HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.25.2016 Planning Board Minutes.pdf1
Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board
Meeting #64
Monday, July 25, 2016
Fire Station – 7:00 pm
Minutes
Present: Planning Board Members Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, J. Leijonhufvud, M.
McMurry, R. Segelken, and Alternate E. Quaroni
Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, Deputy Clerk A. Podufalski, Attorney P. Grossman,
Trustee J. Marshall
K. Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects (TWLA)
P. Levesque, HOLT Architects
T. Votaw, Cayuga Medical Associates
T. Ciaschi, Corners Community Shopping Center
Members of the Public
Item 1 – Meeting called to order
Chair F. Cowett opened the meeting at 7:00 pm.
Attorney R. Marcus is unable to attend the meeting and his partner P. Grossman is
attending in his place.
Continuation of site plan review for the minor subdivision at 1010 Triphammer Road
including the public hearing scheduled for this meeting has been postponed until
further notice at the request of the applicant W. Kimble-Duggan.
Item 2 – June 27, 2016 Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of the June 27, 2016 meeting.
Motion: R. Segelken
Second: M. McMurry
RESOLUTION No. 192
APPROVING MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2016
RESOLVED, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of the June 27, 2016 meeting are
hereby approved.
Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, M. McMurry, R. Segelken
Abstained- J. Leijonhufvud
Opposed- None
2
Item 3 – Public Comment
R. Bors, 121 Texas Lane, read the following statement:
P. Bottorff, 2109 N. Triphammer Road, echoed the previous statement, stated that he
often has trouble exiting in his car from his driveway onto N. Triphammer Road due
to traffic, and asked the Board not to do anything that would make traffic worse.
D. Donner, 107 E. Remington Road, thanked Corners Community Shopping Center
owner Tim Ciaschi for the shopping center’s contribution to the Cayuga Heights
community, but requested that the Medical Office Building project be consistent with
the Village’s existing zoning and stated his opposition to densification inconsistent
with the character of Cayuga Heights.
Item 4 – Preliminary Site Plan Review – Corners Community Shopping Center Medical
Office Building Project
G. Gillespie recused himself from review of the project as he is an employee of HOLT
Architects.
Chair F. Cowett appointed Alternate E. Quaroni as a voting member for this portion
of the meeting.
3
Attorney P. Grossman advised the Board that in the past his firm has represented both
HOLT Architects and Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects.
Chair F. Cowett recapitulated the Board’s review of the Medical Office Building
project to this point; the project was formally presented to the Board in March as a
three story building and discussed further in April with the Board which expressed
concerns about the project including but not limited to the building’s size, its impact
on traffic and parking, and pedestrian and bicycle connections; the project’s design
has since been revised and returns to the Board for review as a two story building.
K. Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects (TWLA), explained to
the Board the changes made to the project’s design based on the Board’s feedback; the
building is now two stories and no longer requires a variance for building height; the
project requires variances for lot coverage and distance between buildings; emergency
and pedestrian access between Carriage House Apartments and the shopping center
has been provided.
K. Michaels further stated that at the Board’s suggestion a traffic study based on the
two story building was conducted by SRF Associates of Rochester; the study found
that the proposed development will not result in any potentially significant adverse
traffic impacts to area intersections and that the proposed number of parking spaces
will be sufficient to accommodate parking needs except for some times of the day in
December when parking lots may reach 90% capacity.
K. Michaels asked the Board about the schedule for site plan review.
Chair F. Cowett replied that a potential schedule would be for the Board to declare
itself lead agency for SEQRA at this meeting, schedule a public hearing and SEQRA
review for the Board’s meeting in August, and reach a decision concerning the project
at the Board’s meeting in September; Planning Board review of SEQRA in August
would permit the ZBA to consider the project’s request for variances at the ZBA’s
September meeting and avoid segmentation of SEQRA between the Planning Board
and ZBA; this schedule depends, however, on what happens in the August meeting
such as results of the public hearing and SEQRA review.
Chair F. Cowett asked K. Michaels to confirm that a representative from SRF
Associates would appear at the Board’s meeting in August to answer questions about
the traffic study.
K. Michaels confirmed that a representative from SRF Associates would appear at the
Board’s August meeting and promised to forward any questions that the Board might
have at this time about the traffic study to SRF Associates.
Chair F. Cowett stated that he has many questions about the traffic study, but one
traffic related question pertains directly to SEQRA Short Form Part 1 Question 8a,
“Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic about present
levels?” which the applicant has answered “NO” on a Short Form previously
submitted; the traffic study found that the project would generate approximately
52(14) vehicles entering the shopping center during the AM(PM) peak hours
4
respectively and 25(66) vehicles exiting the shopping center during the AM(PM) peak
hours, but concluded that this would not result in any potentially significant adverse
traffic impacts to the study area intersections; the NYSDEC SEQRA website defines a
“substantial” increase in traffic for a medical/dental office of 31,000 square feet as
greater than or equal to 100 peak hour vehicle trips per day during the early morning
and late afternoon peak traffic hours; the gross floor area of the revised medical office
building is 28,200 square feet and it would be helpful to the Board if the
representative from SRF Associates could explain how traffic study estimates for this
project’s peak hour vehicle trips relate to the DEC’s definition of a substantial increase
in traffic.
K. Michaels stated that she would forward this question to SRF Associates; she also
stated that the building architects would develop more detailed information in regard
to the building’s exterior two weeks prior to the August meeting and that she would
set up a public outreach meeting prior to the August public hearing.
P. Levesque, HOLT Architects, displayed new project renderings and explained to the
Board the changes made to the building’s design now that it is two stories in height;
the proposed building is similar in height and scale to the adjacent buildings and its
gables and dormers reflect the façade of adjacent buildings, but with an updated feel.
Chair F. Cowett asked whether an updated feel meant that the building roof would
not match the red roofs of many of the other buildings in the shopping center.
P. Levesque replied that the new building’s roof would not be red.
R. Segelken asked about the color of the new building.
P. Levesque replied that the new building’s color had not been decided, but would
likely be buff or off-white so as to blend in with the other buildings in the shopping
center.
Chair F. Cowett asked about the change in the building’s gross area footprint from
13,800 square feet to 14,100 square feet.
P. Levesque replied that the building needed to become slightly larger to permit the
redesign from three to two stories.
Chair F. Cowett asked about the reduction in cardiology staff including providers
from 25 to 22 and the increase in cardiology patients per day from 150 to 180.
T. Votaw, Cayuga Medical Associates, replied that the reduction in employee
numbers reflected additional study of the number of employees needed and that the
increase in cardiology patients per day was a typo and the correct number is 150.
J. Leijonhufvud stated her continuing concern about pedestrian and bicycle access to
the shopping center and Medical Office Building, particularly from the bus stops on
Pleasant Grove Road, and noted that the revised project drawings submitted to the
Board show no change in access provision.
K. Michaels stated that pedestrians could walk north on Pleasant Grove Road to
Hanshaw Road, enter the shopping center on Hanshaw, and then walk south through
the shopping center to the Medical Office Building.
5
J. Leijonhufvud stated that this is too long a route, especially for medical patients, and
that a shorter route is needed.
K. Michaels stated that a sidewalk could be added just north of the fire station which
would connect to the shopping center near the rear of the Medical Office Building;
this same sidewalk could provide bicycle access once bicyclists dismount.
Chair F. Cowett noted that the revised project drawings submitted to the Board show
pedestrian access between Carriage House Apartments and the shopping center, but
asked why the crosswalk extending south from the proposed new building to the
parking lot had not been extended through the parking lot to connect with the access
point with Carriage House Apartments.
K. Michaels replied that extending the crosswalk through the parking lot would mean
the loss of some parking spaces and asked whether the Board was requesting that this
change be made to the project plans.
Chair F. Cowett replied that the Board may want to request this change, but suggested
holding off on making any change pending a discussion at the August meeting with
the representative from SRF Associates about parking space calculations.
Chair F. Cowett stated that, when he, Mayor L. Woodward, and Code Enforcement
Officer B. Cross had met in May with the design team about possible revisions to the
project, he had urged that pedestrian amenities be prioritized and had suggested that
the Main Street treatment along the main drive adjacent to the building contemplated
for future implementation be included as part of this project to improve walkability in
the shopping center and pedestrian connectivity to the surrounding neighborhood;
however, this does not seem to have been included in revised project drawings.
K. Michaels replied that there are no plans to include the future implementation of
the Main Street treatment as part of this project.
Chair F. Cowett noted that building reduction to two stories had reduced the number
of parking spaces needed, but stated his inability to follow the revised parking space
calculations given the materials provided in the traffic study; for example, the peak
parking demand month is stated as December and yet the appendix table listing peak
medical office building parking demand is for January; it also isn’t clear the extent to
which a 5% reduction for shared parking in mixed use sites has been incorporated in
parking space calculations nor whether a 5-15% reduction for mode share (walking,
bicycling, and transit usage) has also been applied; it would be helpful to the Board if
the representative from SRF Associates could explain step by step the parking space
calculations at the Board’s August meeting.
Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross asked T. Ciaschi, Corners Community Shopping
Center owner, if the project’s modification of access from the shopping center to
Pleasant Grove Road would reduce the practice of some drivers to park their car for
the day in the shopping center and then ride the TCAT bus to and from Cornell.
6
T. Ciaschi agreed that the project’s modification of access to Pleasant Grove Road
would likely reduce this unauthorized park and ride practice; he also stated that he
occasionally gives permission to some of the neighboring businesses during their busy
periods to park some employee cars at the shopping center; a couple of years ago he
had a one year agreement with Sciarabba Walker to provide parking at the shopping
center to construction workers during a remodeling project, but the term of that
agreement has expired and there is no obligation at this time.
E. Quaroni noted the traffic study found an increase in vehicle trips generated by the
project, but is unclear how the study arrived at the conclusion on page 8 that, for the
East Upland Road/Triphammer Road/Hanshaw Road intersection, development is
projected to add less than approximately one vehicle every six (6) minutes to those
intersections and account for a minor change of no more than 0.4 seconds per vehicle
in delay over background conditions; she would also like to know how background
condition delay times in Table II were calculated since little population growth is
anticipated, yet there was quite a difference between existing and background
conditions at some intersections.
J. Leijonhufvud questioned whether Table II in the traffic study accounted for the
project’s modification of access to Pleasant Grove Road; it appears to reflect existing
conditions, but not account for the effect of access modification with development.
M. McMurry referenced statements in the traffic study stating the absence of any
significant adverse traffic impacts to study area intersections requiring the need for
mitigation; the study anticipates an increase in traffic due to the project, but how does
a traffic study determine the significance of a traffic increase; does the significance of
an increase depend on a change in the letter designation signifying a worse level of
service?
K. Michaels stated that she would ask SRF Associates to explain the determination of
significance for a traffic study.
K. Michaels further stated that, in general, if project development significantly
worsens traffic and intersection levels of service, then the municipality will require
mitigation; road improvements made by Kendal in development of that project are an
example; however, if intersections are already receiving failing level of service grades
prior to project development, then mitigation is not the developer’s responsibility.
J. Leijonhufvud asked whether it would be possible for SRF Associates to quantify
more precisely the delay in seconds for those intersections in the traffic study’s
capacity analysis table rated F(*) explained in table notes as greater than 100.
K. Michaels replied that she would ask SRF Associates if intersections rated F(*) can
be quantified more precisely.
J. Leijonhufvud stated that there seem to be a large number of mistakes in the traffic
study and requested that updated and verified numbers for all tables be provided to
the Board two weeks prior to the August meeting.
7
K. Michaels replied that she would ask SRF Associates to provide updated and verified
numbers for all traffic study tables to the Board two weeks prior to the August
meeting.
The Board discussed declaring itself lead agency for SEQRA review of the Medical
Office Building project and categorization of the project for that review.
Motion: M. McMurry
Second: R. Segelken
RESOLUTION No. 193
TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT AT CORNERS
COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER AS AN UNLISTED SEQR ACTION
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board declares itself lead agency for SEQR review of the
proposed Medical Office Building project at Corners Community Shopping Center which the
Board categorizes as an Unlisted SEQR action and the property owner is to complete Part 1
of the Short Environmental Assessment Form.
Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, J. Leijonhufvud, M. McMurry, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken
Opposed- None
The Board discussed setting a time for the public hearing at its August meeting
pertaining to the Medical Office Building project; although the Board intends to
discuss the project with the representative from SRF Associates prior to the public
hearing, it was decided to set the public hearing time at 7:10 pm so that members of
the public can hear from the SRF Associates representative prior to participating in
the public hearing.
Motion: J. Leijonhufvud
Second: E. Quaroni
RESOLUTION No. 194
TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING
PROJECT AT CORNERS COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER
RESOLVED, that a public hearing will be held on August 22, 2016 at 7:10 p.m. regarding the
site plan review for the proposed Medical Office Building project at Corners Community
Shopping Center
Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, J. Leijonhufvud, M. McMurry, E. Quaroni, R. Segelken
Opposed- None
8
Item 5- Other Business
The Board’s next meeting is scheduled for August 22, 2016.
M. McMurry informed the Board that she will be unable to attend the Board’s August
meeting.
R. Segelken asked Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross if the Village is considering any
traffic improvements that could be made in the Community Corners area.
Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that the Village is considering
improvements that could be made; however, discussion of traffic improvements in the
Community Corners area would take place with the Village’s Board of Trustees rather
than with the Planning Board.
R. Segelken asked Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross to keep the Planning Board
informed of these discussions.
Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross agreed to keep the Planning Board informed.
Item 6 – Adjourn
Meeting adjourned at 8:28 pm.