rental opportunities, and Whereas most of the pressure is concentrated in areas of the town that have sewer and water, and Whereas there is a need to examine the current zoning law to insure its compatibility with the goals and objectives of the Town Comprehensive Plan and the Varna Community Development Plan, Be it resolved that the Dryden Planning Board requests that the Town Board establish a 6-month moratorium on new applications for development in the Hamlet of Varna in order to give the Planning Board adequate time to examine and make specific recommendations to the Town Board for zoning changes that would shift the ratio of single family houses to apartments being constructed in the Hamlet to approach the goals that are articulated in the Varna Community Plan, and Be it further resolved that these recommendations will be constructed by a subcommittee of the Planning Board, presented to the Planning Board for their approval, and submitted to the Town Board in time for action by that board prior to the end date of the moratorium. 2nd M Hatch Aye: Weinstein, Hatch, Skaley, Kiefer, Moseley Noes: Anderson C Anderson said this does send a harsh message. He does agree with asking the Town Board for a charge to look at the density question. The Town Board can negotiate with developers. Tompkins County 239 Review “Ask the Right Questions” document – These are energy-related questions when reviewing projects. It is to comply with greenhouse gas emission items associated with development purposes. This is something the county has put together as an amendment to their 239 review process. The town should be aware of it when looking at projects. The town has no right to ask; the county will. The Planning Department will make developers aware of this. The town should get a baseline assessment for greenhouse gas emissions here in town. The town could endorse this by recognizing the 239 review recommendations and not using a super- majority to override a recommendation. The Town’s laws could be amended to incentivize this. The Planning Board could formally endorse this thinking. These are guidelines not a law; the town could develop energy guidelines. Town Board charge for Planning Board Review of the Comp Plan – In 2013 a few energy sections were drafted, but the Planning Board wanted the Zoning Law to be in force for a few more years, see its effects, and then revisit the Comp Plan. The time has come and the Town Board is charging the Planning Board to evaluate the plan, recommend sections for revision and give a strategic plan on how to PB 5-24-18 Page 6 of 6 accomplish it. If it becomes a large effort, then money can be budget for 2019 for assistance with a full re-write if necessary. Planning Board members will look at the Comp Plan and bring ideas for areas to be amended next month. The Town Board would need this information in August for budget consideration. Planning Department Update – Trinitas has submitted an application for development of the Lucente property on Mt Pleasant Road. The 42 townhouses at 802 Dryden Road are getting closer to design and construction. They have reworked some of the profiles, downsized the units (35 sq ft per unit per floor) and redone the finishes on the outside. R Burger provided profiles to board members and said it looks a lot more friendly. They are trying to start construction this year. J Skaley reported that DOT informational sessions regarding resurfacing Route 366 will begin in the summer. R Burger said they may be looking to re-scope the project because they may need more money. They may just concentrate in the hamlet area. Adjoining municipalities have submitted documents for review and comment. Lansing has a comp plan amendment and Cortlandville is doing a solar energy law. R Burger will share those with board members if they are interested. C Anderson asked R Burger to look at Ag & Markets law and their site plan review process. Their process might satisfy D Weinstein’s concerns. R Burger noted Ag and Markets want to avoid unreasonable delays. Shirley Lyon reported that DOT had traffic counters on the roads for three days. D Weinstein said he understands changing the zoning on the parcels in question would not prevent Wawak from doing what the residents are worried about (building three cottages now and building three more a year later. S Lyon is concerned that the DOT is more concerned about the traffic counts than the visibility. She has written the Rural Water Association and offered her time to send the well data she has so they can update their information. There being no further business, on motion made, seconded and unanimously carried the meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bambi L. Avery Town Clerk The purpose of the build-out analysis to explore possible future development options when all the land is developed under the proposed zoning amendment and the master plan. The build-out analysis and zoning amendment will help the community grow without compromising the integrity of the landscape or the residents’ values. Area Type of Building Dimensions per Building Number of Buildings Total Square Feet Number of Bedrooms per 1,000 sqft Total Number of Bedrooms Forest Home Drive Townhouse 125’ x 40’ = 5,000 sqft x 7 = 35,000 /1,000 x 1.5 = 52 Townhouse 125’ x 40’ = 5,000 sqft x 11 = 55,000 /1,000 x 1.5 = 82 Varna Hollow Mixed-Use 70’ x 40’ = 2,800 sqft x 3 = 8,400 /1,000 x 1.5 = 12. Varna Commons Mixed-Use 70’ x 40’ = 2,800 sqft x 3 = 8,400 /1,000 x 1.5 = 12. Single-Family 30’ x 40’ = 1,200 sqft x 24 = 28,800 /1,000 x 1.5 = 43 Trailside Townhouse 100’ x 40’ = 4,000 sqft x 4 = 16,000 /1,000 x 1.5 = 24 Single-Family 40’ x 30’ = 1,200 sqft x 95 = 114,000 /1,000 x 1.5 = 171 Gateway Plaza Mixed-Use 200’ x 50’ = 10,000 sqft x 1 = 10,000 /1,000 x 1.5 = 15 Mixed-Use 170’ x 50’ = 8,500 sqft x 1 = 8,500 /1,000 x 1.5 = 12 Mixed-Use 50’ x 90’ = 4,500 sqft x 1 = 4,500 /1,000 x 1.5 = 6 Mixed-Use 100’ x 40’ = 4,400 sqft x 1 = 4,400 /1,000 x 1.5 = 6 Townhouse 120’ x 40’ = 4,800 sqft x 1 = 4,800 /1,000 x 1.5 = 7 Townhouse 40’ x 100’ = 8,00 sqft x 1 = 8,000 /1,000 x 1.5 = 12 TOTAL NUMBER OF BEDROOMS = 454 B UILD-OUT ANALYSIS If development in Varna is allowed to proceed according to the current zoning, we will end up with a density that is extremely greater than the Varna Plan envisioned. •The 1.1 to 1 mix of added apartment/townhouse bedrooms to single- familiy-house bedrooms has instead been 13 to 1. Bedrooms in 2012 Additional Bedrooms approved 2013-2018 Goal for additional intended bedrooms % of goal for additional already approved Maximum potential under the present zoning % of intended + current (planned buildout) Single-family houses 96 15 214 7% 2897 935% Apartments, Townhouses, Duplexes 300 190 240 79% 2774 514% Total 396 205 454 45% 2897 341% THE "SUM" IN THE LAST COLUMN IS THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS IF THE ENTIRE HAMLET WAS BUILT WITH THIS ONE DEVELOPMENT TYPE MULTIPLY THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL BUILDOUT, UNITS, BY THE # OF BEDROOMS TO GET THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL BUILDOUT, BEDROOMS, SHOWN BELOW: # Bedrooms per unit Maximum potential buildout, bedrooms Mixed Use Residential Traditional Sum of Mixed, Residential, and Traditional 3 Single Family Home (@ 3 bedrooms per unit)845 1584 468 2897 4 Duplex (Rental) (@ 4 bedrooms per unit)410 845 178 1433 2.5 Townhouse (@ 2.5 bedrooms per unit)896 1320 558 2774 2.5 Condominium (@ 2.5 bedrooms per unit)768 1056 446 2270 2 Rental Apartments (@ 2 bedrooms per unit)717 845 491 2052 2 Senior Housing 717 1056 0 1773 Mixed Use Residential Traditional Acreage 25.6 35.2 22.3 Total potential # units Mixed Use Residential Traditional Single Family Home 11 15 7 Duplex (Rental)4 6 2 Townhouse 14 15 10 Condominium 12 12 8 Rental Apartments 14 12 11 Senior Housing 14 15 Residential over Commercial Multi Family Rental-Detached Units 8 6 4 MULTIPLY THE ZONE ACREAGE BY THE TOTAL POTENTIAL # UNITS TO GET THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL BUILDOUT, UNITS, SHOWN BELOW: Maximum potential buildout, units Mixed Use Residential Traditional Single Family Home 282 528 156 Duplex (Rental)102 211 45 Townhouse 358 528 223 Condominium 307 422 178 Rental Apartments 358 422 245 Senior Housing 358 528 0 Development type Total Varna potential # Bedrooms Current Total potential minus current Single Family Home 2897 111 2786 Duplex (Rental)1433 64 1369 Townhouse 2774 186 2588 Condominium 2270 2270 Rental Apartments 2052 236 1816 Senior Housing 1773 1773 Neighborhood residential Conservation Introduction to Varna zoning issue: 1. The first figure in the file, “Bedrooms in Varna revision 5-18-18” is the full buildout analysis from the Varna Hamlet Plan. This represents the goal of the number of new bedrooms that could be added to “help the community grow without compromising the integrity of the landscape or the residents’ values.” The calculation was done in terms of bedrooms since that is a much better measure of the impact of added population on the pressure on services being required an d on the quality of life. Consequently, the zoning regulations, set in terms of units, are converted to bedrooms using conservative estimates of the average number of bedrooms in each type of unit. a. The plan established 454 bedrooms as the goal for growth in the Hamlet. This would increase the number of bedrooms in the hamlet by approximately 70%, including the manufactured housing park (over 120% without the park). b. Secondly, the plan envisioned adding these bedrooms at a ratio of 1.1 apartments or townhouses to single family homes. 2. In the second figure of “Bedrooms in Varna revision 5-18-18”, in 2012 Varna had about 400 bedrooms, not counting the 258 in the manufactured housing park. a. Since 2012, 205 bedrooms have been approved. This is about 51% of the goal of 454 that was envisioned for the 20 to 30-year lifespan of the Varna Plan (in the first 5 years of that plan). This estimate includes the 83 bedrooms (36 units) approved in the PUD at 1061 Dryden Road, since in my opinion approval of this PUD expanded the area for densification in the Varna vicinity. If this is not included so that only projects within the Hamlet zones are considered, the built or approved fraction of the Plan’s bedroom goal for its lifespan is 33%. b. Almost all of these bedrooms were added as apartment/townhouses instead of single family houses, at a ratio of 7 to 1 (if the Tiny Timber homes are assumed to be 2 bedrooms, 13 to 1 if not, as the assessment office indicates) instead of the 1.1 to 1 ratio envisioned. 3. Finally, in the last 2 columns of the table in the second figure in the file, “Bedrooms in Varna revision 5-18-18”, shown is the result of the calculation of the number of bedrooms that Varna could potentially wind up with at the current maximum allowable density (either townhouses or single-family homes). a. The details of the way this calculation was arrived at is contained in t he third page. b. The conclusion is that under the current zoning Varna would be allowed to grow to over 2900 bedrooms, 341% of the total that was envisioned in the plan (396 plus 454, not counting the manufactured home park). In addition, the zoning is clearly not incentivizing single family houses enough.