Planning Board Meeting
The meeting of the
Hickey opened the Public Comment. No one was present who desired to address the Board. Klepack moved to close the Public Comment period. Seconded by Dankert. All aye.
Special Permit
No. 1736, Glyph Industries – Referral to BZA:
Hickey noted that Glyph Industries has applied for a permit to remodel and occupy part of the building next door, the Deanco building, at 2415 North Triphammer Road. A Special Permit is required because this would constitute a change in category of use and also because the new use does not comply with the Zoning Law. Hickey stated the Board must make a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with regard to the compatibility of the proposal with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan.
Bob Dean spoke regarding Glyph Industries. Dean stated the DeanCo building started as a Ford Motor Co. dealership and was built around 1969. Later Zikakis bought the building for a used car dealership. Deanco then bought it in 1980 or 1981. It was used as a distribution center with some light assembly through 1993 and it was then converted into multi-tenant usage. The first tenant is Bob Dean Inc. which is a manufacturer’s rep company with about 8 employees (plus 5 salesmen). A second tenant is RP Solutions who develop and distribute software with about 12 employees here and 17 – 18 total. A third tenant is physical therapist, Molino, with 4 employees. Maxim Technologies , a company that tests building materials, soil, etc., was another tenant, but it has moved its business to the Cortland area. The new proposed tenant, Glyph Technologies, is an assembler that adds software to electronic devices for storage of audio and video programming and reships to their customers. 40% of their business is now video creation and they currently have 28 employees. Dean also provided catalogs of Glyph’s products for Board members to review. Hickey asked about deliveries. Dean responded that most of it is FedEx or UPS but there may be one tractor trailer a week . They deal with small parts and a lot of their deliveries are by air. Dean stated that at the peak, the Deanco building employed approximately 150 people and currently there would be about 53 if Glyph comes in. Leopold recollected assembly in the Deanco building in the early 1990s. Dean stated there were about 35 people working in that capacity. Dean stated there is about 27,000 sf in the building and 6,000 sf of the 15,000 sf that is not currently occupied is unfinished space. Glyph is requesting about 13,000 sf. at this time with the possibility of expansion. 8,000 sf would be used for offices and testing labs with the remaining 5,000sf being used for the assembly operation.
Hickey stated this is in the CLT District and parking is not a problem. Hickey stated the non-conforming use was grandfathered for the previous business but since it was not utilized for a twelve month period, the grandfathering of the use expired. Hickey stated that when the CLT District Guidelines were discussed there was some thought about expanding permitted uses in the Zoning Law to allow for the types of business which would be compatible with the CLT but are not permitted in the Law at this time. He stated you would look at the business to see if it is a clean business, does it meet the general requirements for the CLT, is it low traffic, is there noise pollution, to see if it fit into this category. If so, then maybe the CLT District would be a good place for it if it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Hickey noted that having the Glyph proposal go through the BZA would affect only this one property and that the Zoning Law would not need to be amended. Hickey also felt the proposed use is similar to Mold Flow which has 28 employees and is permitted within the Zoning Law because it is a testing lab rather than soft assembly.
Klepack moved the Planning Board write a recommendation that this Special Permit application for this operation will not contravene the principals and goals of the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Dankert. All aye. Hickey will write this to the BZA. Curtis noted that the business would then need to come back to the Planning Board for Special Permit approval.
Pyramid Mall
Planned Sign Area – Larger Sign:
Hickey stated Pyramid Mall Manager Jim Tull was present to request a larger sign for the Target store although the Board has already approved signage for the store. Tull stated he has recently received shop drawings for the signs and noticed the prototypes for the new signs are different than the prototypes for the previously approved signs. The wording, layouts and lettering remain the same. The bulls-eye for the north end of the building facing east was approved with a 6 ft. diameter but the new prototype is 7 ft. which would increase the sign area from 36 sf to 49 sf. The other bulls-eye next to the “Target” sign remains the same. The rationale for making the bulls-eye at the north end larger is that it stands alone. The pharmacy sign was 2 ft. by 17.5 ft. long. The new prototype is 2.5 ft. by 22 ft. 3 ˝ in. Again, Tull stated all new Targets have this size sign for better visibility. Tull stated all the signs and the bulls-eye are lit. Stycos asked how this signage would compare to others at the Mall. Tull responded that the 204 sf Target and bulls-eye sign is smaller than the Best Buy and Dicks signage at 275 sf. The bulls-eye at 49 sf. is also comparable to Kleins, Ames (north side) and other signage at the mall. Tull stated there is currently a reserve of about 517 feet of the total 3200sf signage allocation for the Pyramid Planned Sign Area and this would use approx. 30-35 ft. of that reserve.
Klepack moved to approve the sign adjustments as submitted by Pyramid Mall Manager Jim Tull for the Target store. Seconded by Dankert. All aye.
Unique Natural
Area #89, 90 & 64 – Cayuga Lake Cliffs:
Hickey told the Board at the last meeting that he would provide a rough estimate of housing density for UNA 64. He provided a handout for the Board members. For the Bolton Point parcel, Hickey took the gross area and subtracted 6% for recreation (plus an additional 20% for roads) which leaves 88 acres for housing. He then took the requirements for unsewered lots and calculated the parcel could accommodate 64 single-family units or 43 two-family houses. Again using the requirements for sewered, he calculated there could be 128 single-family units or 96 two-family houses. Next he calculated the Cranch property of 19 acres, and came up with 15 available acres for unsewered at 11 single-family units or 7 two-family houses, and sewered at 22 single-family units or 16 two-family houses. Hickey did not do the Remillard parcel because there is already a road and house there. Hickey stated he used the figures from the tax maps which are what the owner pays taxes on. Leopold noted that some of the properties may be unbuildable due to the slopes. Hickey agreed and stated the county would also be assisting the village with slopes and GIS maps. Leopold also stated the village has within its power the ability to designate an area a critical environmental area and the bluffs might be one of these. Hickey suggested this could be done on Esty’s Glen.
Curtis stated Steve Horn is adding the Unique Natural Areas to the map he has already generated for the Village. He will also try to show 15% slopes well as the 25% slopes, but this is complicated and he is not sure what he can do. He will play around with it and try to provide some sort of map as other areas are also requesting the same information. Hickey stated our ordinance states a builder can build on 15% slope with a Special Permit but not on 25% slope.
The Board discussed viewsheds and protected areas in Unique Natural Areas at length. Stycos would like to see even more requirements for Unique Natural Areas. Piotr Parasiewicz stated general criteria are needed to encompass many situations for ecological integrity. Brown stated it is possible to look at records from 50 years ago to see how the gorges have been affected by development. Hickey stated the Board will continue the discussion on Unique Natural Areas. Hickey would like Board members to review the checklist for the visual impacts prior to the next meeting to determine how to incorporate it into the process.
Cayuga Heights
Road & Rt. 34 Intersection:
Hickey covered the last Trustee’s meeting and one of the
items brought up by Sy Smidt was the intersection of Cayuga Heights Road,
Burdick Hill Road and Route 34. Smidt
was requesting the Village develop a plan on how to handle that intersection
especially when SunDowns Farm is developed.
Cross and Curtis viewed the site and there appears to be the possibility
of re-alignment of Cayuga Heights Road where it parallels Route 34 about 2-300
ft. back from the intersection turning Cayuga Heights Road west so that it
would intersect Rt. 34 at close to perpendicular. Curtis and Cross then went to Route 34 and
checked sight distances and estimated it would be 500-1000 ft. to the south and
would also be improved to the north.
Hickey stated the Mayor is proposing to move Cayuga Heights Road more to
the east onto Burdick Hill Road. Hickey
stated this route would run into Esty Glen.
This solution would also require Cayuga Heights Road to be moved above
the cemetery near the first house east of Seacord’s and would cross Esty Glen
and require a bridge. Hickey requested a rough sketch plan from Cross of the
first proposal. Curtis will also request
information from Barry Stevens of NYS DOT regarding this intersection. Hickey would like to see a plan on the books
for future development. Cross stated if
there were accidents in that area, the village could petition the state. Curtis will request information for the past
ten years for that intersection from the State Police and Sheriff's
Department.
Reports:
Trustees:
Hickey also reported that many of the people present at the
Trustees’ meeting spoke about drainage particularly in Lansing Trails. Curtis and Cross inspected that area. Hickey stated some of the regulations which
are in the Subdivision Law may also need to be in the Zoning Law. Cross stated that drainage is predominately
the issue he has dealt with and it must be decided whether it is a homeowner’s
issue or a village issue. Cross also
felt the storm of a few weeks ago was a major storm and caused significant
damage. Specifically with the Lansing
Trails project, Cross reviewed the 1987 Larry Fabbroni Engineering Report which
was reviewed at that time by Hunt Engineers.
Since then, methods have changed.
The engineering done then followed a process and Cross would like to
review that process and calculate the pond area for the Lansing Trails I
project which is located behind Parasiewicz’s house. He would like to research to see if drainage
from Lansing Trails 2 will have an effect on that pond. Hickey reported that residents on the north
side of St. Joseph’s Lane have also complained about water in their yards. Hickey would like Cross to report any
shortcomings in the Subdivision Law pertaining to drainage and storm water
runoff to this Board. Cross does not
feel they are deficient. John Piscopo,
Janivar Drive resident, stated the original land was farm land and it was
common for there to be trenches on farm land filled with gravel that
drained ground water and any building
cutting into these trenches would change the water flow. Parasiewicz wanted to
know why the original retention area for this part of the subdivision was not
constructed where shown on the original plat and why it was placed in his yard.
Parasiewicz also wanted to know the legal implications of placing the retention
ponds in a homeowner’s backyard. Cross stated
he is looking at the plans drawn by Fabbroni and there are 5 separate retention
areas in Lansing Trails I, one of which is in Parasiewicz’s backyard. Parasiewicz stated the subdivision plat shows
it on another lot and the present location is very different then the original
plat. Hickey has requested that Cross
research this and respond to Parasiewicz.
Troy stated he felt uncomfortable answering the legal question because
Parasiewicz bought the property and Parasiewicz’s attorney should probably research
this.
Approval of
Minutes – May 13:
The Board reviewed the minutes for May 13th. Klepack moved to approve the May 13th minutes as revised. Seconded by Dankert. All aye.
Other Business
as Time Permits:
Klepack stated that she and Stycos attended the County Local Government Official’s Training, but that SEQRA was not covered and attendees were told it would be discussed the next night in Montour Falls. Hickey will call County Planner Joan Jerkowich to express concern that an item was not discussed even though it was an agenda item. Some people had attended just to learn about SEQRA. Klepack also noted that in regards to cluster developments, open space gained through the process must be dealt with in a special way so it is not part of the individually owned parcels. The property gained (open space) must be legally defined as part of a homeowner’s association, an open space easement to a municipality or conveyed to a conservation organization. Hickey stated there needs to be language differentiating the 6% set-aside for municipal recreation land from open space. Hickey stated there must be identification of the land on a map, ownership identified, and an ordinance written. Troy will find what part of the law this is in and will write the language. Klepack also said she learned at the Training from Bernard Schmeltz that the Town of Colonie has stringent and specific landscape design requirements as well as color and architectural review. Troy will request a copy of this ordinance as well.
Klepack noted that the Board needed a follow-up on high traffic parking lots. Dankert has begun research on this and will continue to work on it. Dankert feels it might be useful to have assistance in this area. Hickey recommended Dankert review the book on parking he purchased for the Board’s and report back to the Board and then determine whether a consultant should be hired.
Adjournment:
Klepack moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 P.M. Seconded by Dankert. All aye.