Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-21 - PB TOWN OF ULYSSES PLANNING BOARD 03/21 /06 Approved with corrections 05/02/06 Present : Chairperson Margot Chiuten, Planning Board Members : David Means, Rod Porter, Rebecca Schneider, Darien Simon , John Wertis and Ken Zeserson. Code Enforcement Officer Alex Rachun, Deputy Supervisor Dick Coogan, Town Board Member Roxanne Marino and Town Attorney Bruce Wilson. Applicants : Mr. and Mrs . Jim Brown . A quorum is present at the meeting ; the meeting was called to order at 7 : 32 pm by Ms Chiuten . Minutes : The minutes of the February 16th and March 16th meetings were tabled until the next meeting. WASHINGTON STREET PARTNERS : Ms Chiuten announced that the agenda for tonight was fairly tight due to a training session scheduled at 8 : OOpm and she hoped to proceed through the Washington St. Partners project fairly quickly due to the fact they had discussed and composed the resolution at the last meeting. She reminded the Board it would take a supermajority (5 votes) to pass a resolution because they are not taking all the recommendations offered from the Tompkins County Planning Department . They are at the end of the timeline for approval, either they disapprove or it is automatically approved. This resolution has all the revisions discussed last time . Mr. Wertis has asked the Board to review the standards for signs in a B1 District. She asked to defer to Mr. Rachun for the standards . Mr. Wertis stated there is a freestanding sign and a sign on the building, there is some arithmetic to be done he attempted it at home but did not get very far. His question is do the signs they are proposing fall within the standards . Ms Chiuten noted she had done the math and had 180 square feet on the actual sign portion. Mr. Wertis stated the numbers do not sound right, he thought it was 32 , 64 on the building. Ms Chiuten asked if the large freestanding sign and the second page of signs are still on the table for the Site Plan, it was determined that these are still on the table . Mr. Rachun asked if Ms Chiuten was counting both sides of the sign, she affirmed the measurements and that she is including both sides . Mr. Porter asked if you counted both sides, he did not think you included both sides of a double sided sign. Ms . Chiuten affirmed that most municipalities do include both sides . She reviewed the second line of the sign standards "if more than one sign is attached to a building facade the cumulative square footage of all signs shall not exceed 64 square feet or 10% of the area of the building facade upon which the sign is placed whichever is greater" she was not sure if they are saying square footage of all signs, meaning site signage and building signage . Mr. Coogan stated it could be taken that way. Ms Chiuten indicated that is why when she first went through the calculations the signage fell under the standard . The building facade was roughly 2400 square feet. Mr. Rachun acknowledged 10% would make the sign legal, but it is "either" "or". Planning Board 2 03/21 /2006 Mr. Wertis stated he cannot recall how they interpreted the code for Palmer Pharmacy. Ms Chiuten noted that it sounds like it probably should read something like if more than one sign is attached to the building facade the cumulative square footage of all building signs should not exceed 64 square feet . The whole freestanding vs . building signage should be separated . Mr. Rachun noted the height is another issue, there is no standard for height, and the original sign was 39 feet high. rk Mr. Means stated they had decided the 15 feet coincided with the sign across the street (Shursave sign) as the standard for the height. Mr. Wertis noted they could take the attitude "well we have blown it and put signs up all along here" but he has second thoughts and if there are standards that are reasonable the applicant should be held to them . This would set a pattern for the rest of the development according to using the new zoning. It is his understanding the development across the street was done under the previous zoning ordinance. Ms Chiuten stated that 15 feet is a reasonable amount, and the 10% area of the building facade is what the Board is being held to . Mr. Wertis asked if the applicant would be meeting the sign standards . If he could see numbers presented that state the sign area footage and the amount allowed he would be satisfied. An extensive discussion relating to the allowed directional signs, the square footage of all signs, the amount allowed and interpretation of the laws resulted in an additional condition of the resolution being added. The architectural design was reviewed and due to the fact that there is no historic district, nor any design standards to have the applicant follow the decision to insert the term j consider was chosen. The members offered different opinions including the desire to ! . have the building reflect the architecture similar to downtown Trumansburg, reflect the rural character of Trumansburg, interest in determining how to establish a historic district was requested of Mr. Coogan. The resolution was composed to reflect these discussions . TOWN OF ULYSSES PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2006-002(a) Trumansburg Commons Kinney Drug Store Site Plan Approval Tax Parcel No. 12-3 - 18 2100 Trumansburg Road Town of Ulysses, New York Planning Board, March 21 , 2006 MOTION made by John Wertis, seconded by Rod Porter f WHEREAS : if 1 . On February 16 , 2006, the Town of Ulysses Planning Board granted Site Plan Approval for the proposed Trumansburg Commons/Kinney Drug Store proposal located on a +/- 1 . 74 acre parcel located at 2100 Trumansburg Road as shown in the site plan submission materials, subject to the following conditions : Planning Board 3 03/21 /2006 a. Submission of a stormwater Operation and Maintenance Plan/Schedule for the stormwater infiltration basin, prior to issuance of a building permit, and b . Provision of solid screen fencing around the dumpsters, and c . Submission of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county, state , and/or federal agencies, including but not limited to the Notice of Intent for NYSDEC , highway work permit from NYSDOT, and d. Developer and William J . Auble reaching an agreement, prior to issuance o f a building permit, satisfactory to the Zoning Officer, that the side yard setback on the remainder of Town of Ulysses Tax Parcel No . 12 -3 - 18 has been provided as required by Article XIII — Business District, Section 13 . 5 o f the Town of Ulysses Code, and e. Whereas the GML 239 1/m/n has not been completed, the Chair of Town o f Ulysses Planning Board will not sign the Site Plan as approved until the County Planning Department has conducted their 239 1/m and provided that the review does not recommend disapproval . If the County makes recommendations not previously discussed the Site Plan will come back to the Planning Board for review/approval , and 2 . The Tompkins County Department of Planning submitted its review pursuant to § 239 4 and —m of the NYS General Municipal Law recommending modifications to relocate the single proposed driveway to the east ; reserving an easement for a future shared driveway; extending a sidewalk from the project parcel to the Village of Trumansburg line; and additional comments which are not formal recommendations under GML § 239 4 and —m, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED : That the Town of Ulysses Planning Board hereby grants Site Plan Approval for the proposed Trumansburg Commons/Kinney Drug Store proposal with the following modifications clearly identified on the revised site plan, to be resubmitted to the Zoning Officer prior to issuance of a building permit : a. Relocation of the single project driveway to the south, adjacent to the southernmost property line subject to the approval of NYSDOT . b . Closure of the northern driveway on the remaining adjacent parcel to the south owned by William Auble . c . Provision by the applicant of a letter of intent to provide an easement for use of the proposed driveway by the adjacent parcel for all legal and conforming uses of a B1 district as of this date. d. Provision of a maintained gravel path along the project frontage to be reconstructed in the event that the Town of Ulysses should extend sidewalks along NYS Route 96 , materials to match Town standards . e. Provision of the required 35 -foot buffer adjacent to the R2 parcel . f. Provision of additional vegetative buffer on the southern side of the parcel . g. Consider modifications to the building façade to have more visually appealing architectural details since it will be visible to vehicular traffic on Route 96 and acts as a gateway into the Village of Trumansburg. h. Relocation of proposed plantings on the north side of the project parcel outside of the proposed septic field. i . Modify proposed signage to conform to the Sign Standards of the Town of of Ulysses Zoning Code Planning Board 4 03/21 /2006 The vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Ms . Chiuten, Mr. Means, Mr. Porter, Ms . Schneider, Ms . Simon, Mr. Wertis and Mr. Zeserson NAYS : NONE ABSENT : NONE ABSTAINED : NONE The vote on the motion WAS CARRIED BROWN MINOR SUBDIVISION Ms Chiuten announced the next project was the Brown subdivision, she noted the meeting was running behind schedule for the training session to follow . Mr. Brown was asked to give background on the project. Mr. Brown stated he had 63 acres of land on Route 96 and Colegrove Road . They have a couple who would like to buy a parcel of land that was an existing lot when he purchased the original land . It was suggested he consolidate the lots however if he had known he would later have subdivision problems he would never have done that. He would like to turn it back into a separate lot. Mrs . Brown stated the land they would be giving to their daughter adjoins the property she currently has and she would consolidate with the lot she currently owns . Mr. Brown informed the Board the couple who would like to purchase the property to maybe build a house on someday, they would be leaving the country for a year. He is not sure where or why they are going but they will be gone for a year, they had hoped to close on the property before this . Mr. Wertis verified that the couple going out of the country is not his daughter. He asked if the property on Colegrove would be a conforming use . ` ;j Mr. Rachun stated it would not be a conforming lot, it could not be approved without a R variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals . He stated regarding the other property that would be added to the Balcone parcel requires subdivision approval, this lot would also be a nonconforming lot. Ms Chiuten if it would be nonconforming due to lot size or frontage or both. Mr. Rachun stated he believed it would be due to size. Mr. Brown asked why it would be nonconforming, if it was added to the current lot on Route 96 it would be 600 feet of frontage and meet the size requirements . Mr. Brown stated the Colegrove property is a flag lot, it had 100 some feet of frontage with 400 some feet in the back. Mrs . Brown stated the reason they want to keep the Colegrove parcel portion is to prevent subdivision in the future. If they keep access to the road this will allow them to maintain the property as farmland. The letter from the County stated 31 single houses could be built on the land-this is what they definitely would like to never have happen. Ms Chiuten read the Recommended Modifications segment from the County Planning Department which stated "the Town should require a subdivision plan for the 63 . 66 acre parcel to accurately assess the impact of this action. At maximum build out there could be 31 single family homes developed on this parcel, access to which could negatively impact } traffic flow on State Route 96 . The access should be maintained to Route 96 and Colegrove Road. The issue with is based on what is on the table is there is no proposal for a subdivision on the 63 acre parcel . It is kind of hard to require a subdivision plan there is nothing on the table. Mr. Means noted it is the County ' s concern is that it could happen whoever owns its . Planning Board 5 03/21 /2006 Mr. Porter commented at that point it would have to come before the Board for subdivision approval . Ms Chiuten stated it would also have to go through Site Plan Review . Mr. Rachun informed the Board it would have to go through a lot, mainly subdivision which would be a lengthy, expensive process . The important thing, he tends to agree with Mr. Brown, is that the access on the Colegrove Road is an invitation to subdivide. The area on Colegrove is old growth forest, new growth forest, planted forest and pasture land ; the wildlife habitat there is probably some of the best in the Town of Ulysses-it is the most varied, the bird population is the most varied . Opening anything up on Colegrove Road makes it easy to subdivide would be in his estimation a detriment to the Town of Ulysses . Ms Chiuten stated the other issues the County had listed as Comments would be that the proposed 63 acre lot would only have 280 feet of frontage and the 2 . 88 acre only 180 feet of frontage. Mr. Rachun stated if the 2 . 88 lot were combined it should be conforming. They are incorrect in their comment on the large lot-the large lot is treated as a flag lot and it is conforming. The small lot that is being added to could be conditioned on the basis they combine the tax parcels . Ms Chiuten noted that this is a condition of the comment; the subdivision and the consolidation happen at the same time . Mr. Rachun stated that would eliminate BZA approval for those issues . The 63 acre lot would not need approval due to the fact it is a flag lot . Mr. Wertis asked if there had been consideration to adding acreage to the Colegrove Road to make it a conforming lot . Mr. Brown stated the way the property is laid out it would create a very "silly" way to do it. The new owners would probably not like it and it would be totally useless to anybody. Mr. Wertis asked Mr. Rachun it a notch along the back line were added would it make the lot conforming. Mr. Porter asked what the issue is with the 2 . 88 lot . Mr. Rachun stated somewhere in the flag lot they need a conforming lot dimension which is 400 feet of frontage and 200 feet deep . This is 300(in change) and 332 feet deep , it is close but not conforming . Mr. Brown stated it is plenty big enough for a house . Mr. Porter stated as that stands the Board cannot approve the subdivision, it would have to go before BZA for a variance for this to be created . Mr. Wertis noted he was confused due to the mention of the items happening at the same time . Ms Schneider asked for clarification as to what would be going to the BZA. Mr. Wertis stated they could approve the Route 96 combination and disapprove or sent to BZA the other lots . Ms Chiuten asked when the next BZA meeting would be, a review of the calendar noted the next meeting to be April 18th . She stated they could condition the approval on the BZA approval . Mr. Porter stated the Board cannot give them the approval they need tonight. Planning Board 6 03/21 /2006 Mr. Coogan stated they still have their timeline limit. The Board has 45 days to reach a decision on subdivision which would be April 21st Mr. Wilson stated they could alternatively approve it subject to BZA or reschedule after the BZA if that Board approves the project. Ms Carlisle Peck asked Mr. Rachun if the required notice could be given if they added this project to the agenda for the previously adjourned BZA meeting of March 29th ti Mr. Rachun stated it is five days and they could provide notice on time for this project. tj If the Board makes this project contingent it would not have to come back to them . Ms Schneider stated she would like to verify the applicant ' s intention to protect this property by re•-subdividing the small plot in back and separating this out reduces the probability of becoming a subdivision without extreme difficulty by a group . These people may present one thing but it is a very valuable piece of property where it is located. She asked Mr. Rachun if this would help protect it . Mr. Rachun stated it would enormously reduce this . He has a subjective interest because he resides on this road . The thirty acres set in this area should be protected and it would be under this plan. Mr. Wertis questioned the access to the two parcels-the Scherer' s would enter from Route 96 and the other would use the Colegrove access . Ms Schneider verified that the two parcels would be consolidated into one tax parcel . Mr. Porter stated it would take a supermajority (quorum + 1 ) 5 votes to override the County Planning Department Recommended Modifications . Mr. Wertis noted if there were a conservation easement on the property he would feel better. I. Ms Schneider asked why they applicant had not required a conservation easement . Mr. Brown stated he did not feel he could sell the property if he put restrictions on future uses . Mr. Coogan noted that there are restrictions on the water district regarding additional access . Any future expansion of the water would require approval . Mr. Wilson noted the date to have the BZA approve the resolution should give that Board enough time to review the project . The Board composed the resolution and the motions were made as follows : TOWN OF ULYSSES PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2006-003 Brown Minor Subdivision Minor Subdivision Approval Tax Parcel No. 26.-2-15.23 Property fronting NYS Rte 96 and Colegrove Road Town of Ulysses, New York Planning Board, March 21 , 2006 MOTION made by David Means, seconded by Rebecca Schneider WHEREAS : 1 . The applicant submitted a subdivision plat and fee to Mr. Rachun, Town of Ulysses Planning Board 7 03/21 /2006 Zoning Officer on March 7, 2006 AND 2 . The Town of Ulysses received comments from Tompkins County Planning Department on March 21 , 2006 with Recommended Modifications to require a subdivision plan for the 63 . 66 acre parcel AND 3 . As of this date, there is no intended subdivision plans for the 63 . 66 acre parcel any future subdivision would require multiple approvals from the Town of Ulysses . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED : That the Town of Ulysses Planning Board hereby grants minor subdivision approval with the following conditions : a. That the proposed 1 . 51 acre parcel and the existing adjacent Balcone parcel be consolidated into a single lot . b . The proposed 2 . 88 acre Colegrove parcel which will be nonconforming due to its area under the Al District be approved by the Town of Ulysses Board of Zoning Appeals by April 30, 2006 . The vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Ms . Chiuten, Mr. Means, Mr. Porter, Ms . Schneider, Ms . Simon, Mr. Wertis and Mr. Zeserson NAYS : NONE ABSENT : NONE ABSTAINED : NONE The vote on the motion WAS CARRIED unanimously. The meeting went into Executive Session for the training component of the meeting at 8 : 34 pm . Ms Carlisle Peck left the meeting and minutes were not recorded from the training portion of the meeting . Ms Chiuten noted via email that future meetings would be held as follows : a. First Tuesday of the month for training sessions . b . Third Tuesday of the month the regular meeting for reviews, etc . Respectfully submitted, Robin Carlisle Peck Secretary 05 /02/06 I I it I �f1 1, 1