Planning Board
Meeting
The meeting of the
Mayor Don Hartill, present in the audience, stated that the Village is continuing to struggle to obtain additional sewer units from Cayuga Heights. Fair progress has been made and the plan now is to have two separate systems. The Town and Village of Lansing will be going into the Cayuga Heights sewer treatment plant. The entire Town of Ithaca sewage will be going directly into the Ithaca Wastewater Treatment Plant which will free up capacity at the Cayuga Heights Plant for the Village of Lansing hopefully by the end of this construction season.
Mayor Hartill also stated that Fisher Associates, the design consultants for the N. Triphammer Road project, held a presentation and open house. The initial cost estimate by this firm agrees with the original estimates and 80% of the cost of the project will be paid through federal funding.
Hickey opened the Public Comment.
As there was no one who wished to speak, Dankert moved to close the Public Comment period. Seconded by Klepack. All aye.
Miller Subdivision – Classify:
The
next item on the agenda was a sketch plan review and classification for the
Miller subdivision, known as the Millcroft Subdivision, off Bush Lane. Hickey explained that the Board must review
the sketch plan and make suggestions to the developers and his agent in case
modifications are needed before the preliminary plat is presented. The second job tonight is to classify this
subdivision. Village regulations state
that any subdivision of land into more than 2 parcels requires a major subdivision
classification. The plat shows 51
building lots with Phase I showing 10 – 12 parcels.
Klepack
moved to classify the Millcroft Subdivision as a major subdivision due to the
fact that there are a total of 10 – 12 parcels
in phase I being considered and ultimately 51 lots for the entire
subdivision. Seconded by Brown. All aye.
Robert
Miller, 105 Bush Lane, spoke next. He
and his mother,Viola Miller, and his brother who was not present represent the
principals of Millcroft Trust. The Trust is the owner of the land and was
originally bought by his parents 40 years ago to block the building of a large
warehouse on the property. They would
now like to develop the property in a manner which would be compatible with
their interests in controlling the disposition of the parcel. Phase I will be for 10-12 lots which they
would like to build now although they have included a sketch of the entire
parcel for the Board’s review. Hunt
Engineers have been retained to see their objectives are met and Hunt’s CEO,
Dan Bower will make the presentation
tonight.
Bower
introduced Landscape Architect Dean Hackett who assisted with the project. Bower also stated that Engineer Jim Finnegan
did the utilities for the project. Bower
stated the map was drawn of the basic subdivision which also indicates
neighboring parcels. The original map was
incorrect and the Board has received a revised map which also shows the
utilities in the front. Open space and
signage are also depicted. Bower presented the second map which was a blow-up
of the area and utilized it for a site analysis piece based on a 1998 aerial
photography. The property to be
developed is a 49 acre piece of the total 50+ acre parcel south of Bush
Lane. It is bounded by Bush Lane on the
north and Craft Road on the south and BorgWarner on the far east side. The Millers will be retaining a heavily
wooded strip of land south of Bush Lane which will border the original
homestead site which is within the Town of Lansing. The line for the subdivision has been moved
300 ft. from the boundary line to allow for this wooded strip as well as possible
future access points to Lansing Trails (Jonson property). The remainder of the subdivision parcel is
comprised of about 9.3 acres of mature woods;16 acres of other treed land near
the drainage stream; and 23 plus acres of pasture and fields. A drainage way comes from the pond and trails
through the parcel and connects to an existing drainage way. There is another retention pond in Horizons
Subdivision south of Rosina Drive and it connects with the existing drainage
way and heads to the west.
Bower
stated some basic decisions were made.
The developers would like to turn the site inward and access would be
from the internal streets. There is some
natural screening along Bush Lane and other screening would be created. This proposal would place the backyards of
affected houses in the subdivision along Bush Lane.
Hickey
asked if trees have been identified for saving.
Miller responded that it is their intention to place restrictions of
each lot which identifies which trees cannot be removed without approval.
Hickey
asked about full development and what the impact would be on Bush Lane. Bower stated a traffic analysis will be
presented along with the submission of the preliminary plat.
Stycos
asked about the 2.28 acres of recreation space.
Hickey stated this represents the 6% set aside. The inner connect road would connect Craft to
Bush Lane with smaller internal roads and cul-de-sacs within the subdivision. Larger lots in the subdivision are the more
treed lots to preserve more of the trees.
Hickey stated the Board and Fire Dept. would need to review the
cul-de-sac as it may need to be redesigned to accommodate emergency vehicles
and snow plows.
Bower
stated the plan has phases. The initial
phase will be near Craft Road. The sewer
would be brought up the slope of the land.
Water zones are different on both sides of the parcel and the higher
pressure zone such as that in the Horizons Development would be preferred by
the developers. Phase IV would have a
840 foot roadway to a t-turnaround.
There is currently no construction timeline for the project. The Phase 1 proposal will have 10-12
lots. Curtis noted that lot 12 would
need the required frontage on a road unless a variance is obtained. Bower’s feeling is that the lot would not be
developed in Phase I if a variance is required.
Klepack
asked about the park. Bower stated it
would be included in Phase I.
Cross
stated that the utilities sketch plan shows a storm retention area in the
middle of the parcel and he is uncertain how it would service the project as
1/3 of the project is below the pond and the entire Phase I is below it. Bower responded that they are playing with
the concept of an off-line ponding area but it will depend on what is required
to keep the areas sequestered. Cross is
in favor of off-line ponding but wants to know if subdivision regulations allow
the retention area to be on several parcels.
Bower stated that Planning Boards often have easements which are filed
with the plat. If the easement is not
conveyed to owner of the easement and is simply referenced in the deeds, it is
useless. Bower would strongly recommend
the municipality be involved. Hickey
stated the problem of having the retention pond on private property would need
to be resolved. Bower would like to see
the pond on private property but have the pond be covered by easement in favor
of the Village of Lansing. Troy would
recommend the Village obtain a dedicated piece of property so the cost of the
cleaning would lie with the Village.
Miller does not see this area as having a silting issue. The Board will wait till later to resolve
this issue depending on how the pond is designed to see whether the surface
water will work itself out naturally or a larger retention pond is required. Bower would advocate for ownership of the
parcels with an easement for the Village so it would have better maintenance by
the individual homeowners. However, if
the Village had the right to go in and clean it this would be the best because
the homeowners would provide regular maintenance yet the Village would have the
right for access to provide maintenance if the homeowner maintenance was
inadequate.
Klepack
asked about permits for houses close to a stream. Hickey responded that the residence must be
200 ft. from the center of a stream or a special permit is required to place
the residence closer to the stream.
Cross
asked about the road ROW and Bower responded that it is 50 ft. Cross felt 60 ft. might be required so this
should be reviewed. The developers are
trying to keep the roadways tight and are proposing a 20 ft. driving surface
with 2.5 feet on either side for concrete gutters. This will allow for the removal of fewer
trees if drainage was within the roadway.
Property lines and roadways will be relocated to allow for less removal
of trees. Curtis stated the ROW for a
cul-de-sac could be 50 ft. but if the road is a secondary road such as the one
that connects from Bush Lane to Craft Road it must be 60 ft. wide. Bower felt the subdivision could work with 50
ft. ROWs for the roads. Hickey stated
the Planning Board may have the option of waiving the requirement based on the
engineer’s recommendation. Curtis stated
there is a waiver provision incorporated into the Subdivision Regulations.
Bower
stated some utilities may be placed close to the roadway due to the drip line
of the larger trees. Brown asked about sidewalks or bikeways. Bower responded that there would be a trail
in the parcel going north - south. This
is part of the Greenway Plan. Paved
lanes and the gutters are planned within the 25 ft. road width. There would be no sidewalks and the 25 ft.
width would not be marked for pedestrians.
Viola Miller stated she would like to see it marked. Klepack would like to see sidewalks within
the subdivision to be used for such activities as using baby buggies, walking
dogs, or helping children learn to use training wheels. Bower stated that less sidewalks means less
maintenance. Moore referenced Dart Drive
and the fact that there is no place to walk safely. Hickey summed this up that sidewalks are an
issue to be resolved in the future.
Next,
Hickey went on to the street lighting issue.
Bower stated their approach is to implement a more controllable lighting
system with more frequent poles. There
would be low level lights at intersections and each homeowner would have a
shorter light pole at the end of their driveway which they would be required to
maintain. This requirement would be in
the deed restrictions. This may prove
difficult to enforce. Hickey stated the
Village cannot create a lighting district and the Village currently pays the
lighting bill for the other developments like the Janivar Drive area. Hickey stated the Board worked with NYSEG to
determine the number and placement of poles though often fewer lights are
installed than NYSEG might recommend.
Bower will work with the electric company on this. Hickey stated it is important to maintain the
safety of the area and he would prefer lower lights with box shields. Hickey stated a lighting plan would be
required. Curtis stated the Village
would also look at the entry signage lighting for light trespass.
Cross
spoke about the cul-de-sacs in Phase IV at 840 feet, Phase I at 800 feet, and
Phase 2 at 1200 ft. Cross feels this is
pushing the limits of acceptable design and the developers would need approval
of the fire department and snow removal crews. Bower stated that Phase 2 may
loop some of the roads and this would alleviate some of the cul-de-sacs. Hickey stated that both this and Jonson’s
subdivisions are required to build to the property line but a hammerhead might
need to be built at the end of the road if the connector from Janivar Dr. is
not yet built. The plan also allows for
on-street parking to allow for parking near the park site and this can be
addressed later.
Cross
noted that in Phase 1 there is a stop sign near the park entrance at a 90
degree turn in the road and he does not think a traffic control device in the
middle of a through street is either wise or legal. Hickey would recommend the use of the
standard state signs showing people walking and also a color change to the
pavement indicating a walkway. Cross was
also concerned about the trail which dead ends near the gazebo where a sidewalk
might be required.
Bower
would like at two locations to reduce the road curve radius from 300 ft. to 150
ft. Hickey recommended this be discussed
with Cross.
Bower
spoke about the fact that Borg Warner has a 6 inch pipe leaving their
detention pond and this creates a large
wet area and he would like to know if this is an approved pipe as he feels it
is not. Curtis will review the plans.
They appreciate the Village’s help in correcting this drainage problem one way
or the other.
Regarding
the trail, Bower wanted to know who he could deal with to coordinate efforts on
the trail. Hickey responded that
Superintendent of Public Works Dennis Reinhart is the contact person. The trail is a temporary easement which will
eventually become permanent. Cross
stated it will become a Village ROW.
Hickey recommended that any proposed changes be forwarded to the Village
Attorney for review.
John
O’Neil, Janivar Drive, cautioned about diverting water to the south as it might
affect the Lansing Trails subdivision.
Also, the sign near Craft Road and Janivar Drive should not be lit or
that the lights go off at a specified time so as not to bother the
neighbors.
Hickey
noted there is also a reserve strip of land along the north edge of the Lansing
Trails Subdivision and that needs to be resolved; the attorney will be working
on this.
Other Business as Time
Permits:
Hickey
distributed the list Carol Willard compiled of Planning Board resources located
in the closets in Curtis’ office.
When
codification is completed, Board members will receive updated Planning Board
notebooks which include Zoning Law, Subdivision Law, Sign Law, etc.
Landscaping Guidelines for
CHT Parking Lots – Klepack:
Klepack
has reviewed the CLT Guidelines for “Parking and Service Areas” and has proposed
changes for CHT Districts. Section 3.5
indicates curbs along N. Triphammer Road shall be either granite or
concrete. Hickey feels the ring roads
should have granite curbing but parking aisles shall be concrete and definitely
not rail road ties. Troy recommended the
language state that curbing shall be either granite or concrete as directed by
the Planning Board.
Hickey
stated the Guidelines for CLT and CHT Districts are guidelines and can be
utilized at the Board’s discretion. This
document will become a part of the CLT Guidelines after it is retyped by Carol.
Section
4.13 will have the wording that all plantings required by special permit must
be maintained and replaced as necessary, as detailed on the approved site
plan.
Klepack
will check the CLT Guidelines to see if there is something in their about
requiring earth tones or muted tones.
This will be then incorporated into the CHT Guidelines.
Open Space/Clustering & Open Space Proposal - Hickey:
Hickey provided Section 127.17 of the Village Subdivision Law regarding clustering. Hickey has provided a draft with additional details which he feels are needed for clustering. Hickey also provided information on a homeowner’s association from the Honeoye Falls document. Brown asked if the Village approves a homeowner’s association rules. Hickey stated for clustering this would need to meet the approval of the Village Attorney. Other options besides a homeowner’s associations are the Village may own the property or it may be placed in a Trust. Mayor Hartill stated a Trust has advantages for tax purposes as the open land cannot be assessed for its full value as each deed holder has an interest in the parcel. Stycos said homeowner’s associations promotes neighborly unity. Hickey stated that the Board should encourage the preservation of land where there is a particular reason for doing so. Point No. 6 on Hickey’s draft lists requirements for clustering such as the subdivision is adjacent to previously preserved open space; the subdivision contains or is adjacent to significant historical or environmental features; open space is needed as a buffer zone; or a linear strip is needed to add to an existing or future trail system as part of the Greenway Plan.
Board members will review the materials presented and will continue discussion at a later date. Hickey would like to see clustering and tried to encourage the Millers to consider it but they were adamant they did not want clustering on their property. It is important to have specific laws and equitable treatment for all property owners.
Hickey has contacted Kathryn Wolf for a proposal to assist the village with open space.
Cooperstown GEIS Goals – Stycos:
Stycos has spent considerable time on this topic and much deals with open space. Much of her information had come from Cooperstown NY. A Generic Environmental Study could be done for the Village but it would be costly. The scoping process done by Cooperstown identified viewsheds but the document she reviewed did not give her the information she desired. Stycos noted that viewsheds often require maintenance to preserve their value whereas open space may be more simply managed and can be preserved through clustering.
Adjournment:
Klepack moved to adjourn at 9:48 P.M. Seconded by Brown. All aye.