Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-31 - PB TOWN OF ULYSSES PLANNING BOARD 01 /31 /06 Approved with corrections 02/16/06 Present : Chairperson Margot Chiuten, Planning Board Members : David Means, Rod Porter, Darien Simon and John Wertis . Code Enforcement Officer Alex Rachun. Deputy Supervisor Dick Coogan. Applicants : Washington Street Partners-Joe Hucko and Matthew Moore. A quorum is present at the meeting; the meeting was called to order at 7 : 34 pm by Ms Chiuten. Minutes : The minutes of the January 3rd and January 19th meetings were presented . The members noted no changes to be made to the January 3rd Minutes, Ms Chiuten had made corrections to the January 19th Minutes Mr. Means made the MOTION to approve, Mr. Wertis SECONDED . All in favor. MINUTES APPROVED WASHINGTON STREET PARTNERS : Mr. Wertis stated that while reviewing the Zoning Ordinance the Washington St. Partners project is a non-conforming use; this size drugstore would not be allowed in a B1 district. Ms . Chiuten stated that in light of this she would move this item to the top of the agenda. Mr. , Rachun stated that to bring everyone up to speed, Mr. Wertis noted that a B1 district allows a retail store maximum 3 , 000 gross square feet . This is based on the fact but not the reasoning, 3 , 000 square feet is minimal . The avenues he expressed to the applicants are they could go for an area variance ; the BZA meets on the 15th of February. Based on the fact that 3 ,000 square feet are such a minimal number and a drugstore is typically 10, 000- 12 , 000 square feet. This is a more realistic number. It may help if the Planning Board expressed this information to the BZA; if the applicant had something of this sort in hand they would have no problem issuing an area variance . If it was later contested he could not see the Supreme Court looking at this with any problem, they would probably feel 3 ,000 square feet is almost punitive for a store. The dollar store going in now is 10, 000 square feet. He does not have any idea how it got into the Zoning Ordinance-at first glance he thought it stated 30, 000 square feet. Ms Chiuten stated she is wondering two things, if they head down the route for a variance does that set up a bad precedent by approving such a large increase, and do they follow- up with a change in the Zoning Ordinance to substantiate the variance. Mr. Rachun noted that if they did go in that direction, the Planning Board as an advisory board could suggest to the Town Board that 3 ,000 square feet is not necessarily a logical number for a retail store. The stores around here i . e . Shursave and Palmer Pharmacy are all over 10,000 square-these are not big they are nominal and none of them would be allowed in our town. He cannot think of a 3 ,000 square foot store in the town-maybe Rent-a-Flick in the village but it is a very small number. Ms Wertis stated he does not believe it was the Town Board ' s intent but rather oversight in listing the amount at 3 , 000. Mr. Coogan stated he would not be surprised if it came out of the hamlet district. The items were kept small ; it would be like a storefront. Somehow it ended up in the Business district. Mr. Means asked what Mr. Coogan meant by the hamlet . Mr. Coogan explained the hamlet area was designed as hamlet business i . e. Jacksonville and at the crossroads there would be storefront stores . It was decided it was too small to Planning Board Meeting 2 01 /31 /2006 deal with but it was pulled into the business district. The item had been in the draft and final since July 2004 . Mr. Coogan was referring to Mr. Frantz ' s drafts of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Wertis asked how to proceed from here . Mr. Porter noted that the only way to proceed is to have the applicant seek the area variance ; they cannot make a quick change to the zoning ordinance . They can approve on a contingency basis . Mr. Hucko stated it is just another hurdle. They understood they already had to go to the BZA for the parking variance . So , they had planned on attending the next meeting; so presuming the approval is conditional they would be willing to seek variances for both. Ms Chiuten asked if it would be worth talking to Mr. Wilson, how long term outside of this project would this variance establish a precedent. Mr. Porter stated that he served on the Village Board and it always seemed to be an issue and the reality of the situation is they are not . Each case is an individual basis , case by case with circumstances surrounding each item . Ms . Simon noted that if they recommend the variance and follow up with a change in the zoning ordinance, they presumably explain and express what is wrong with the original code in the first place . Mr. Rachun stated he cannot imagine it is not a mistake. There was never any conversation on limiting the size of stores . The rest of the section does not limit any lumber stores, restaurants, marinas etc . Mr. Wertis noted it does not make any difference where it came from, it is an error and it maybe a symptom of the document. His concern is they really need to communicate to the Town Board they need to look closely at this document, develop a problem list and act on this list . Ms Chiuten stated that if the applicant goes for a variance and the Planning Board recommends to the Town Board to adjust the square footage-the Town Board replies that this was the intent and we are keeping it this way, what happens . Mr. Rachun stated if this was the plan, the next applicant that comes in will go down the road. The applicant does not need the Planning Board recommendation to go the BZA; anyone can go for a variance . What they would benefit from is a letter from the Town Board stating that 3 ,000 sq ft is a harsh number for a retail business . They could get the advice from the town attorney, there may be Town Board members who did get this put in-he cannot believe that is true, but will get clarification. Mr. Coogan noted Mr. Wilson will be in at 11 : 00 am and he will consult with him as soon as possible, he cannot remember the 3 ,000 square feet being discussed within the business district, he does recall the hamlet district during discussion. Mr. Means asked if it makes sense for this Board after consulting with Mr. Wilson, to make a recommendation to the BZA. Mr. Porter asked what they would be asking Mr. Wilson . Mr. Rachun stated that they would be asking if the Town Board thinks 3 ,000 square feet is a good idea. Ms Chiuten is concerned that such a large variance from 3 , 000 to 12 ,000 would be setting a precedent. Mr. Porter clarified that they would be asking Mr. Wilson if the Town Board confirms the 3 ,000 square feet-would this variance be setting a precedent . Planning Board Meeting 3 01 /31 /2006 Ms Chiuten stated if the law does not change then the attempt to have smaller businesses may have represented a comprehensive plan . Mr. Wertis stated that Mr. Wilson sat in on almost all the reviews to give legal advice, so he may have some knowledge of what happened . Ms Chiuten stated she is not sure how much the intent matters but rather what the future intent would be . Mr. Hucko stated it is purely speculative on his part but having no restriction on the other types of other retail stores he cannot understand logic for a zoning ordinance . There is no limitation on other items that are higher impact. Mr. Rachun stated that he is sure the BZA would use that in their statement of fact. They would look at the other high impact activities where the skies the limit, they only have to be 70% of the lot-so if you have a 10 acre lot there could be a 7 acre store . Mr. Hucko stated inversely they have restricted based on lot coverage and parking-so that is how they could control it . Mr. Porter noted that the paragraph listing the 3 , 000 square feet and the hours of operation restricted does ring bells related to the hamlet district . Mr. Coogan questioned if the drugstore would be clarified as a retail service vs . a retail store. Mr. Porter stated that they could translate that interpretation, but then how would they interpret the next paragraph . Mr. Wertis asked where they were in the process, how much rush do they have to do . The BZA meeting is scheduled for February 15th and the applicants planned on attending. There is a Town Board on February 14th ; it seems like two different things . Somehow, straightening out problems with the Town Board-what would the plan be. Ms Chiuten stated that the Site Plan could be approved on contingency for both area variances . The Board independently should pursue getting these changes to the Town Board she is not sure if it is a request or formal motion . Mr. Porter noted that is the past it has been done as a verbal request or a written resolution to the Town Board . Discussion resulted in composing the following recommendation to the Town Board . Mr. Means MOVED, Mr. Porter SECONDED the MOTION : The Town of Ulysses Planning Board hereby recommends to the Town of Ulysses Town Board a review of the Zoning Ordinance (August 30, 2005) and address errors, omissions and conflicts as evidenced in Article XIII, Section 13 . 2 , potentially limiting retail stores to 3 ,000 gross square feet . Ms Chiuten called the vote : Ms . Chiuten Aye Mr. Means Aye Mr. Porter Aye Ms . Simon Aye Mr. Wertis Abstained MOTION APPROVED Mr. Rachun stated he wanted to go over a few things, if all are not up to speed with the SEQR law he would recommend they get up to speed . He would be willing to go over the Planning Board Meeting 4 01 /31 /2006 process during office hours ; he has hand outs etc . that are helpful . The issue with SEQR in this process is a classification that is an unlisted action. There are three types of actions- TYPE 1 — This type typically indicates there would be a fairly strong impact on the environment, whether it is negative or positive is determined by filling out a fairly lengthy environmental assessment form typically followed by a scoping checklist and environmental impact statement. TYPE 2 — These never get a review and are looked at quickly, naming a Town office, dedicating a street, very minimal with no environmental impact. UNLISTED-These are about 85 % of all the SEQR applications, they are not pigeon holed . You have to look at them like they are a Type 1 and look at the threshold barriers you have to exceed in a type 1 . This will make an unlisted action basically follow the review level of a Type 1 ; i . e . parking for a 1 ,000 cars, stores of 100,000 square feet or greater, water usage at 200 ,000 gallons a day. These are all state levels, a lot of municipalities adopt their own, Village of Trumansburg, Town of Ithaca and Town of Lansing have but Ulysses has not-we use the state levels . So , when looking at a project like this and looking at a Type 1 this is far removed from a Type 1 -parking for 60 cars, 12 ,000 square feet-their levels are low so typically it is not an action that is reviewable . But it does not mean under Site Plan you cannot utilize the agencies you would like to-DOT, DEC and SHPO ; but it is his advice to review them under Site Plan vs . SEQR due to the fact that they are so far removed from a Type 1 . In addition, information has already been sent to the agencies and to be reviewed . Mr. Wertis asked if SEQR should be done early on to identify these areas . Ms Chiuten noted that they are within the time frame . Mr. Rachun stated yes they were within the time frame. The original application was much larger; however he was asked what his determination was and he would have classified it as an unlisted action. Ms. Chiuten stated that even though it is an unlisted action if there are a number of small multiple impacts they can make the determination that further review because of compounding issues . That caused her concern when it was the larger project due to the gas tanks and drainage issues . Mr. Wertis asked when Mr. Rachun states they use state thresholds ; is this by Town Law or Board policy how is this established . Mr. Rachun replied if there is no local law then the state law is in effect. If the town has a board that has any discretionary power or action over an action; development or changing zoning, that board has the responsibility to enforce SEQR. Mr. Wertis stated he felt it would be helpful if each of them had the SEQR law individually and be knowledgeable about the thresholds . He copied Mr. Coogan ' s SEQR law but does not know how to go about the thresholds . Mr. Coogan copied and distributed to all members the State Environmental Quality Review NYCRR Part 617 . I Ms Chiuten requested the members review the first packet the applicants had given to each member containing the SEQR information. She noted that if they had questions they could come back and reference Part 1 of the document . Mr. Porter stated that in the past they had read through the questions in the past individually and then completed each impact. WASHINGTON STREET PARTNER SEAR REVIEW PART 2- Planning Board Meeting 5 01 /31 /2006 Each item was discussed and the decision was made to declare each portion of part 2 as follows : IMPACT ON LAND — 1 . Yes-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact 2 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact IMPACT ON WATER 3 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact 4 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact 5 . Yes-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact 6 . Yes-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact IMPACT ON AIR 7 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact 9 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12 . Yes-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 14. No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15 . Yes-Proposed action will result in major traffic problems Potential Large Impact other examples were listed as small to moderate impact NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT 17 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact 20 . No-all examples were listed as small to moderate impact Mr. Rachun stated that Mr. Peter Meskill (Tompkins County Sheriff) should have the information back within two weeks . The accident reports were requested from DMV for this part of Route 96 . The report will be sent for Barton and Loguidice for analysis . Ms Chiuten stated she had drafted a resolution regarding SEQR, the question is do they want put a resolution forward . Do they wait do get the information then put the resolution or pursue tonight. Mr. Rachun stated that the public hearing was not listed as a SEQR hearing however because it is not a Type 1 a hearing is not necessary. Once the information is received the SEQR process can be completed and a resolution passed . He asked if a meeting on February 16th would work for the members . He also asked if the board would send the Planning Board Meeting 6 01 /31 /2006 applicant away with a resolution or their feelings regarding the area variances . He spoke with two members of the BZA and they both agreed the parking should be maximums vs . minimums and allow the applicant to scale parking down. Ms Chiuten noted that part of the Site Plan Resolution listed the variance requests . A lengthy discussion was held and edits were made to Ms Chiuten ' s draft regarding the area variances recommendation . Mr. Porter MOVED Ms . Simon SECONDED the MOTION : The Town of Ulysses Planning Board hereby recommends to the Town of Ulysses Board of Zoning Appeals an approval of area variances for the reduction in the number of parking spaces , pursuant to Article XVII-Design Standards, Section 17 . 3 , and Subsection 17 . 3 . 1 , of the Town of Ulysses Code from the +/- 60 parking spaces required by Subsection 17 . 3 . 1 to the +/- 54 parking spaces shown on the proposed site plan, finding that such reduction will not adversely affect traffic flow on the project site, will leave adequate parking for all the reasonably anticipated uses on the project, and will not otherwise adversely affect the general welfare of the community, and for an increase in floor area from 3 , 000 square feet required by Article XIII, Section 13 . 2 , to 12 , 075 gross square feet . Finding that typical floor area for retail stores requires more than 3 , 000 square feet; unless determined not to be necessary by zoning officer' s interpretation. Ms . Chiuten called the vote : Ms . Chiuten Aye Mr. Means Aye Mr. Porter Aye Ms . Simon Aye Mr. Wertis Aye MOTION APPROVED Mr. Rachun asked Ms Chiuten how SHPO would be dealt with . Ms . Chiuten stated that the Board members were satisfied with the background information they were able to obtain. They felt it was far enough from the doorstep of sensitivity that no further study is required . Mr. Rachun stated the other item mitigated during SEQR was the traffic study. He will do what he needs to do to get the information back from Barton & Loguidice . Once this is back they only item necessary are the variances and the interpretation. Ms . Chiuten and Mr. Porter indicated they would prefer to wait to have the BZA and Town ' s interpretation approval . They can then approve without contingency. Mr. Porter asked if there are other items that should be reviewed for impact on Site Plan approval . Ms . Chiuten noted that the Site Plan should be reviewed for Design Standards from the Zoning Ordinance . Mr. Porter noted he did not have any specifically. Ms . Chiuten stated she had a question at the Public Hearing about buffer and the adjacency to the fairgrounds . However, the consensus at the Public Hearing was the majority of the trees were on the fairgrounds side. Mr. Wertis noted that the way the project is laid out; because of the infrastructure it rules out the replanting of large trees on that property. Planning Board Meeting 7 01 /31 /2006 Ms . Chiuten commented unless there was site reconfiguration. She stated she would like to see more detailed planting for the infiltration basins ; just a matter of grasses, shrubs, and materials there. Mr. Porter stated there were questions from Barton & Loguidice about 'the water retention basin. Mr. Hucko noted there had been a response given to the Board members at the Public Hearing. The traffic engineers had sent a response to the traffic issues . There was a letter from the engineers Synapse that commented to each of the issues brought up by Barton & Loguidice . The members retrieved their copies of the document . Ms Chiuten read the notation regarding the overflow spillway. Mr. Hucko stated that the engineers agreed with their comment and they revised the survey which is attached to the letter. Mr. Hucko stated DOT had given their conceptual plan approval . He presented a letter from DOT . However, the summary stated that because the seller has a gravel driveway within 75 feet of the Site Plan ' s southern curb cut they will not allow the southern curb cut exit . So , they will conceptually only approve the northern ingress and egress . Ms Chiuten asked what the difference was between the Shursave driveway and their driveway. She asked Mr. Hucko if they had maps indicating this to the DOT . Mr. Hucko replied they had provided this information to DOT and the members . He does not know if it relates to across the street. They just met with them this afternoon- they showed them pictures that are just a storage shed if he changes this he would have to get approval from the Planning Board and ultimately DOT. DOT gave the analogy he could use it as an auction barn on Saturday morning. They will conceptually approve if the seller closes that access way. If not , they will approve with northern ingress and egress . Mr. Porter noted that potentially they would eliminate the southern entrance . Mr. Hucko stated he would respectfully request that in the review of the Site Plan he does not believe the closing of the southern will have an effect . But would prefer to have it now so they can get approval within two weeks or so . Ms . Chiuten noted there are several issues going on when looking at Site Plan, obviously the adjacency to the Shursave driveway but then the bigger corridor issue, multiple curb cuts and driveways on that section of 96 . This should be taken into consideration, part of the issue is the project on hand is what is under Site Plan, and the Board cannot dictate what happens off the site . Mr. Hucko stated what he is hopeful of is that the Board and DOT ' s approval will be in tandem . They will approve two curb cuts subject to the closure of the seller ' s driveway. If they cannot get it closed they will move forward with a single ingress and egress . Ms Chiuten stated that if the implication is they can function with one ingress and egress that may be the preferred choice in term of Site Plan approval . Mr. Wertis noted there are two issues dealing with DOT and common sense . They are concerned with Mr. Auble and the applicant driveway ' s but they are not concerned with the Shursave sending out cars on 96 making left hand turns and the applicant sending cars out on 96 making right hand turns . He cannot understand this logic . Ms Chiuten commented that they have asked Barton & Loguidice to readdress this issue and they have requested the accident reports from this area. Mr. Porter asked when they have this information what do they do with it. Planning Board Meeting 8 01 /31 /2006 Ms . Chiuten stated they would send the information to Barton & Loguidice and ask them to address this with DOT . They want to make sure this information was taken into consideration when this was approved . The accident information was not provided them when this project was reviewed. Mr. Wertis clarified that the southern egress would be for the drive thru part of the pharmacy there would be one way out . He asked if there was a document showing this . Mr. Hucko indicated the copy that had this information . He added that this traffic would be very limited and there would be no two way traffic on this side of the building. Mr. Rachun noted that for a minor subdivision the Planning Board reviews but the final approval is by the Zoning Officer. Ms . Chiuten asked if they would like to compile a list . The areas of concern from the SEQR were the traffic and the archaeological dig . which has been resolved. Mr. Hucko asked if the letter from DOT had resolved the traffic issue ; they had conceptually approved their plan. Mr. Porter replied not at this point in time. Mr. Hucko asked why are they asking for the accident information, this is kept at the state level and whenever they have gone there they have this data. Mr. Rachun stated they are asking Barton & Loguidice to review DOT ' s recommendation . The Planning Board has discretionary action they could say one driveway cut and they want it south . They can submit a traffic plan based on what the Planning Board requests and DOT can approve that too . The applicant ' s have been approved on the Site Plan the Board would like Barton & Loguidice to review for issues or problems . He noted that in fairness he will request they get this information as soon as possible . Mr. Coogan noted that the County Planning Department will be sending a comment as a result of the 239 1/m regarding this project. Ms Chiuten stated that a request for a maintenance schedule for the retention basins can be made. Mr. Wertis noted this had been added in the resolution but he is unsure how this could be enforced . Mr. Rachun stated this would be a duty of his office as long as part of the resolution state it be maintained, a schedule would not be necessary . Ms . Chiuten noted the fencing around the dumpsters is showing chain link fencing. The intent was to screen the dumpsters . Mr. Porter asked if there were any additional information needed . Ms . Chiuten noted that she would like to request a solid fence on the dumpsters for screening. She asked if they were set -they would deal with traffic and safety issues upon receipt of accident reports from Mr. Meskill, DMV and Barton & Loguidice, more information on plantings for the infiltration system and comments from County Planning. Mr. Porter noted the applicant needs to provide a statement indicating the fencing around the dumpster as well as details regarding the plantings for the filtration system . Ms . Chiuten asked if Thursday, February 16th would be acceptable . It is a court night however due to it not being a Public Hearing members felt it would be sufficient to meet in the conference room . The next meeting to be held Thursday, February 16th, 2006 -7 : 30pm. Planning Board Meeting 9 01 /31 /2006 Ms . Chiuten asked if the resolutions she had prepared should be tabled . All members agreed . Mr. Coogan stated on the 22" of this month they are trying to get the Planning Coalition, Tompkins County Municipal Officers Association to use that time (4 : 30-6 : 00) DEC has agreed to come in and do a presentation on stormwater for Planning Boards . It is strictly for Planning Boards and what they think the board should be doing and looking at. It is a good time to ask them a lot of questions . He believes the speaker will be Ellen Hahn. There is a very good SEQR conference in Syracuse ; it takes a look at practical applications . The cost is $ 500 . 00 Mr. Rachun stated they need something on the County level ; they had been given periodically given in the past. Someone from DEC or from the state level has come, these have been very helpful in the past to give an overview and answer questions . Mr. Porter noted that part of the lot they are subdividing is not in the B1 district. He asked if this was significant-he demonstrated on the map provided by the applicant for subdivision . Mr. Wertis asked how they would define this . Ms . Chiuten answered it would have been done through GIS . Mr. Porter noted their garbage bins and part of the parking would be within this area. Mr. Coogan stated he thought Mr. Frantz had designated the zoning according to lot lines . Mr. Rachun noted Mr. Frantz did not do the boundaries by lot lines ; he has had other situations like this . They only way the applicant could have done this map are by scale and it would be considered arbitrary. v Mr. Means made the MOTION to adjourn, Mr. Wertis SECONDED . All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 9 : 39 pm Respectfully submitted, Robin Carlisle Peck 02/06/06