Village of Lansing
Planning Board Meeting
The meeting of the Village of Lansing Planning Board was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Ned Hickey. Present at the meeting were Planning Board Members Doris Brown, Phil Dankert, Carol Klepack and Maria Stycos; Trustee Liaison Lynn Leopold; Attorney David Dubow; Code Enforcement Officer Ben Curtis; Engineer Brent Cross and members of the public.
Hickey opened the Public Comment period.
As there was no one else present who wished to speak, Dankert moved to close the Public Comment period. Seconded by Stycos. All aye.
Publication Information
Meeting – Sketch Plan Review – Spitsberag Subdivision:
The first item on the agenda was a Public Information
Meeting to consider the Sketch Plan Review of the Spitsberg Subdivision, a
major subdivision dividing a 7.11 acre lot into seven building lots. The lot to be subdivided fronts on Bush Lane
and is located in the Medium Density Residential District, Tax parcel No.
45.1-1-45.1. Hickey stated this public
information meeting is to allow for public concerns to be brought to the
attention of the Board at the beginning of the process. Gary Wood, Engineer for
the Spitsberg Subdivision would give a brief presentation, followed by
questions or concerns from the public, followed up be comments of the
Board.
Wood stated the subdivision will result in 7 lots of about
a third of an acre each, and will include a cul-de-sac approximately 500 feet
in length. An existing stream will be
relocated around the periphery of the development. There will also be a detention area as
required by the new storm water regulations.
There will also be a 20 ft. walking strip along the east edge of the
property. Public utilities are also
proposed. Wood stated this would be a
simple subdivision.
Robert Miller, Trustee for Millcroft Trust, the owner of
property adjoining the Spitsberg Subdivision, had 2 concerns. The first is about the relocation of the
stream which requires the removal of mature trees. Miller expressed concern that part of the
stream to be relocated is on the Millcroft property. Millcroft Engineers would
like to analyze the detention area as well as the stream relocation. Miller feels the stream is misrepresented in
the diagrams presented as it actually crosses onto the Millcroft property. Miller is also concerned about the size of
the lots with respect to minimum size lots in this zoning district.
Ron Furry, 143 Brook Way, has lived on Brook Way since
1966. His concerns are about drainage. Furry referenced the drainage way which runs
along the edge of his property. Since
1966, Furry has seen the velocity of this stream increase as Mrs. Gibbs can
attest. The old peak flow time used to
be over an hour and is now less than an hour.
Furry and his wife clean the area out.
Furry has seen the creek depth go from 4 feet to almost 0 in a very
short time due to the levee effect with stream deposits. Furry stated residents of the area no longer
cut grass down there as it is too wet. In the drainage area, boots are required
even in summer. Due to the velocity of
water, the bottom of the stream bed is being ripped out. In summary, Furry is concerned about this wet
drainage area and he would also like to know how the relocated stream will be
stepped to reduce velocity so that new debris does not go downstream and there
is not increased damage due to velocity and runoff.
Anne Furry, 143 Brook Way, spoke next. Over the years, Furry has seen increased
runoff problems. The Furrys once had a
bridge installed but it was washed away.
Furry stated the Village does not take responsibility for stream
maintenance and feels the Village needs to take preventative measures as the
streams are building up and becoming full of debris. Hickey stated that individual homeowners are
responsible for the streams on their property.
Furry stated the Village also does not take care of the streams on
Village property such as in the park area along Brook Drive near the corner of
N. Triphammer Road.
Jan Gibbs, 147 Brook Way, spoke next. Gibbs stated she and her husband put a tile
field in the back of their lot because of wetness. It has since filled in so they have now put
in a trench in the past year so the water will flow around their house as the
area is very, very wet and does not dry up.
Robert Miller further stated he is also concerned about
the line of sight where the subdivision’s new cul-de-sac will intersect with
Bush Lane. There is a hill at that
location and when traveling east, a clear sight distance is critical for such
an intersection. Hickey stated the
Village’s engineer has also expressed this concern.
Hickey stated the Board needs to classify this as a major
subdivision since it is over 2 lots.
Brown moved to classify the Spitsberg Subdivision as a Major
Subdivision. Seconded by Klepack. All aye.
Hickey stated that so far he has heard concerns regarding
erosion control, drainage control, landscaping (where trees are removed and
soil needs to be tied back in), and traffic safety.
Cross had previously given the following comments to the
Board for their review:
1. The stream course that flows under Bush Lane, from out of the Horizons Development, traverses this site. To allow for maximum development of lots, the developer has proposed to relocate the stream course around the outermost eastern and southern boundaries. I have not had a chance to research the status of that stream, but I would be concerned if it is determined to be a NYSDEC classified stream. There may be some significant restrictions under certain classifications.
2. The pass-through flow and proposed outlets of the stormwater basins from the Millcroft S/D is uphill to this property. I did not see any provision to accommodate this added drainage across this site. It should not be a problem, but needs to be accounted for in the final design of the relocated stream corridor.
3. The stormwater run-off from this project is proposed to be collected into a basin located on the south side of this property, which is the lowest side. The developer is concerned about setback dimensions and has proposed that the basin be located in an easement instead of a parcel of landed deeded to the Village with access from other Village land. As consistent with my reports on the Millcroft project, I recommend that the developer create a separate parcel of land for the stormwater facilities and provide fee title to the Village.
4. Dennis Reinhart is concerned about the site distance issue at the intersection of the new road on Bush Lane. He has observed a “knob” in Bush Lane in the vicinity of the proposed road that could affect the site distance for motorists coming out of the new subdivision. If it turns out that the new stream in on the “knob”, this would actually improve site distance.
5. The surface of the land slopes generally from north to south, which means that the end of the cul-de-sac will be several feet lower than Bush Lane. Unfortunately, the sewer is located in Bush Lane and the proposed gravity sewer will need to be fairly shallow at the south end to get enough grade back into Bush Lane. Therefore, some/most of the houses will need ejection pumps to get their sewage into the Village system in the new road ROW. Although this is not particularly desirable, I suggest that it is better than having the developer lower the sewer main and then have to install a large sewer pump station that would become the Village’s to maintain.
6. Although it is not within my normal review jurisdiction, I noticed that the developer had not made any provisions for the 6% recreation allowance.
These comments had also been given to Wood. Wood has also received comments from
Superintendent of Public Works, Dennis Reinhart.
Hickey stated it is unclear if it is a DEC listed stream,
but this will be researched by Wood. This
will determine whether the steam can or cannot be moved and what type of permit
may be required. Wood stated the stream
classification determines what will be required for a stream to be moved. The stream designs and calculations have not
been done yet. The concerns about
velocities and drainage are good to hear and will be addressed. The proposal may help the situation. Erosion controls can only be done for the
portion of the stream on this property.
The proposal calls for a retention area with a berm. Sediment must also be retained permanently on
the site and all these issues need to be addressed. Hickey stated that theVillage’s interest in
the detention area can not be secured with an easement but must be permanently
deeded to and owned by the Village so it can be maintained. Cross stated the developer is responsible for
seeing that the flows coming into the site from other developments transverse
the property, as well as seeing that the runoff generated by development on the
site is properly managed through the detention area and does not adversely
affect other properties. In the final analysis the design must comply with EPA
phase 2 storm water regulations.
Anne Furry expressed her concern about the road and its
intersection with Bush Lane. She is
uncertain of the location of the intersection and would like more information
about this since Bush lane is a country road.
Hickey stated others have expressed this concern and it will be
addressed.
Dubow noted that some of this Subdivision is within the
Airport Combining District and a notation like that required for the Millcroft
Subdivision must be placed on the final plat.
This should be consistent for the Jonson, Millcroft and Spitsberg
Subdivisions.
Bill Cooke – Small Mall
Planned Sign Area Amendment:
The next item on the agenda was a proposed amendment to
the Small Mall Planned Sign Area for the Bill Cooke car dealership. Cooke had provided documentation to the Board
indicating the dimensions of the proposed signs which included a light
bar. Cooke stated there has been a
history of sign changes for the property as the business has changed. They would now like to remain as is for the
Chevrolet and Cadillac business. Cooke
stated that General Motors is pressuring him to have a light bar to go around
the entire edge of the soffit. The
request is for 3 identification signs totaling 97.5 sf as well as a 133.4 sf
light bar. This would result in a total
of 231 sf of signage if the light bar were included in the total. The PSA allows for 178 sf of signage. Hickey stated the Sign Law appears to define
light bars as lighting devices and not as a sign. Cooke agreed that the light bar could be
considered a lighting device rather than a sign. Cooke stated it will also give them some
visibility from Route 13, and although the blue light bar identifies nothing
explicitly, General Motors throughout the world have a blue light bar
consistent with the one proposed.
Leopold noted the light bar is much the same as the light bars on the
roof of McDonalds which also act as a corporate identification device. Klepack wondered if this could be considered
lighting subject to approval by the Lighting Commission. Hickey stated that such lighting is usually
for illumination or security. Hickey
wondered if this would be like the bars on the video store proposed for the
Tops Plaza. Hickey is concerned about
setting a precedent. Curtis felt the
proposed light bar is a sign because it identified the General Motors
Corporation and could not therefore be, for instance, another color or in
another configuration. Curtis stated
there are provisions in the Sign Law to regulate the sizes of signs, but if the
light bar were not considered a sign there would be no limitations to the size
of the light bar as lighting devices are not regulated for size. Dubow stated a PSA gives discretion on a site
specific basis and the Board could be less worried about setting a precedent if
it determined that the light bar meets the criteria of the law for this
particular location. The law reads that
a PSA provides the opportunity to enhance the visual appearance which might
otherwise be limited by strict adherence to the sign regulations. Dubow further stated that if it is determined
that the light bar is a sign, then it must meet the current requirements of the
PSA or the Board must propose an amendment to the Board of Trustees. In the case of an amendment, the Board must
determine if it is a major or minor change to determine whether a public
hearing is required.
Hickey stated the Board must first decide if it is a sign
or a light bar. Klepack moved that the light bar be considered a sign. Seconded by Stycos. All aye.
Next, the Board discussed the allowable sign area. Curtis stated that 243 sf are approved which
includes 65 sf for the freestanding Toyota sign which leaves 178 sf. for
signage on the building with a maximum of four signs. Cooke noted that the
Toyota sign has been replaced with the original General Motors which is larger
than the Toyota sign. Curtis checked the
file and reported that the GM sign was 135 sf which would have to be subtracted
from the 243 total sf allowing for only108 sf of signage available on the
building. Carl Shulman from Cooke’s said
he had measured the GM sign and thought it was only 82sf. Hickey stated this might be tabled until
Cooke and Curtis can review the numbers to see what sf remains as signs have
been removed and added over the years.
Hickey stated that the applicant could be asking for twice what is
allowable. Hickey’s numbers indicate
there are 66 sf available for the light bar and the applicant is asking for 133
sf. which is twice the allowable amount.
Cooke stated that a possibility might be to have the light bar go part
way around the building. Dubow stated
Curtis would review the signage and if the proposal is found to be within the
limits of the previously approved PSA, Curtis can make a decision as to the
placement of the 66 sf. Curtis stated
this equates to about 97 lineal sf and the light bar could be placed on Cinema
Drive or shifted around the corner as the applicant thought best. If the applicant wants additional sign area
over and above the 243sf, it would require the Planning Board to make a
recommendation to the Board of Trustees for an amendment to the Planned Sign
Area. Hickey stated Cooke will work this
out with Curtis and if additional signage is requested, the applicant can
return to the Board at another meeting.
Lansing Trails 2 – Continued Discussion:
Hickey
provided those in attendance with copies of the proposed roads and layout of
Lansing Trails 2. Hickey stated Johnson
is present to discuss his concept of where the roads will go. The drawing depicted the 34 single family
lots as well as the 69 zero lot line townhouses. Johnson stated that those currently residing
in Lansing Trails were aware of the phasing of the development from the
beginning. Jonson is proposing one-way
traffic circulation in part of the subdivision, as well as two-way
traffic. Residents of Lansing Trails
expressed concerns about the traffic in their neighborhood. A resident expressed his concern about
exiting Bomax Drive going to the Post Office on Warren Road and having to cross
several lanes of traffic. John Wisor, 9
Leifs Way, expressed concern about fire safety and access for emergency
vehicles. Dankert responded that the
plan has been reviewed. Wisor asked
about placing a fire safety access road at the end of Janivar Drive in lieu of
a through connection for all traffic.
Wisor then distributed maps with alternate plans. Wisor supports the one way traffic circle for
traffic calming but feels it makes access more difficult for emergency
vehicles. John Sherbon, 2 Leifs Way,
wants to avoid N. Triphammer Road when traveling to the Post Office. The proposed route would make it possible for
Lansing Trails residents to get there and the circuitous route would deter
outside traffic from traveling through the neighborhood. Hickey stated Lansing Trails has always been
considered one community. Hickey stated
the Board must also act for future residents of the area. Hickey also stated the corner of Warren Road
and Route 13 intersection is already difficult during certain times of the day. The B&T Park also has many employees and
will continue to add to that intersection.
Klepack stated the concerns of the residents in the neighborhood should
be recognized but the entire Village should also be considered.
Hickey
stated the Board is reviewing the proposal for road layout. The Board is not reviewing lot configurations
but it was noted that there are flag lots proposed for the head of Ayla Way
which are not acceptable if there is not sufficient frontage. Brown questioned the proposed four lots which
have one way frontage on both sides. A
possibility may be to change the lots so they are back to back.
Hickey
ended the public information period so the Board could begin their work. Cross expressed concern about the tight 90
degree turns noting that they did not meet radius requirements in the Subdivision
Regulations. Hickey stated this might be
an acceptable design for traffic calming.
Jonson stated that this is just a sketch and the actual turns have not
been engineered yet. The Board would
like to continue to discuss traffic calming measures but first the road layout
needs to be approved. Klepack asked to
see Lansing Trails I presented on the maps along with Lansing Trails II in the
future.
Hickey
asked Board members if they favored the one way road system. Stycos felt this proposal was better than the
last. Klepack would like to hear more
about the one way system but she would be supportive. Dankert was in agreement. Hickey was unsure if the one way loop would
slow traffic more than a two way one.
Hickey also questioned what would happen if residents in the future
asked to have the roads made a two way.
Hickey liked the street layout but wanted to see room left for two way
if needed sometime in the future. Robert
Miller stated it would be difficult to say how he felt as his proposal as
currently approved does not include phases 3 and 4. Brown was in agreement with the layout
although she was unsure of the one way road.
Cross felt square corners should be avoided and when these turns were
properly engineered maybe some lots would need to be removed.
Review of Subdivision and
Special Permit Procedures:
Hickey placed this on the agenda to see if the Board was
supportive of including a public information meeting at the sketch plan level
of the subdivision approval process.
Board members were supportive of the public information meeting being
added to the procedures.
Planning Board Goals Update:
Hickey provided the Board with a draft set of goals: 1) Complete the review of the Village’s
Comprehensive Plan – consolidate and review updated sections of the plan,
conduct public hearing on updated plan, recommend changes to Board of
Trustees. 2) Develop a process for
assessing impacts on Visual Environment – identify aesthetic resources of
visual environment, prepare inventory of aesthetic resources that need
protection, prepare a geographic map of aesthetic resources needing protection,
and incorporate aesthetic resources in Village’s Open Space Plan. The map will become part of the Open Space
Plan. Hickey has spoken with consultant
Kathryn Wolfe and a draft copy may be ready by the end of February. 3) Recommend Village Open Space Plan to Board
of Trustees – review draft Open Space Plan, conduct public information meeting
on proposed plan, recommend adoption of Open Space Plan for incorporation in
Village’s Comprehensive Plan. 4) Review
Village Special Permit and Subdivision regulations and procedures – review
limited to Planning Board application approval procedures - develop
recommendation that will clarify and update existing procedures, submit
recommendations to Attorney and Board of Trustees.
Curtis asked about architectural standards being reviewed
by the Board which was an earlier goal.
Hickey stated Stycos would like to see it remain but Hickey is unsure if
it should remain as such standards are often subjective and would be hard to
develop. Curtis suggested that there
might be some minimal standards about which there would be a general consensus
such as requiring parapets to hide rooftop mechanicals, considering the
appearance of all four sides of a building during the review process,
etc.. Individual Board members will
attempt to develop architectural standards for commercial areas for
consideration by the full Board at a future meeting. Hickey has additional information he will
provide to Board members. Klepack felt
the Commercial Low Traffic Guidelines address some architectural issues. Board members will review these. As another item left from earlier goals
Curtis noted the Board had planned to explore alternate strategies for
preserving open space. Hickey has
provided additional information to Stycos about alternate strategies. Brown has been reviewing mandatory clustering
on the internet and learned NYS allows for mandatory clustering and that taxes
(so much per thousand of valuation of property) can be imposed to raise money
for purchasing of open space. Leopold
stated the Village has a line item in the budget to generate money for purchasing
of open space. Stycos asked about the temple being proposed on N. Triphammer Road and the possibility of
gaining open space as part of that approval process, noting that the property
is in a view shed identified in Wolfe’s study.
Hickey stated the Board can do nothing until an application is received
and they are aware they must go before the Planning Board. Hickey would like to see the Open Space Plan
(even if only in draft form) in place before the temple comes before the Board.
Comprehensive Plan Update
Procedures:
Approval of Minutes – January 12th:
Dankert
moved to accept the minutes of January 12th as revised. Seconded by Klepack. All aye.
New Business:
Hickey needs to turn in budget requests for
2004-2005. Hickey will include monies to
allow Board members to attend the fall planning association conference in Lake
Placid. Other suggestions included a pot
to heat tea water, traffic calming field trip, open space studies and
consultants,
Lansing Trails continued:
Hickey stated he has spoken with Larry Fraboni and told him a traffic study would need to be completed after there is general agreement on a road plan for the Subdivision. Hickey would rather move the park and have a direct connection made from Bomax Drive to Craft Road. Hickey is unsure if Miller will develop phase 3 and 4 and make the connection to Lansing Trails 2. Until that connection is made there will be a very long cul-de-sac accessing the townhouses. Cross is concerned about forcing Jonson to connect to Bomax Drive and stated the plan would be dramatically changed if there were no connection to the Millcroft Subdivision. Dubow stated the Board has no power to require Millcroft to build his road at this time and if he never develops phases 3 and 4, there will be a long cul-de-sac as currently proposed in Lansing Trails 2 with no exit or alternative routing. Cross felt having the Jonson road connect directly to Craft Road through the park would alleviate the traffic problem. Miller could tie into the through road at a later time when he develops. Curtis noted it would take an act of legislature to use for another purpose land already accepted as recreation land. Dubow stated this would be difficult. The road may be able to go through the open space instead. Dubow stated an internal connection might be a possibility. Curtis stated such an alternate route would be difficult because it would cross lots already developed. Hickey stated one condition of approval might be to limit or reconfigure the townhouses to allow for an emergency access road. Dubow stated Jonson should be apprised of these concerns and an additional plan addressing them be requested from Jonson.
Adjournment:
Klepack moved to adjourn at 9:55 P.M. Seconded by Stycos. All aye.