Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-03 - PB TOWN OF ULYSSES PLANNING BOARD 01 /03/06 Approved 01/31/06 Present: Chairperson David Means, Planning Board Members : Margot Chiuten, Rose Hilbert, Rod Porter and John Wertis, Code Enforcement Officer Alex Rachun. Excused : Darien Simon. Applicants : Joseph Hucko, Matthew Moore and Bruce Poushter representing Washington Street Partners A quorum is present at the meeting; the meeting was called to order at 7 : 31 pm by Mr. Means. Minutes : Mr. Tyler submitted revisions to the minutes of 12/ 13/05 via fax to Ms Carlisle Peck. Members reviewed the revisions and Ms Carlisle Peck received APPROVED votes from : Ms . Chiuten, Mr. Tyler, Mr. Means and Mr. Wertis . MINUTES APPROVED 12/27/05 . Ms Hilbert and Mr. Porter ABSTAINED from the vote. WASHINGTON STREET PARTNERS Mr. Means addressed the applicants and asked if they had any additional comments on the information they recently submitted for the proposal . Mr. Hucko offered they had reviewed the roster of open items and believes they have complied with the request for full application and respectfully requests it be deemed a complete application to move forward. Mr. Wertis stated he does too, he asked for the checklist that had been made at the last meeting. The minutes were reviewed for the items needed . Mr. Means noted the items requested, he stated some of the information has been received in the new information. Mr. Hucko asked what was missing. Ms Chiuten stated that the plan does not indicate spot elevations ; she cannot assess this for ADA because it is so generic . Mr. Hucko asked what function the building permit process has in this . The Board is requesting ADA Compliant drawings-they have a Site Plan here and he has never heard of requiring ADA compliant drawings . Do they need to provide a full set of plans and specifications of the building they propose to build at a Planning Board meeting or is that what they do at the building permit process? Ms Chiuten stated one of the criteria they are asked to review as part of Site Plan Review is compliance in the site, they are not looking at the building. They would be looking for design development documents for the site, the plans they have submitted thus far are pretty schematic . . Mr. Hucko stated absolutely, but they are detailed enough that they would use them for their base template and build upon them . When she references ADA compliance elevations and grades, does she want them to show a 6 inch dip in a sidewalk section in front of the doorway. Ms Chiuten indicated this is typically what is shown . In the parking lots you are required to show a 2 percent cross slope, she cannot tell if there is a cross slope on the parking spaces . Planning Board Meeting 2 01 /03 /2006 Mr. Hucko stated he has to be respectful but it appears that this is a never ending line that keeps getting drawn here . They have provided substantial documentation and information. He respectfully request they make a decision and accept this application; if they have additional requirements, post the exception of this application. Approve this contingent upon them submitting these things, they cannot keep coming back here and continue this process . They have provided a substantial amount of detailed information to this Board and it seems like it is never ending. Ms Chiuten replied that she feels like they have asked for the same information since day one, the requests are reflected in the minutes, she has been looking at the same plans since day one. Mr. Hucko stated they accommodated the request for proposed elevation plan and existing elevation plan that is what is detailed. If they do not like the plan that is one thing however accept the application as a full application and then tell them where they are deficient . That is what was requested and that is what the meeting minutes state-now they are asking for ADA compliant sidewalks-where does this end? How does she know the doorways are ADA compliant? Ms . Chiuten stated that the sidewalks are reviewed by the Planning Board; the doorways are part of the architecture and fall within the building permit process . She noted the rest of the Board may deem it complete ; however she did not know if she would vote for it- but she will if the majority does. They could move forward and request the additional information after the fact. Likewise the correspondence regarding the DEC cover letter states it is compliant with DEC, the engineer states it is compliant with DOT which is different than DEC . Mr. Hucko stated they are asking they accept this as a complete application. Take it to Public Hearing where they are deficient then show us and approve or decline it here tonight. They have provided the documentation requested, if the documentation does not fit then decline the project after they have had the opportunity to accept it as a full application. But where does this line end-they have given the documentation, they have followed the requirements . If the application once it is submitted is not acceptable they will deal with that but they want to get to Public Hearing. Mr. Means asked if other members had other comments . Mr. Wertis asked Mr. Rachun if in his eyes is it a complete application. Mr. Rachun stated that this is the Planning Board ' s decision. But if he were , reviewing it he would consider it a complete application. It is not complete as to what the Planning Board has requested but it is a complete application for Public Hearing purposes . He does not consider it complete for Site Plan Review in terms of compliance . He does feel that Ms . Chiuten has made reasonable requests. Mr. Means noted that it is an involved process, certainly the applicants have addressed the Board ' s concerns regarding stormwater, lighting, downsizing the project to fit the site. There are a lot of details regarding water and septic and the applicants have made an honest effort by the monetary deposit given so the Town ' s Consultant can review the project. Mr. Porter stated that they could move the process forward, however most likely they would continue to find more information is needed. Ms Hilbert clarified once the application is deemed complete ; the Public Hearing has to be set within a certain time frame . If the information requested is not received. by the applicant can the Board refuse to accept the application. Mr. Rachun stated that because the application is deemed complete; it does not mean the information to approve Site Plan is necessarily complete. Planning Board Meeting 3 01 /03/2006 Mr. Porter indicated that Site Plan can be declined because of non receipt of information requested. Mr. Rachun noted that the requests made are typical of Site Plan Review. Mr. Hucko noted that all towns are different, this Board chooses to do it this way- however they are asking it be accepted and then critique it. They have been coming here awhile and granted they have made substantial changes and have delayed the process . He thinks they have made positive changes and hopefully it is positive-but they are at a point in time they need to paint or get off the ladder. They also got caught in between two sets of rules . This was their delay and understand now they have to do the subdivision. They will do whatever is reasonable, or unreasonable to facilitate this . Mr. Wertis asked about the status of the subdivision and the Site Plan-it was his recollection that the process would be in tandem. Mr. Hucko replied they have the application, they have the survey, and they have authorization from the seller to serve as agent. Mr. Poushter noted that the building is about 4 feet over the allowed amount for the property to be subdivided. The building encroachment would create a non-conforming lot. Mr. Poushter distributed copies of the letter from Guy Krogh, Attorney for Mr. Auble, authorizing Washington St . Partners to act as his agent . The letter was sent via email with signed hardcopy to follow. Ms Chiuten noted that one of the criteria they are required to review is accessibility for pedestrians and they are showing handicapped parking spaces . A requirement is to provide adequate even low sloping gradients from the parking space to the driveway. She understands that this is not required until Site Plan Review however this material is not sufficient to do a Site Plan Review. It may be adequate to go to Public Hearing. Ms Hilbert noted that the public would not understand the information requested. They are more concerned with signs, lights, views, entrances etc . Mr. Rachun noted that they would probably not want the drainage plans. Ms Hilbert asked if colored drawings of how the building and signs would look had been submitted. She noted the 11 x 17 drawings in the submitted documents had what she was looking for and would be available at the Public Hearing. Mr. Wertis MOVED, seconded by Mr. Porter the following : WHEREAS the Town of Ulysses Planning Board has reviewed the application for Trumansburg Commons, submitted by Joe Hucko-Washington Street Partners, Inc . WHEREAS , the application consisting of three spiral bound books originating in December 2005 , a packet of 11x17 drawings and a letter of intent constitutes a complete application for the purpose of holding a Public Hearing. VOTE TAKEN Ms Chiuten Opposed Ms Hilbert Recused Mr. Means Aye Mr. Porter Aye Mr. Wertis Aye MOTION DEFEATED Mr. Hucko asked Ms Hilbert why she was recusing herself from the vote. Planning Board Meeting 4 01 /03 /2006 Ms Hilbert replied she is a Trustee on the Village Board ; she has legislative powers within the Village . This project had come before the Village Board and she does not want any conflict to come from her position. She started this Planning position prior to her appointment on the Village Board and has found many conflicts thus will recuse herself from all votes for this project. She will also be stepping down from the Planning Board due to the conflicts effective immediately. Mr. Means asked where they would progress from here . Mr. Rachun advised they could ask Ms Chiuten what she needs to feel comfortable voting for this project. Ms Chiuten stated the condition that further information is to be received would make her more comfortable. Mr. Wertis stated they could make this a condition of a new motion. Ms Hilbert noted that the information could be required to be presented prior to the Public Hearing; if the information is not received the Public Hearing would be cancelled. Mr. Rachun noted there may be other information needed there is some overlap of responsibilities . When he issues a building permit he evaluates ADA requirements for building code issues, gradients on the ramps, sidewalks and doors must be within the requirements . It is his personal opinion that this is a shortfall of the Site Plan. Mr. Wertis asked Mr. Rachun if he has the authority to review and deny the permit if this information is not received. Mr. Rachun affirmed he would be required to deny the permit. Mr. Means asked Ms Chiuten what she would be most comfortable with — receiving the information prior to the Public Hearing or after. Mr. Chiuten noted she would prefer to get the project moving-she would like to see a detailed grading plan. She would also like clarification of the compliance with DEC . Mr. Moore presented an email forwarded to him via Roger Creighton at Synapse Risk Management from Ellen Hahn (NYS DEC) it stated "The above project is not located within the regulated MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) area in the Town of Ulysses, therefore municipal review of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is not required . However, we do recommend that local municipalities conduct review of SWPPS for potential impact to infrastructure, and community and natural resources . Ms Chiuten stated she is not concerned with. receiving the information prior to the meeting she wants confirmation it would be received. Mr. Hucko offered they could have the information submitted within two weeks . They realize they are at the mercy of the board but will track down all the information needed . They would like to request the Public Hearing be held sooner rather than later; they will contact the engineers first thing in the morning to get started on the plans needed. Discussion between the Board and Mr. Hucko resolved what the additional information requested should be, a set of working drawings would be necessary to complete the Site Plan and should provide the information needed. As further review continues additional information may be needed. Mr. Hucko affirmed this and stated he should be able to provide this within a rapid time frame . Discussion of notification needed to public hearing notices was held. A review of the calendar indicated the most appropriate time for hearing. Planning Board Meeting 5 01 /03/2006 Procedural time frame was discussed for holding the hearing and receipt of requested information. Planning members and Mr. Hucko both understood the time frame and consequences if the information is not received to approve the Site Plan. Mr. Porter MOVED, seconded by Mr. Wertis the following : WHEREAS the Town of Ulysses Planning Board has reviewed the application for Trumansburg Commons, submitted by Joe Hucko-Washington Street Partners, Inc . WHEREAS, the application consisting of three spiral bound books originating in December 2005 , a packet of 11x17 drawings and a letter of intent constitutes a complete application for the purpose of holding a Public Hearing. WHEREAS if further information as requested is not provided the Public Hearing will remain open until Site Plans typical of construction documents are received . BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Ulysses Planning Board schedule a Public Hearing for Thursday, January 19th, 2006 at 7 : 30 PM to be held in the Town Hall, 10 Elm Street, Trumansburg, NY to hear public comments on the application for Site Nan Review of Trumansburg Commons, Washington Street Partners, Inc . Mr. Means called the vote: Ms. Chiuten Aye Ms . Hilbert Recused Mr. Means Aye Mr. Porter Aye Mr. Wertis Aye Adopted Mr. Rachun informed Mr. Hucko he should forward copies of the information requested from the Board to the consultants hired by the Town. Mr. Rachun will send a correspondence informing the Consultant the material should be reviewed in addition to items already received. Mr. Hucko asked what the process for subdivision is in relation to Site Plan Review. Mr. Rachun indicated that the Site Plan is their copyright material . If the Site Plan passes then the subdivision is not approved he is in a hole . The application for a subdivision comes before the Planning Board for review. It has to be legal it cannot be a non- conforming lot. Once that is done it is more a procedural item. The application comes into Mr. Rachun' s office with the plan-including all items on the property. As noted previously unless the encroaching building is within the 15 feet property line he will deny and it will not come before the Planning Board. This could be done via a legal letter or physically having the encroaching building removed. Mr. Hucko asked if the subdivision could be approved contingent upon this being complied with. Mr. Rachun noted it would have to be a legal document, Mr. Hucko ' s Attorney would be better able to address this . He stated this would have to be dealt with prior to any final approval being given-this is an issue that will not be dealt with 6 months down the line. Mr. Rachun announced that the Town Board has some positions to be reviewed. The plan is to obtain additional positions that can help the Planning Board; some of this would be procedural help but assistance for him as well . This decision is to be made on the 5th, he has put the items in and cannot speak for the Town Board but hopes they will be approved. Discussion of the subdivision procedure was held . Items discussed were the necessity of having the Planning Board review the subdivision vs . having Mr. Rachun review. This has created a large influx of work for the Planning Board and they are not sure if it is Planning Board Meeting 6 01 /03 /2006 necessary. If the decision is not discretionary then it should be administrative-if they meet the requirements there is no decision to be made. Ms Hilbert addressed the members and informed them she would be stepping down from her position as a Planning Board member due to multiple conflicts . She offered personal advice to the members and suggestions on how to educate themselves on the components of Planning Board procedures . Mr. Rachun offered that these applicants appear honest ; it is his opinion that it is a small percentage thus the applicant ' s do not want the cost of working documents until it is absolutely necessary. Ms Chiuten noted that she is concerned she is asking for too much . Mr. Rachun stated that due to the size of this project initially came in out of scale to the community; what Ms . Chiuten has asked for is not arbitrary and the reason is the impact. Ms Chiuten stated she is not being arbitrary and they should provide this information. Mr. Wertis asked who makes this decision or as a Board do they make this decision. The code does not say construction documents. Mr. Rachun noted that he would put himself on the other side and he would feel it is a hardship to come up with working drawings on a small scale project with the potential it could be denied. It needs to be put in perspective; the criteria should be the scope of the project and the impact on the community. Mr. Wertis stated he is looking for a criteria to use to make a measurement early on to make it clear to the presenter they will expect more detail . Ms Chiuten stated they should legally have the list of review criteria; i . e. location and adequacy of pedestrian/bicycle facilities, and appropriate facilities for people with disabilities . That would imply a grading plan, paving services-what type of surfaces, the first three times they never submitted this information. Mr. Wertis noted they met his level of thresholds. Ms Chiuten indicated that other municipalities have a Planner that would review these items prior to the Planning Board reviewing them . Mr. Means and Mr. Porter noted that it is beneficial to have Ms Chiuten ' s expertise on the Planning Board and they appreciate her assistance. They are all different people and see different things . Mr. Rachun noted that what is happening in DEC is discouraging; they have pretty much washed their hands of many projects . DESTINY USA has been classified as a restructuring on the property and they are walking away from it. They have come out with almost draconian measures . Mr. Wertis noted that they are stating municipalities should make the laws at the local level . Ms . Hilbert stated that they are limited on what the Planning Board can address as they are told it would be dealt with by the DEC . She has had this happen-they cannot even ask these questions . Mr. Rachun stated that it is difficult because we do not have a Town Engineer or a Town Planner-thus they are very dependent on the consultant and having the developer reimburse for these services . Mr. Means submitted a letter stating due to personal limitations he found he would be unable to serve as the Chairperson. He addressed the letter to the Town Board as well as Planning Board Meeting 7 01 /03/2006 copies to the Planning Board. A discussion regarding possible candidates for the Chairperson was held with no decision made. Mr. Porter made the MOTION, SECONDED by Ms Hilbert to ADJOURN Meeting adjourned at 9 : 15 pm. Respectfully submitted, Robin Carlisle Peck Secretary 02/01 /06