Planning Board Meeting
The meeting of the
As there was no one present who wished to speak, Dankert
moved to close the Public Comment period.
Seconded by Brown. All aye.
Pyramid Mall Expansion – Lighting
Plan and Amendment to Planned Sign Area:
Hickey stated that the Board has a letter from Dennis
Reinhart, Chairman of the Lighting Commission, who have reviewed the plans
submitted for the out parcel on Tops and the Pyramid Mall and their only
comments are: they have not received the photometrics for the Home Depot site
and the façade lights. Jim Tull, Pyramid
Mall manager, stated Pyramid Mall will meet the requests of the Lighting
Commission that those lights be focused so as to preclude spillage beyond the
building facade. Brown moved to approve
the lighting plan for the out parcel of Tops and the Pyramid Mall additions
with the requirements of the Lighting Commission Report being met. Seconded by Klepack. All aye.
Hickey brought the Board up to speed. Hickey introduced Roslyn Overfield,
Collins Sign Corporation, who spoke to
Planning Board members regarding the signs for Home Depot and pylon signs along
(Attorney Marcus entered the meeting.)
The Board then considered the signage within the Pyramid
Mall. When the Planned Sign Area for
Pyramid Mall was adopted in 1988, Pyramid Mall had 1666 s.f. of signage and the
maximum permitted under the Plan was 2200 s.f.
Pyramid is currently requesting 3681 s.f. of actual signage with a
maximum of 4000 s.f. The request for
increased signage is because 659 s.f. of Penney’s signage is now being replaced
with 1569 of signage for the 4 new tenants (Linens & Things, Dick’s
Sporting Goods, Best Buy, and Borders).
Another big change is the 443 s.f. signage of Wards is being replaced
with the larger Home Depot signage. The current request is for either one or two
signs each of varying sizes for the businesses on the Penney’s end of the
mall. Hickey asked for clarification as
to why each tenant could not get the same number of signs and the same footage. Salem LaHood, Pyramid Mall architect,
responded that tenants are requesting different numbers and sizes of signs
according to their individual logos.
Hickey stated it would be difficult to request Pyramid Mall have uniform
size and color signs when this has not been required in the past. Klepack stated it would be nice to see
samples for what is being proposed and LaHood displayed them for the Board’s
review. Klepack felt the amount of
additional signage should be proportional to the amount of current signage and
footage. Hickey reported that previously
the signage for Penny’s was at 659 s.f. and the request is for 1569 s.f. Hickey stated he can understand the rationale
for the additional signage on the south side, but he is having difficulty with
understanding the rationale for the eastside.
He feels that if the purpose of the east signs is directional to show
what is in that end of the mall, they should all be the same size and color and
he feels if Borders can go with 165 s.f., they should all be able to go with
that number. LaHood stated he would have
more flexibility on the eastside but he would have to go back and present it.
LaHood stated part of the intent of the PSA is to allow for some flexibility on
square footage of signage and location of signage and he feels Pyramid Mall is
consistent within the guidelines. Hickey
questioned the maximum allowable sign area (4,000 s.f) and LaHood stated it is
based not on square footage of the building but on a calculation of the proposed signage requested by the tenants
combined with the existing signage and with a reserve factor. Curtis stated all the malls in the Village
have PSA’s. For other businesses, the
sign area is based on the linear footage of the building facing the road, and 1
square foot is allowed for every two linear feet of facade. A separate pylon sign is also allowed
besides the building mounted sign.
Hickey stated a PSA for a mall is based upon what the developers/owners
feel is necessary to provide adequate signage.
Marcus stated a PSA is to allow for flexibility for multi-tenant use,
but to provide uniformity among tenants.
It was created to establish a pool or amount of signage to draw from for
tenant use without having to go through the Planned Sign Area amendment process
each time. The Planning Board’s intent
was to provide a better aesthetic result.
The latest, Tops, was allowed more signage than the Sign Law would
otherwise have allowed with the provision for other amenities such as
landscaping. LaHood stated Pyramid Mall
would be doing additional landscaping, re-striping the lots, redoing the
lighting, and other enhancements to make the mall more appealing to the
community. Klepack likes the concept of
allowing signage based on floor area and then allowing the malls to make the
determination as to how the footage is then apportioned. Jim Tull, Pyramid Mall manager, stated that
times have changed and the attractive entrance and changes will be a plus to
the village. Hickey stated that no one
is questioning Pyramid’s willingness to do their part. The Board is just trying to justify the large
increase in signage. Hickey made it
clear that the pylon for Graham Rd./N. Triphammer Rd. will not be approved so
it should not be included in the signage total.
Tull questioned whether some of this proposal can be
approved and others forwarded to the Trustees.
Hickey stated the pylon sign at the base of Pyramid Drive which is
angled is fine but the size needs to be changed. Hickey is recommending all panels on the pylon
sign be 1 x 6 ft. and varying colors would be acceptable. After further discussion of the sign
proposal, LaHood made the following suggestions: 1. At
the Penny’s end, the 3 east facing signs would be revisited by Pyramid to come
up with signs which are uniform in size applied to the east side of the
building and would have no identity from N. Triphammer Rd.; 2. Both Pylon signs on the ring road would
have 12 1 x 6 panels for a total of 72 s.f. with the removal of the 32 s.f. top
part of the sign. Both pylons would also
be lowered.; 3. The original sign of 8 x
16.6 (132 s.f.) would be replaced at the top on N. Triphammer Rd. This sign will be refurbished or may be
unneeded depending on directional signage connected with the N. Triphammer Rd.
rebuild. 4. Home Depot signage. Hickey recommended the sign on the north wall
be eliminated. Klepack could not
rationalize in her mind why there should be a sign on the north face as she
does not want to set a precedent and she also recalls that the Top’s request
for signage on the south side was denied.
Marcus reminded the Board that one of the reasons the signage was denied
on the south side of Tops was because it faced a residential area and this new
request for Home Depot will likewise be facing a residential area.
Curtis did some number crunching and determined that the
amount of signage for Pyramid Mall may have been based on the logic that a
15,000 s.f. business could have a 50 s.f. sign and if the area of the mall
(650,000 s.f.) were divided by 15,000 s.f., it would come close to the 2,200
s.f. for signage, which is what it was allowed before. If it were to be done
this way with the additional s.f. of the mall, it would equate to approx. 3,000
s.f. rather than the requested 4,000 s.f. for signage.
Hickey stated he feels it is important for consistency
that there not be a sign on the north side of Home Depot as Tops was not
allowed a sign on their south side.
Hickey stated that the locals could easily find the store and for those
traveling from out of the area, there are numerous signs indicating Pyramid
Mall. The Board was in agreement on
this. The Board requested Pyramid Mall
refigure the signage based on the discussion and allow for a reserve amount and
then resubmit this to the Planning Board at the July 31st meeting so
it can be then forwarded to the Board of Trustees for their August
meeting. Hickey suggested a new proposal
for 3300 s.f. with the elimination of the pylon signs on Triphammer and the
Home Depot sign on the North face and the Planning Board would then recommend
approval to the Board of Trustees.
Hickey thanked Overfield for her work on this
project.
New Planning
Board Member Selection Process:
Hickey was reviewing the minutes and realized he and
Klepack were to contact residents on their interest in becoming Planning Board
members. Unfortunately, he did not
contact anyone. Klepack contacted Martha
Eller who stated she did not have the time to become involved. Klepack also contacted John McLain twice with
detailed messages and he did not return the calls and she is reluctant to call
again although she has contacted Mary Sirois to advise her of the progress or
lack thereof. Hickey will contact
Willard about the date of the next Newsletter where possibly the positions
could be advertised. The two names remaining are Susan Schatz and Lisa
Schleelein and Klepack will contact them.
Hickey made notes regarding an article he read on
selecting a potential candidate for a Planning Board member. First, the Board should look for an
individual who is interested in the community.
Hopefully, the individual will have training in architecture,
engineering, law, economics, sociology or a social science or technical
background, although this is not essential.
Also the individual should be concerned for the village and have some
degree of objectivity.
Urban Forestry
Policy:
Curtis stated this was placed on the agenda in response to
Pembroke Lane concerns. Hickey stated it
could be added to the goals for the Board.
It was discussed in the past and Hickey has information regarding it and
feels it may be the time to revisit it.
Hickey asked Brown if she would like to take the project on and she
agreed. Brown feels there are two
aspects to urban forestry: the planting
of trees and the cutting down of trees.
Hickey felt it might be important to start with an aerial photo of the
Village and the trees/forest areas which should be saved would need to be
identified. Klepack feels individual
trees are important but it is the clearing of a large number of trees which is
a greater concern. Curtis stated the
fall damage of trees is also significant and good forestry practices must be
implemented. Ground and drag damage can
be significant as evidenced on Pembroke Lane.
Brown will contact David Pimentel to determine a direction to
begin. Marcus felt information is
available and Pimentel has probably already contacted other
municipalities. Hickey stated that
Syracuse has a whole school for forestry management and he has some of that
information and will provide it to Brown.
Votapka Rd. End
Abandonment:
Marcus stated that this was discussed at the Board of
Trustee’s meeting last evening and they did not want to see this section of
road abandoned. They would prefer to see
it go to the BZA for discussion of the individual homeowner’s request to build
closer to the front lot line. Part of
the Trustees’ consideration was that the lot on the other side of Votapka Rd.
came in for a variance and received it for a shed and these people on St.
Joseph should not be treated differently as it would create an
inconsistency. Marcus informed the Board
that it is not difficult to abandon a road and can easily be done by resolution
if the determination is that it is not used as a public road. Once discontinued, then the Board must
determine what to do with the title to the road. Half the road could be deeded to the people
on one side and half to the people on the other side. The Village would need to receive something
for conveying the road. A parcel of land
would remain behind this road which would have an easement for access from
Ascot Place. Their was also discussion
at the Board of Trustees’ meeting of using this right-of-way as a trail in the
future. Curtis stated that currently the
road is used as the homeowner’s driveway and it is the village responsibility
to provide maintenance and snow removal for it.
Curtis will review the information on this parcel and will provide a
packet of information for the Trustees to review again in August. Hickey
questioned whether the Village could deed half of the road to the homeowner and
retain half the road for the trail.
Marcus felt this would need to be researched but instead, the road could
be deeded over with the village retaining an easement over it for a trail. Marcus recommended the Board put together the
information with a recommendation to the Trustees for an easement trail.
Lansing Trails
Subdivision Reserve Strip:
Hickey stated there is a 9 inch strip of land along the
north side of the Lansing Trails Subdivision to which Ivar Jonson retained
title. Hickey stated that when Ivar
Jonson built Craft Rd., he approached Viola Miller to see if she would consider
helping to pay for the road. She flatly
said no as she had no need for the road to access her property. One of the site plans showed a 9 inch strip
between the road ROW and her property line which Jonson retained when the road
was turned over to the Village and this is clearly prohibited by the Village
Subdivision Regulations. When Miller was
approached for an easement for the trail to connect to Bush Lane to the Lansing
Trails Subdivision, she was agreeable.
When the surveyors went out, they found this 9 inch strip. Now, nothing can connect to Craft Rd. without
an easement for the 9 inch section.
Hickey feels this is now a legal issue and is up to Marcus to determine
what to do. Marcus responded that the
Village should try to get title to the entire 9 inch strip. Another possibility might be for the village
to get title to a 60 ft. section of the strip to allow for the connection. The problem with this will be that it might
cause other difficulties in the future as the Miller property is
developed. To get title to the 9 inch
strip, it would either be through a voluntary deed from Jonson or through
eminent domain. Hickey recommending that
Jonson be asked to voluntarily deed over the 9 inch strip. If this proved
unsuccessful, then eminent domain proceedings could be commenced. No further amendment
to the subdivision could be approved until this deficiency is corrected. Curtis
stated that creating the park at the end of Leifs Way is what resulted in this
8 or 9 inches by 806 ft. illegal lot being separated from the rest of the
Jonsons’ undeveloped property. Marcus
was authorized to contact Johnson’s attorney, Bill Seldin, to apprise him of
the situation. Marcus feels Seldin will
readily understand the situation and would advise Jonson to correct this.
NE Neighborhood
Study Group:
Hickey stated that one of the goals of the Planning Board
was to produce an information sheet for the NE Neighborhood Study Group for the
Kensington property. In the 2000 Census,
population figures are available by census blocks. Hickey obtained this information from the
Tompkins County Planning Dept. He
counted the blocks and determined that 1,142 people reside within the NE
neighborhood that would be affected by the Kensington Rd. development. This is approx. 1/3 of the Village
population. He then took the average
family size vs. the average household size.
Next, Hickey reviewed traffic counts.
Household units were also averaged to 2.7 and the result was that there
are approx. 423 family households within that area. Using the 8.262 average trips per day per
household equates to 3,495 trips generated in that area on a daily basis. Hickey also provided information about
traffic control measures and future planned road connectors in this background
information for the use of the group.
The NE Neighborhood Study was also updated and provided to Board
members. Hickey stated the Mayor has
informed him there are currently five members proposed for the group but
ultimately ten will be appointed to begin work in August or September. Brown will represent the Planning Board on
this group.
Approval of Minutes
– June 26:
The Board reviewed the minutes for June 26. Dankert moved to approve the June 26th minutes
as revised. Seconded by Brown. All aye.
Reports:
Hickey stated the Board received a letter from Robert
Colbert regarding the hard work of the Board and he was most appreciative to
receive this type of correspondence.
Klepack stated the Board of Trustees adopted the CLT
Guidelines as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan. The Board also adopted Local Law D regarding
the 25 ft. build-to line. The Board also
passed Local Law E regarding municipal subdivisions. Klepack also stated that the Village Engineer
reported that there are still concerns regarding the paving job that was done
last year on Uptown Rd. There was also a
refund given to Pyramid Mall for their permit fee as their expansion was not as
large as originally proposed. The
Trustees also approved paying a consultant, Tim Buhl, $2000 to figure the costs for buried
utilities along N. Triphammer Rd.
Marcus reported that the arrangement for sewer line
rehabilitation in the Town of Ithaca will begin in a week or two. The work will not take a long time and
possibly by the middle of August it will be complete and Hartill is requesting
accurate data be collected to show the diminishment of infiltration after these
repairs. This may lead to 100 available
sewer units. Hartill has been attending
Cayuga Heights Board meetings to see if some of these units can be released to
the Village early. Hartill has been told
once the work is completed to return to their Board with the data and to
request additional permits.
Regarding sewer units, the Planning Board also discussed
the letter from Ivar Jonson to the governor regarding available sewer units and
costs.
Klepack also reported that the Village has been working on
a design for Northwood Boulevard but must deal with the large utility box
alongside it.
Marcus reported that the acquisition of property along N.
Triphammer Rd. contracts are in hand from the majority of the properties.
Other Business:
Maria Stycos, 28 Twin Glens Rd., stated she attended the
meeting because of her interest as possibly becoming an alternate to the
Planning Board. Members discussed what
their participation on the Board meant
for them.
Adjournment:
Klepack moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 P.M. Seconded by Brown. All aye.