Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017_0327_Planning Board Minutes.pdf1 Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board Meeting #70 Monday, March 27, 2017 Village Hall – 7:00 pm Minutes Present: Planning Board Members Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, J. Milder, R. Segelken Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, Attorney R. Marcus, Deputy Clerk J. Walker, Mayor L. Woodard, Trustee J. Marshall, Trustee M. McMurry, Alternate E. Quaroni N. Sweeney, Skin Studio Members of the Public Item 1 – Meeting called to order • Chair F. Cowett opened the meeting at 7:08 pm. Item 2 – January 23, 2017 Minutes • The Board reviewed the minutes of the January 23, 2017 meeting. Motion: R. Segelken Second: G. Gillespie RESOLUTION No. 210 APPROVING MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2017 RESOLVED, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of the January 23, 2017 meeting are hereby approved. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, J. Milder, R. Segelken Opposed- None Item 3 – Public Comment • No members of the public wished to comment. Item 4 –Site Plan Review – Skin Studio – 903 Hanshaw Road • Chair F. Cowett stated that Skin Studio will replace the Parakeet Feet shoe store located near the Heights Restaurant. Under current zoning, any change in land use type in the Commercial zoning district, such as a change from a retail store to a professional office, requires Site Plan Review although both are permitted uses. 2 • The applicant N. Sweeney, Skin Studio, explained to the Board that she is a paramedical esthetician, i.e. a skin specialist, and the owner and sole operator of the business; she has been licensed by New York State for 16 years and has operated a similar business in Fall Creek; there are no physicians on staff; she does not do injections of any type; 99% of her clients are women and business focus is beautification; changes will be made to the interior of the site, but no exterior construction will occur; the Health Department will need to inspect and certify the site for compliance with the sanitation code prior to her opening for business. • The public hearing commenced at 7:15 pm. • No members of the public wished to comment. Motion: G. Gillespie Second: R. Segelken RESOLUTION No. 211 TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING RESOLVED, that the public hearing regarding the site plan review for the proposed change of use at Skin Studio, 903 Hanshaw Road, be closed. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, J. Milder, R. Segelken Opposed- None • The Board discussed the project in relation to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and whether to categorize the project as a Type 1, Type 2, or Unlisted SEQRA action. Motion: R. Segelken Second: J. Milder RESOLUTION No. 212 SEQRA REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE AT SKIN STUDIO, 903 HANSHAW ROAD RESOLVED, that the Planning Board declares itself lead agency for SEQRA review of the proposed change of use at Skin Studio, 903 Hanshaw Road, which the Board categorizes as an Unlisted SEQRA action and the applicant is to complete Part 1 of the Short Environmental Assessment Form. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, J. Milder, R. Segelken Opposed- None 3 • The applicant provided Part 1 of the SEQRA Short Environmental Assessment Form which the Board reviewed. 4 5 • The Board accepted the applicant’s responses to Part 1 of the SEQRA Short Form. • The Board reviewed Parts 2 and 3 of the SEQRA Short Environmental Assessment Form. • R. Segelken asked whether any specialized ventilation equipment would be required for the business. • N. Sweeney replied that no such equipment would be required. • Chair F. Cowett asked whether the focus of Health Department inspection and certification was related to ensuring sanitary practices. • N. Sweeny replied that it was. 6 7 8 Motion: G. Gillespie Second: R. Segelken RESOLUTION No. 213 TO DETERMINE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN AN ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RESOLVED, that the Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board has determined that the proposed change of use at Skin Studio, 903 Hanshaw Road, will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, J. Milder, R. Segelken Opposed- None • The Board discussed Article IX Section 24, III, 1, factors to be considered by the Board for a proposed change in an existing permitted use in the Village’s Commercial Zoning District, and found the following: a. The location and site of the use. The site is located at 903 Hanshaw Road in the Corners Community shopping center in the Village’s Commercial zoning district. The shopping center is approximately one mile north of the Cornell University, one tenth of a mile west of the Town of Ithaca, and six tenths of a mile south of the Village of Lansing. Per Tompkins County, current property class is commercial and its description is neighborhood shopping center. b. The nature and intensity of the operation involved. The proposed operation is a professional office pertaining to paramedical esthetics and more specifically treatment of skin issues. Patients are scheduled on a one hour basis. Hours of operation will be Monday and Wednesday from 8:00 am to 3:00 pm, and Friday from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm. c. The size and topography of the site in relation to it. Shopping center acreage is approximately 7.2 acres. The professional office occupies 570 square feet. The site is relatively flat. d. The location of the site in respect to the roads giving access to it. The shopping center is bounded by Hanshaw Road to the north, East Upland Road to the west, and Pleasant Grove Road to the east. Adjacent intersections are Hanshaw/North Triphammer/East Upland Roads and Hanshaw/Pleasant Grove Roads. NYS Route 13 is located approximately eight tenths of a mile to the north via North Triphammer Road. 9 e. The provisions for parking. There are currently 285 parking spaces at the shopping center. The professional office requires two parking spaces. A traffic study performed for a site plan review in 2016 estimated current average monthly shopping center parking demand of 171 spaces (60% of capacity) and current peak hour parking demand in December of 189 spaces (66% of capacity). Therefore, provisions for parking are adequate. f. The relation of the size of the building and lot to the parking area. The professional office occupies 570 square feet. The parking area adjacent to the office to the north contains forty spaces. There are additional parking areas nearby. g. Traffic and noise generated by the proposed use. The professional office’s limited weekday hours of operation and its typical use by one paramedical esthetician and one client on a one hour basis suggest that little if any noise will be generated and that there will not be an increase in vehicular traffic. h. Landscaping. No exterior work or site development is required. i. Architectural features. No change will be made to existing architectural features. j. Location and dimension of buildings. No change will be made to the location and dimension of any buildings. k. Impact of the proposed use on adjacent land uses. Per Tompkins County, current property class is commercial and a professional office is a permitted commercial use in the Village’s Commercial zoning district under current zoning. The proposed change of use is unlikely to impact either adjacent commercial land uses or residential properties adjacent to the shopping center. l. Effect on the environment. The Planning Board has categorized the project as an Unlisted Action under SEQRA and conducted a SEQRA review. In its determination of significance, the Planning Board found that the proposed change in use will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. m. Effect on infrastructure and existing Village services, including sewer, water, drainage and solid waste. 10 The professional office will not significantly impact Village water or sewer services, nor increase the amount of impervious surface on site. For these aspects of Village infrastructure and services, the project’s effect can be judged to be minimal. n. Any other reasonable factors that will promote the safety of the proposed use and the orderly development of the Multiple Housing or Commercial District. Paramedical estheticians are licensed to operate within New York State and are responsible for compliance with all applicable health and sanitary codes. o. Effect on population density, if any. The proposed change of use will not increase population or household density as it does not involve housing. p. Any other factors reasonably related to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Should the business operate on a full business day and/or a full business week, contrary to the limited weekday hours and days currently envisioned by the applicant, the Board does not anticipate a substantially different impact for the proposed change in use. Motion: J. Milder Second: R. Segelken RESOLUTION No. 214 TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE AT SKIN STUDIO, 903 HANSHAW ROAD RESOLVED, that, based upon the findings made by the Planning Board in consideration Article IX Section 24, III, 1, the proposed change of use at Skin Studio, 903 Hanshaw Road is hereby approved. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, J. Milder, R. Segelken Opposed- None Item 5 – Planning Board Review of Zoning Revision Draft • Chair F. Cowett stated that, following the adoption of the Village’s most recent comprehensive plan in 2014, a Zoning Review Committee (ZRC) had been created to update the Village’s zoning ordinance and align it with the comprehensive plan; after more than two years of work, the ZRC has produced a draft of a new zoning law; the 11 Board of Trustees has asked the Planning Board to review this draft and recommend changes to it prior to subsequent review by the public and the Trustees. • R. Segelken complimented the ZRC for its thoroughness in producing the current draft and asked Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross if he was satisfied with it. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that, yes, he was satisfied, that everything he wanted to be addressed had been addressed, although he believes additional topics will need to be addressed as the review process moves forward. • G. Gillespie stated that the draft is comprehensive and asked whether any illustrations would be added, i.e. depictions of concepts contained in the draft such as corner lots, overhangs, measurement of building height, etc. • Chair F. Cowett replied that the ZRC had considered including illustrations, but that no illustrations have yet been added. • Attorney R. Marcus suggested that City of Ithaca code contains good examples of such illustrations. • R. Segelken asked whether the maps contained in the draft show public streets, but not private streets. • Chair F. Cowett stated that all public streets are shown and most private streets. • E. Quaroni, a member of the ZRC, asked Planning Board members what they thought of not allowing duplexes in the Residence zoning district. • R. Segelken asked how a duplex differs from an accessory apartment in a single family home. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that a duplex contains two units of equal size whereas, in a single family home with an accessory apartment, the accessory apartment is a smaller dwelling unit within the larger home; residences close to the Cornell campus are routinely scrutinized by developers looking to convert homes to duplexes in order to maximize the number of occupants; conversion of homes to duplexes had not been addressed in the Village’s previous zoning ordinance. • Chair F. Cowett stated that the comprehensive plan called for the protection of existing residential neighborhoods; limiting homes to a primary dwelling with an accessory apartment smaller in size to the primary dwelling unit was seen by the ZRC as a way to achieve this. • R. Segelken asked about the basis for permitting the keeping of chickens as an accessory use in the Residence zoning district. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that chickens are currently being kept at some locations in the Village and that the ZRC decided to permit this use subject to regulation. • Chair F. Cowett stated that much of the regulatory text dealing with the keeping of chickens derives from code adopted by the Village of Trumansburg. • R. Segelken asked about the approval process for bed and breakfasts and home occupations as accessory uses in the Residence zoning district. 12 • Chair F. Cowett replied that current zoning authorizes the Planning Board to conduct site plan review only; the ZRC believed that site plan review is appropriate for some, but not all cases; in some cases, a special use permitting process, which is less onerous to the applicant than site plan review, would be preferable as in the case of a bed and breakfast, but current zoning does not provide for this type of approval; special use permitting has been included in the new zoning law draft to facilitate this. • Attorney R. Marcus stated that most zoning ordinances make a distinction between review of new development and site construction under a site plan approval process and review of a change of use incorporating existing improvements under a special permit process; site plan review is more appropriate where new development and site construction are involved whereas special use permitting is more appropriate where new development and site construction are not involved. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that home occupations do not require Planning Board approval as they do not involve a change in occupancy and that they are permitted as long as specified conditions are met. • R. Segelken asked whether the language referencing transient residence in § 5.3.K was intended to address the rental of homes via Airbnb. • Chair F. Cowett replied that § 5.3.K was intended to address both the rental of homes for events such as Cornell graduation and their rental through Airbnb. • M. McMurry, a member of the ZRC, stated that the ZRC tried to find middle ground permitting home rentals while at the same time preserving the residential character of neighborhoods. • J. Milder suggested that the language in § 5.3.K addressing rental timeframes be simplified to a maximum of 15 days annually and that durations and frequency should be left to the property owner. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that such a change would simplify zoning enforcement. • Chair F. Cowett stated that the ZRC would consider making this change to § 5.3.K. • J. Milder stated concern about the Natural Resources Overlay Zone; § 9.4. Perennial and intermittent streams, contains too much regulation, such as prohibiting fertilizer application and parking, whereas § 9.6. Wetlands, is not sufficiently regulatory, i.e. the Planning Board may give approval to the dredging or filling of wetlands. • Chair F. Cowett replied that much of the text relating to stream regulation derives from a model stream buffer ordinance suggested by Tompkins County; with respect to wetlands, it was not the intention of the ZRC to remove protections for wetlands; the ZRC can review these sections in the new zoning law draft. • R. Segelken asked about the height of buildings in the Commercial zoning district and language in § 7.5.B allowing a three story building provided that at least seventy-five percent of a building's ground level floor area is occupied by neighborhood retail uses. • Chair F. Cowett replied that this provision is intended as an incentive to encourage neighborhood retail services in the Commercial zoning district. 13 • R. Segelken suggested that the language in § 13.3.B.2 concerning the height of growth in lawns be changed from six inches to ten inches to reflect current local law. • Chair F. Cowett replied that the ZRC would make this change to § 13.3.B.2. • R. Segelken asked who will enforce § 13.3.B.2, the police or the Code Enforcement Officer. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross is unsure about enforcement of § 13.3.B.2 and will check into this. • R. Segelken asked about the basis for the language contained in Article 15 Solar Energy Collectors. • Chair F. Cowett replied that Article 15 incorporates nearly verbatim Local Law 2016- 1 A Local Law to Establish Solar Energy Collector Requirements; similarly, Article 14 Fences and Walls incorporates Local Law 9 of 2011. • G. Gillespie suggested that language in § 3.2 Controlling regulation and § 13.2 Applicability be made consistent regarding controlling law, and that an overarching statement about existing non-conformance should be added. • Chair F. Cowett replied that the ZRC would consider making these changes to the new zoning law draft. • G. Gillespie asked whether language in § 12.3.H.2.d allowing the Planning Board to reduce required parking spaces by 20% reflected current trends to reduce parking and impervious surface where practicable. • Chair F. Cowett replied that it did. • G. Gillespie asked about the language in § 15.2.B.1 limiting the area covered by roof mounted solar collectors to 80% of the entire roof area. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that this limitation on roof coverage is intended to provide for fire fighter safety and was arrived at following consultation with the Village’s fire chief. • G. Gillespie asked whether references to days made in site plan review and special use permit procedures should specify calendar days as opposed to business days to avoid potential confusion. • Attorney R. Marcus replied that these provisions are drawn from New York State law, and calendar days are generally assumed where mention of days is made, but he is not opposed to specifying calendar days unless otherwise stated in the text. • G. Gillespie suggested that a north arrow should be added to the maps. • Chair F. Cowett replied that a north arrow would be added. • J. Milder questioned whether a bed and breakfast is an appropriate use in a residential neighborhood; he also suggested that the language in § 5.2.B be amended to delete “approved” with respect to an accessory apartment since this is a permitted use. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross agreed that the word “approved” could be deleted from the text. • J. Milder suggested that the language in § 5.2.L be amended to read “Rental of a dwelling unit for transient residence is allowed pursuant to § 5.3.K.” 14 • Chair F. Cowett replied that the ZRC would consider making this change. • J. Milder questioned permitting an elder cottage as an accessory use in § 5.3.L since it implies a substantial use of land, and once built could become a permanent rather than a temporary structure; he asked whether there was language in the new zoning law draft prohibiting the use of mobile homes for temporary housing. • Chair F. Cowett replied he could not remember if mobile homes had been specifically addressed in this manner and would review the draft. • R. Segelken asked about off-street parking of unregistered motor vehicles and whether the new zoning law draft addresses this. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that, with respect to this issue, the Village will enforce the New York State Motor Vehicle Law. • Chair F. Cowett stated that he would look into this issue. • As Planning Board members had no further comments at this time, Chair F. Cowett suggested that any additional comments would be considered at the Board’s April 24 meeting; he suggested that, once all comments had been made by the Planning Board, the ZRC would meet to make any further changes to the new zoning law draft before submitting the draft to the Board of Trustees. • Attorney R. Marcus requested that any changes made by the ZRC be submitted to him for his review prior to the draft being submitted to the Trustees. • Chair F. Cowett agreed to do so. Item 6 – Other Business • The next meeting of the Planning Board is scheduled for April 24, 2017. Item 7 – Adjourn • Meeting adjourned at 10:02 pm.