Planning Board

Committee Members:
Charles Hill, Chair
Finn Jensen
Matt Schuermann
Sally Graumlich
Richard Blabey

December 22, 2009
Planning Board Minutes (In draft form - Subject to change)

A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Cooperstown was held in the Village Office Building, 22 Main Street, Cooperstown, New York on December 22, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. Members in attendance were Acting Chair - Charlie Hill, Sally Graumlich, Finn Jensen, Matt Schuermann and alternate – Cindy Falk. Also in attendance was ZEO – Tavis Austin, Village Attorney – Martin Tillapaugh, DPW Superintendent – Brian Clancy and Deputy Village Clerk - Jennifer Truax. Three members of the public were present.

Call to order at 4:30 p.m.

Regular Agenda

Chestnut Crossing (JGB Properties, Doug Beachel) – Informal Subdivision Review.

Mr. Hill reviewed the proposed subdivision and the process which would need to be used for the proposed subdivision.

Mr. Beachel provided the Board with a new sketch of the proposed subdivision and explained the minor changes which had been made to the site layout since it was originally submitted.

Mr. Hill stated that the Planning Board, at this time, needed to review the lot layout including traffic circulation. He explained that other areas of review would happen later in the review process.
Mr. Hill entered into the record an e-mail from Mr. Paul Bedworth, Cooperstown Fire Chief, who stated that he finds no concerns regarding Fire or EMS services within the proposed subdivision.

Mr. Austin clarified that he had spoken directly with Mr. Bedworth who felt that the emergency vehicles would have no trouble with access to the properties within the subdivision through the current alley off of Chestnut Street. Mr. Austin stated that according to information provided on an application previously submitted by neighbor, Mr. Mark Kingsley, the width of the alley is 10 feet.

Mr. Hill stated that he had measured the distance between the two trees on either side of the alley where it joins Chestnut Street and found the width of the alley to be 12’ 5”. He suggested that a third party take an additional measurement.

The Board discussed the effects of Mr. Kingsley’s business and the subdivision on vehicle and pedestrian safety along the alley.

Mr. Hill stated that the Board is obligated to review the safety of both the lots themselves, and the roads and traffic flow. He continued to state that in the past a question of soil contamination by previous owners was questioned in the area of proposed lots four and five. He asked Mr. Beachel if that issue had been resolved.

Mr. Beachel explained that he does have a letter from DEC which states that the file on this property has been closed. He further explained the process which DEC undertakes in the event of possible soil contamination and that if at any point during construction an issue arises DEC will reopen the file and reevaluate the hazards. He indicated that DEC will not issue a statement concerning future intended use.

Mr. Hill stated that previously the Board asked Mr. Kingsley, whose property is adjacent to proposed lots 4 and 5 to verify the lot as buildable by providing soil tests and the results prior to approval.

Dr. Falk stated that that type of testing may need to wait until the demolition of the current structures has been completed.

Mr. Hill asked Mr. Tillapaugh for his legal opinion regarding requiring the applicant to have the soil tested.

Mr. Tillapaugh stated that he does not feel fault can be found with the Board for being too careful.

Mr. Beachel asked at what point the soiling testing would be required.

Mr. Austin stated that it would be appropriate during the site plan review.

Mr. Hill asked Mr. Beachel to provide any current documentation as to DEC’s evaluation of the property. He asked Mr. Beachel if he has been in contact with the Department of Health.

Mr. Beachel stated that his understanding is that the Department of Health is only concerned with well water and septic tanks. He explained that this is done on the county level in this area and that the subdivision would access Village water and sewer; therefore, the county should have no concerns. As a result, until getting a sense of the Planning Board, he has not made a formal inquiry.

Mr. Hill asked that Mr. Beachel provide a statement to that effect from the Department of Health. He stated that a more challenging issue is the alley which according to the Zoning law needs to be a minimum of twenty feet in width but is currently only twelve feet in width. Mr. Hill explained that currently the majority of the use of this alley are visitors to the Inn. He continued to the stated that there is also traffic from the resident next to the Inn and the residence which is proposed for demolition. He stated that with traffic to proposed lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, along with the current use, it could cause issues with head to head traffic. He asked if anyone had suggestions which might help resolve this issue.

Mr. Beachel stated that a thru street was one of the only alternatives that might work to resolve this issue. He continued to state that in his review of the Village Zoning Law he found that this type of street is discouraged. He further stated that he does not see any other good means of resolving this issue. Mr. Beachel stated that the Inn has twenty-one parking spaces. He continued to explain that the four interior lots created by the sub-division will only create one additional user as there are already three current lots with alley access associated with the property to be developed.

Mr. Hill read the Zoning Law pertaining to alleys and thru traffic streets.

Mr. Jensen asked about the current traffic flow on the alley.

Mr. Austin stated that Mr. Kingsley has stated that the alley is used mostly for ingress by the patrons of his business. He continued to state that the patrons use the Inn driveway for egress.

Mr. Jensen asked if the alley was ever used for egress.

Mr. Austin stated that he cannot say that the patrons never use the alley for egress.

Mr. Jensen asked if there was any history of traffic incidences in the alley.

Mr. Clancy stated that as a lifetime resident of this area of the Village, former Fire Chief and DPW superintendent he is not aware of any traffic incidences in the alley.

Mr. Austin stated that the Board may want to consider whether the proposed traffic use is more, less, or equivalent to the use by Smith Ford when it occupied this site.

Mr. Hill stated that they would also need to consider the use of the Inn when Smith Ford owned the property.

Dr. Falk stated that the use of the Inn has not changed. She explained that it is a pre-existing non-conforming use.

Mr. Austin stated that the general rule in planning is to expect 5 – 10 trips per lot per day. He continued to state that Mr. Kingsley is concerned with the exiting of vehicles from the alley. Mr. Austin stated that if adjustments were made to Mr. Kingsley’s landscaping it may provide some relief for this concern. He further stated that he has concerns over giving “extra-credit” to Mr. Kingsley for being “first.” He explained that he is not sure that a pre-existing non-conforming use should get preference over a new conforming use.

Mr. Schuermann asked if the driveway for lots could be brought in off from Pine Boulevard and the Board allow an adjustment in the required setbacks by moving it closer to the right of way.

Mr. Austin stated that the Planning Board can vary certain requirements but they may not change things like setbacks or street widths.

Dr. Falk stated that she lives on a dead end street which is fourteen feet in width. She explained that the proposed plan seems to work, possibly better than her situation on Grove Street in that the site line is better. She stated that she has two suggestions to ease the traffic congestion the first being to widen, where possible, the alley to 20 feet and the second being to reverse the ingress and egress of the traffic for the Inn. Dr. Falk further stated that she is not thrilled with adding additional traffic to Pine Boulevard due to it being for one-way traffic.

Mr. Hill stated that the cut thru further north on Pine Boulevard would allow for the traffic to turn around if necessary to reverse their direction.

Dr. Falk stated that the use of the cut thru to turn around is difficult with parked vehicles on the street.

Mr. Hill stated that he feels that the Board needs to consider the worst possible scenario when considering the increased traffic from the proposed subdivision.

Ms. Graumlich stated that she feels that the Board should consider that most families today have two cars, visitors would be entering and exiting and each home would be receiving deliveries such as propane, fuel oil, etc.

Mr. Hill stated that the estimate of two vehicle trips per property per hour could conceivably be underestimated.

Ms. Graumlich stated that she has walked the alley and feels that there is more traffic in that alley then is realized and due to the width she is concerned about the added traffic from the proposed subdivision.

Mr. Hill stated that twenty feet is needed for two cars to pass. He continued to state that both lots 4 and 5 are over the required square footage and that potentially the lane could be widened, reducing the size of the lots, to provide additional width to the alley.

Mr. Beachel stated that he would be okay with adding additional pavement to the alley and reducing the size of lots 4 and 5.

The Board further discussed the traffic flow and parking for the proposed subdivision. Alternatives discussed involved the creation of a shared driveway for lots 1, 2, and 3 off of Pine Boulevard and/or the creation of a shared driveway or one-way street to access lots 4, 5 and 6 off of Chestnut Street north of the current alley.

Mr. Jensen stated that he liked the proposed plan for the subdivision as presented even with the traffic issues.

Mr. Austin stated that Mr. Clancy does not feel this alley is any worse than Grove Street.

Mr. Jensen stated that he lives on a standard sized street with parking on both sides which causes traffic hazards. He continued to state that people learn to adjust and parents teach their children how to be safe in any specific situation. He further stated that it is important for the Board to consider the character of the neighborhood that is being created and whether the benefits outweigh the traffic issues.

Mr. Hill stated that it may be possible to still have the benefits while improving the traffic issues.

Mr. Jensen stated that the current proposal makes use of two current alleys and gives each parcel its own driveway. He explained that it is a better situation than his current shared driveway. He stated that the current subdivision plan also provides privacy to each parcel.

Mr. Hill asked Mr. Beachel about potential drainage easements.

Mr. Beachel stated that plans will include a drainage easement. He explained the potential drainage plan and use of new technology.

Mr. Hill stated that at some point the runoff water needs to be removed from Pine Boulevard and this seems to make the most sense.

Mr. Beachel stated that if possible he will infiltrate the water.

Mr. Austin stated that the water on Pine Boulevard is not Mr. Beachel’s issue. He continued to state that he may have to work with the Village in this regard.

Mr. Tillapaugh stated that the Village does not currently have a drainage issue on Pine Boulevard and therefore it is the developer’s problem.

Mr. Jensen stated that it has been determined that emergency vehicles will be able to access the proposed lots and although the egress may be a little messy those who are using the alley will learn to adjust. He further stated that he likes the plan as proposed but is okay with adding asphalt to the alley side north of lots 4 and 5 to allow cars to pass each other.

Mr. Schuermann stated that he also likes the proposed subdivision but is concerned with multiple lots and vehicles using a substandard street for egress and ingress. He further stated that it is difficult to know the outcome without seeing it in place. He continued to state that the alley is very tight and with the number of cars that could potentially be at the Inn there is a large possibility that congestion could be a problem.

Ms. Graumlich stated that Chestnut is a very busy street and it could be potentially difficult to manipulate the turn off Chestnut Street. She further stated that using Grove Street as a comparison is not accurate as the traffic on Chestnut Street is much greater than that at Upper Main Street.

Mr. Hill asked if there were any other suggestions.

Ms. Graumlich stated that she feels it would be better to take some of the traffic off the alley and have them exit on Pine Boulevard.

Mr. Jensen asked if that was necessary even though the traffic would be moving at less than 5 mph in the alley.

Ms. Graumlich stated that there is still the potential for a traffic conflict in which someone has to give.

Dr. Falk stated that she likes the proposed plan and understands Ms. Graumlich’s concerns. She continued to state that there is no easy solution but that the situation has existed for a long time. She further stated that the proposed solutions create issues of their own. Dr. Falk stated that she is more concerned with the traffic created by the influx of tourist to the Inn. She continued to state that it may be advisable for Mr. Kingsley to reroute the traffic from his business as he has a shared access to this public alley.

Mr. Austin suggested the placement of a local traffic only sign at the entrance to the alley.

Dr. Falk stated that Cooper Lane is another example of a substandard width street within the Village.

Mr. Schuermann stated that the people who purchase these lots will become accustom to the traffic hazards of the ingress and egress but he is concerned with tourist use during the first 150 feet of the alley.

Mr. Austin suggested opening the curb cut on Chestnut Street to improve visibility.

Mr. Clancy stated that it would mean the relocation of a utility pole and a fire hydrant.

Mr. Beachel stated that he would be willing to have these utilities relocated as an off site cost of the project.

Ms. Graumlich stated that she feels that opening this curb cut up would allow drivers a safe place to stop and wait for another vehicle to exit.

Mr. Beachel stated that he would rather cover the cost of relocating the utilities than muddy up the design of the subdivision. He stated that he feels this design will allow for the building of great homes which will enhance the Village.

Mr. Hill suggested speaking with Mr. Kingsley about selling the Village two feet of property along the alley to increase its width. He stated this extra footage would ease the traffic flow and allow for those walking through to move out of vehicle traffic.

Mr. Austin stated that Mr. Kingsley could be reminded that the Village had the opportunity to obtain the extra right of way during any one of his applications before the board.

Mr. Clancy stated that prior to any of that the Planning Board may want to consult with the Mayor regarding funds to make such a purchase.

Mr. Hill asked Mr. Beachel if he was considering any type of pedestrian walkway to access Chestnut Street.

Mr. Beachel stated that he has considered a pedestrian walkway and has a set of drawings which show a walkway.

Mr. Austin stated that curving the corner of lot 4 would increase the maneuvering room for larger vehicles.

Dr. Falk asked Mr. Beachel if he was considering curbs or soft edges.

Mr. Beachel stated that he was looking at soft edges.

Mr. Austin stated that as he looks at the original configuration of Lots 4 and 5 it seems to make more sense to have them as originally proposed so that the homes on lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 could face each other. He asked if the Planning Board would be comfortable modifying the requirements for lot width.

Ms. Graumlich and Mr. Hill both stated that they like that proposal.

Mr. Hill stated that the Planning Board can waive certain regulations.

Dr. Falk asked if the Planning Board has the purview to vary that requirement.

Mr. Tillapaugh stated that if he would need to review the law further to make that determination but that if they cannot he feels that the ZBA would be willing to allow a variance especially with a recommendation from the Planning Board.

Mr. Beachel stated that he would show the proposed plans with both configurations of lots 4 and 5.

Mr. Hill stated that his understanding of the comments from the members of the Board is that they are in favor of widening the driveway area on the south side of lots 4 and 5, rotating lots 4 and 5 ninety degrees, construct a pedestrian walkway, and the entrance from Chestnut Street be widened.

Mr. Austin stated that he would get the application on for the next ZBA meeting.

Mr. Hill stated that he would review the subdivision law to see if the Planning Board can waive the lot width or if it will need a variance from the ZBA.

Mr. Jensen made a motion that the informal subdivision review be accepted with the following conditions; a four foot wide vehicular bypass on the south side of lots 4 and 5; a pedestrian walkway east of the 30 foot right of way between lots 4 and 5 and along lot 6 to Chestnut Street; orienting lots 4 and 5 in an east-west configuration, and widening the entrance to the alley by relocation of the NYSEG pole and fire hydrant with the agreement of location by NYSEG and Mr. Clancy. Ms. Graumlich seconded the motion and a vote had the following results:

AYES: Falk, Graumlich, Hill, Jensen, Schuermann Motion carried.

Mr. Hill reviewed the procedure and timeline for the review of the subdivision. He asked that Mr. Beachel keep the Board informed of his progress.

Minutes

Mr. Schuermann made a motion to approve the minutes from November 24, 2009 as presented. Dr. Falk seconded the motion and a vote had the following results:

AYES: Falk, Graumlich, Hill, Jensen, Schuermann Motion carried.

Meeting adjourned at 6:22 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Truax, Deputy Village Clerk



November 24, 2009
Planning Board Minutes (In draft form - Subject to change)

A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Cooperstown was held in the Village Office Building, 22 Main Street, Cooperstown, New York on November 24, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. Members in attendance were Acting Chair - Charlie Hill, Sally Graumlich, Finn Jensen, Matt Schuermann and alternate – Cindy Falk. Also in attendance was ZEO – Tavis Austin and Deputy Village Clerk - Jennifer Truax. Five members of the public were present.

Call to order at 4:30 p.m.

Regular Agenda

Signs – Discussion of sign law and those which are out of compliance beyond the “7 Year” sunset law.

Mr. Hill provided copies of the data collected previously by Richard Blabey, Roger MacMillan, and Al Keck. He stated that in order to move forward on compliance with the sign law the board should review the data and determine how to proceed. He asked Mr. Austin if he was creating a database with the collected material.

Mr. Austin stated that he would create a database if it was determined tonight to be an effective way to proceed. He continued to state that he felt it would create an easier and more effective way to search the data for specific criteria.

Mr. Hill reviewed the data stating that every sign had been measured in inches and converted to square feet. He explained that the current sign law allows signs based on square footage. He further stated that he was surprised at the number of signs which are in compliance. Mr. Hill stated that some of the signs approved since the 2001 law have received variances and therefore are in compliance even thought they are over the allowable square footage stated in the sign law.

Dr. Graumlich stated that the database should also included information regarding whether or not the sign is in compliance and the date of any variances.

Mr. Hill stated that information regarding the date of approval, variances and date of said variances would be beneficial.

Mr. Austin clarified that he has begun the data base and it includes all of those items along with the zoning district at the time of approval and current zoning district.

Dr. Falk stated that she has all of the old sign laws if anyone is interested in reviewing them.

Mr. Hill stated that there are many directional and cautionary signs included on the list which are not regulated. He further stated that the current sign law is confusing especially regarding neon and window signs.

Dr. Falk stated that the laws regarding illuminated signs are also confusing.

Mr. Hill also pointed out that the current law does not take into account the size of the structure where the sign will be placed. He stated that in the future it may be appropriate to reexamine the sign law and make changes regarding these issues. He recommended that before reviewing the law the Board needs to determine what signs are currently non-compliant.

Mr. Austin stated that once a determination has been made on which signs are non-compliant the law could then be examined to determine if a law change would change the non-compliant status.


Dr. Falk stated that it was important to determine how the Board wants to proceed before moving forward. She explained that previously letters were sent out to all those who had signs that were not compliant. She continued to explain that after these letters were received by the owners the Planning Board had a large number of requests for variances. With this in mind, Dr. Falk, recommended that the Board be sure of how it wants to proceed before any action is taken.

Mr. Hill recommended that the members of the Board analyze the available data, Mr. Austin compile the database, and prepare for review and discussion at the January 2010 meeting.

62 Pioneer Street (NBT Bank represented by James Jordan & Brad Hall) – Site plan for proposed 4,795 square foot addition and parking area.

Mr. Jordan shared the photometrics with the members of the Board explaining that the photometric plan had been received that day. He stated that they were proposing the use of LED lighting at 94 watts which is much more energy efficient. He further stated that they proposed seventeen (17) light fixtures, fifteen (15) twelve foot pole lights and two (2) lights against the building. Mr. Jordan stated that the light fixtures were approved by HPARB.

Mr. Hill asked if the approved lighting style was available with LED lights.

Mr. Jordan stated that they were.

Mr. Hill asked the height of the posts.

Mr. Jordan clarified that the posts were twelve (12) feet in height.

Mr. Hill asked if there would be lights mounted on the building.

Mr. Jordan stated that there would not be lights mounted on the building. He continued to explain that the amount of lighting as submitted may be reduced in the future and that this plan is the maximum lighting intensity being sought.

Mr. Austin stated that the proposed lighting at the driveway entrance is the same intensity as the approve lighting at Bassett Hall. He explained that the LED lights would not have the same brilliance as metal halide lighting.

Mr. Jordan concurred that the LED lights would be duller than metal halide lights.

Mr. Hall pointed out that the proposed lights would also have built in lenses which are designed to keep the bleed from adjacent properties.

Mr. Hill asked Mr. Jordan to explain the three circles seen on the photometric plans surrounding the ATM.

Mr. Jordan reviewed the lighting requirements for ATMs and explained that the circles show the increments from the ATM at the required lighting minimums.

The board reviewed the lighting requirements for the area surrounding the ATM.

Mr. Hill asked Mr. Jordan if there was a minimum lighting requirement outside the ATM area.

Mr. Jordan stated that there was no minimum lighting requirement outside of the ATM area.

Mr. Hill asked Mr. Jordan what is the goal for the lighting levels in the parking area.

Mr. Jordan stated that the goal is approximately one foot candle.

Dr. Falk asked if the light would be more beneficial and less intrusive for the neighboring properties if the light poles were placed along the building and sidewalk versus the perimeter of the property as shown.

Mr. Jordan stated that the lights are shielded on the side of the neighbor and that if they are moved to the inside of the property they may spill more light onto the neighboring properties.

Mr. Hill asked Mr. Jordan if the photometrics are based on the LED lights.

Mr. Jordan stated that the photometric plans are based on 94 watt, reflective LED lights with baffling. He further stated that they maybe able to eliminate a couple of light fixtures which will make the property darker.

Mr. Hill asked Mr. Jordan if he was receptive to approval, with further review after installation if necessary. He shared Stewarts as an example of lighting which was reviewed and adjusted after the lights were in place.

Mr. Jordan stated that he was willing to review the lighting again if it was found to be necessary.

Mr. Schuermann made a motion to approve the preliminary lighting plan as presented in Lighting Plan 1 with the provision that if either party finds the lighting to be an issue after installation it will be revisited. Dr. Graumlich seconded the motion and a vote had the following results:

AYES: Falk, Graumlich, Hill, Jensen, Schuermann Motion carried.

Mr. Hill asked Mr. Jordan for clarification as to the fencing along the residential property.

After discussion it was clarified that the fence would end with one section which is scalloped down from six feet in height to four feet in height.

Mr. Hill asked that Mr. Jordan provide clarification (an elevation drawing) of the fence on the Final Site Plan labeled L-1 dated 11/20/2009. He continued to state that although the new proposed cedar screening looks good but he is concerned about the line of sight for vehicles exiting the parking area. Mr. Hill shared line of sight scenarios with Mr. Jordan and the board.

Mr. Jordan stated that they are willing to remove the trees in question.

Dr. Graumlich stated that although she understands Mr. Hill’s concerns she does no think it is necessary to remove four trees. She further explained that the screening for the neighboring property is a bigger issue.

Mr. Schuermann stated that as a resident of the street he does not feel that the visibility has been an issue in the past and unless there will be a large increase in activity he does not feel it necessary to remove the trees in question.

Mr. Hill stated that he feels that this is a potential hazard that does not need to exist. He continued to state that the first few trees could be eliminated and smaller shrubs put in their place.

Mr. Jensen stated that the same objective could be accomplished with the elimination of one or two trees versus four.

Mr. Hill stated that if the same requirement for tree screening was used as for fencing there would need to be a minimum of twenty (20) feet from the curb. He continued to point out that location on the site plan and state that it would require the removal of one or two trees.

Mr. Schuermann stated that he feels that would be appropriate as the screening of the neighboring property is important.

Mr. Hill asked the members of the Board if they were agreeable to having the trees be no closer than twenty (20) feet from the curb.

The board concurred.

Mr. Hill questioned the width and angle of the entrance.

Mr. Jordan stated that the entrance was designed to accommodate people entering from Church Street and turning left off Pioneer Street. He continued to state that they are not changing the entrance from what exists.

The board discussed the design of the entrance and concurred that if there are no changes to the curb cut as it exists then the entrance should be left as is.

Mr. Hill pointed out that there is a parking space located in the rear parking lot, in front of the area where the drop curbs are proposed. He stated that if a vehicle is parked in this space the drop curbs are blocked to pedestrian traffic. Mr. Hill suggested that the hatched areas at the end of the parking be relocated to the area in front of the drop curbs in order to facilitate there use by pedestrians without the loss of the parking space.

Mr. Austin suggested that the hatched area in front of the drop curb be the width of an approved ADA loading zone or at least the required four feet sidewalk width for ADA accessibility.

Mr. Jordan concurred that he would change the parking space and the hatched area.

Mr. Hill stated that being settled on the lighting, landscaping including limiting the trees/shrubs to a minimum of twenty (20) feet from the curb and the location and height of the fence the board would be able to move on the site plan once those changes have been submitted.

Mr. Austin suggested that the Board could move on the Final Site Plan tonight with review by the ZEO and Planning Board chair as allowed for Bassett once the updated plans are provided.

Mr. Hill asked Mr. Jordan if he was aware of the stipulations for the Site Development Plan such as field changes and amendments.

Mr. Jordan stated that he was.

Dr. Graumlich made a motion to approve the Final Site Development Plan for 62 Pioneer Street, NBT Bank of Cooperstown including lighting sheet number one and the following changes to the site plan; limiting the plantings along Pioneer Street to no closer than 20 feet to the curb and providing for pedestrian traffic in the area in front of the curb drop at the rear of the parking lot. Mr. Jensen seconded the motion and a vote had the following results:

AYES: AYES: Falk, Graumlich, Hill, Jensen, Schuermann Motion carried.

Mr. Hill advised Mr. Jordan that the approval is conditional on the submission of completed plans to include the changes as discussed tonight. He continued to state that once those are received he and Mr. Austin will review and if satisfactory, the Chair will sign the Final Site Development Plan. He asked Mr. Jordan the anticipated start date.

Mr. Hall stated that he did not have an exact start date but that they hoped to complete the project in 2010.

Minutes

Dr. Graumlich made a motion to approve the minutes from October 27, 2009 as presented. Mr. Schuermann seconded the motion and a vote had the following results:

AYES: Graumlich, Hill, Jensen, Schuermann
OBSTAIN: Falk Motion carried.

Mr. Jensen made a motion to approve the minutes from November 12, 2009 as presented. Dr. Falk seconded the motion and a vote had the following results:

AYES: Falk, Graumlich, Hill, Jensen, Schuermann Motion carried.

Meeting adjourned at 5:32 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Truax, Deputy Village Clerk


October 27, 2009
Planning Board Minutes (In draft form - Subject to change)

A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Cooperstown was held in the Village Office Building, 22 Main Street, Cooperstown, New York on October 27, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. Members in attendance were Acting Chair - Charlie Hill, Richard Blabey, Sally Graumlich, Finn Jensen, and Matt Schuermann. Also in attendance was ZEO – Tavis Austin, Village Attorney – Martin Tillapaugh and Deputy Village Clerk - Jennifer Truax. Twenty-Seven members of the public were present.

Call to order at 4:30 p.m.

Public Hearing

62 Pioneer Street (NBT Bank represented by James Jordan & Brad Hall) – Site plan for proposed 4,795 square foot addition and parking area.

Mr. Hill opened the public hearing at 4:33 p.m. and reviewed the application. He then asked for public comment.

There was no public comment.

Mr. Hill stated that he would leave the public hearing open until 5:00 p.m. He stated that Mr. Jordan had provided a revised site plan and asked Mr. Jordan if he had any comments.

Mr. Jordan explained that the fence, which serves as a common boundary between the Clark Foundation’s property and the Bank property, would be extended to Pioneer Street. He stated that the fence would be six feet in height and shared photos of its appearance. Mr. Jordan further stated that he had been in contact with Verizon in order to pursue written acquiescence. He explained that Mr. Mike Anderson of Verizon has informed him that although they have no objection to the proposed site plan the company’s policy is not to provide written acquiescence.

Mr. Blabey asked if the minutes could reflect that no representative from Verizon was in attendance at the public hearing and that no objection was received on their behalf.

Mr. Hill asked if anyone from Verizon was in attendance.

There was no response from the members of the public.

Mr. Hill asked that the record reflect that no representative from Verizon was in attendance at the public hearing and no feedback for or against the proposed plan was received.

Mr. Jordan stated that the previous plan had the addition and existing structure sharing a common wall. He explained that SHPO reviewed the plan and stated that the two buildings must be separated. He further explained that on their recommendation the two structures have been separated by approximately five feet but that the revised plan has not yet received approval from SHPO.

Mr. Schuermann asked if the revised plan had reduced the square footage of the proposed addition or just moved the addition further back on the property.

Mr. Jordan stated that both the square footage has been reduced and the addition has been moved toward the rear of the property in the revised site plan.

Ms. Graumlich asked Mr. Jordan how close the proposed fence would come to the sidewalk on Pioneer Street. She explained that given the fence is six feet in height she is concerned with visibility for those exiting the bank and the safety of pedestrians using the sidewalk.

Mr. Jordan stated that they are willing to pull the fence back further from the sidewalk if the Planning Board feels it is necessary. He continued to state that the Clark Foundation has requested that the fence be extended at least thirty-four (34) feet from the end of the proposed retaining wall toward Pioneer Street.

Ms. Graumlich asked Mr. Jordan why, if the Clark Foundation only requested that the fence be extended thirty-four (34) feet, was he elect to extend beyond the request.

Mr. Jordan stated that they felt it would provide better screening.

Mr. Blabey stated that given the neighboring home’s porch is currently open and the issue is privacy he does not see this as a monumental change. He explained that the only change is the location of the drive-thru teller which will have cars stopping to use the teller. He further explained that if this specific area is addressed it should be satisfactory as the use of the driveway is already in place. He stated that the extension of the fence could create a hazardous situation due to visibility both for those exiting the bank and for those using the sidewalk.

Mr. Jordan stated that he would gladly pull the fence back from the sidewalk to resolve this issue.

Ms. Graumlich stated that fences of that height (6 feet) are not permitted in the front yard.

Mr. Austin stated that the fence could be reduced to four feet in height in the front yard.

Mr. Hill stated that the law indicates that the front yard is 20 feet from the curb line or as established.

Mr. Schuermann stated that it appears that the handicapped parking space has been changed from perpendicular to diagonal. He continued to state that the required 9’ X 20’ space may stick out into the drive lane. He suggested that the space be moved into the middle with hatching for exiting the vehicle on both sides.

Mr. Hill stated that his understanding of the ADA requirements is that each handicapped space requires a hatched area of at least eighty-six (86) inches and Mr. Jordan agreed.

Mr. Austin stated that if only one handicapped parking stall is provided it must be van accessible.

Mr. Hill stated that if you estimate a seventeen (17) foot long vehicle there is just enough room to back out of the space. He continued to state that he is concerned with the location of the light pole directly behind the space. He recommended changing the location of the light pole to help avoid vehicles backing into the pole.

Mr. Jordan concurred and stated that he would adjust the location of the light pole.

Mr. Hill asked if the pavement along the north edge of the driveway would be edged.

Mr. Jordan stated that there were currently no plans to edge the pavement.

Mr. Hill stated that he feels that it is potentially dangerous not to provide some kind of curbing on the Verizon side of the property. He explained that there is a drop off on that side of the parking area of approximately four feet and that consideration of the safety of those backing out ot the handicapped space must be considered.

Mr. Austin stated that there is currently parking in this location and no reported issues with the pavement no having curbing.

Mr. Hill stated that the current parking spaces are located further from the north property line than the proposed handicapped spaces.

Mr. Jordan stated that he will add curbing to the site plan.

Mr. Hill reviewed the required foot candles for the ATM location and asked Mr. Jordan for additional information regarding the lighting for this area.

Mr. Jordan stated that they are preparing a photometric site plan which should be available within the next few days.

Mr. Hill stated that the Planning Board has previously required a photometric site plan for similar projects such as MIBH, Stewarts, and the Bank of Cooperstown. He asked Mr. Jordan if they were planning for the minimum light levels.

Mr. Jordan stated they are planning for the minimum levels of light and will provided the photometric site plan once it is complete.

Mr. Hill stated that HPARB would also be reviewing parts of the application including the exterior design of the proposed addition, the fence design and the design of the light fixtures. He continued to state that the Planning Board will review the photometrics.

Mr. Jordan stated that they are working to direct the light down as much as possible and eliminate any bleed.

Mr. Hill stated that the proposed site plan does not show a roof over the drive thru. He asked if this was intentional or an oversight.

Mr. Jordan stated that it was an oversight.

Mr. Hill asked if there would be lighting in the roof of the drive thru.

Mr. Jordan stated that there would be lighting in the roof of the drive thru and that details of such lighting would be included with the photometric site plan.

Mr. Hill stated that he has spoken with a representative of the ADA who recommended that all sidewalks have transitions wherever possible, not only for the disabled but also for those using strollers, etc.

Mr. Jordan agreed to place transitions wherever possible.

Mr. Hill stated that the plan only indicates one silt fence. He asked Mr. Jordan if there are plans to provide a silt fence around all disturbed areas during the demolition.

Mr. Jordan stated that silt fence would be used around all demolition areas and all construction areas as appropriate.

Mr. Hill asked Mr. Jordan to explain the flow of the storm water in relation to their storm water management plan.

Mr. Jordan stated that they are proposing a sheet drain which utilizes the current catch basin.

Mr. Hill asked if the building gutters would drain onto the pavement.

Mr. Jordan stated that they would.

Mr. Hill asked if the pavement would be contoured to run to the catch basin and not over the Verizon property line.

Mr. Jordan stated that the water would run into a swale and to the catch basin.

Mr. Hill asked if the swale would be lined.

Mr. Jordan stated that it would not be lined but would be grass.

Mr. Hill stated that there are several trees along the Verizon side of the property line. He asked Mr. Jordan if those trees were on the Bank’s property.

Mr. Jordan stated that the trees were primarily on the Bank’s property.

Mr. Hill asked that the trees greater than five inches in diameter be placed on the site plan and that the plan indicate which trees will be removed. He further asked that the same be done for the trees on the Clark Foundation side of the property. Mr. Hill asked if the cedar trees adjacent to the Clark driveway will remain.

Mr. Jordan stated that the intention is to leave the cedar trees.

Mr. Hill stated that some of the trees are in poor condition up about six feet from the ground. He stated that this may be due to deer grazing on them. He continued to state that due to the condition of the trees they will not provide good screening.

Mr. Jordan agreed to look at the replacement of the cedar trees.

Mr. Hill asked for public comment.

There was no public comment.

Mr. Hill closed the public hearing at 4:58 p.m. He asked Mr. Jordan to make the necessary changes to the site plan prior to the next Planning Board meeting. He continued to state that in November the Board would like to complete the final site plan review if all of the necessary changes and documentation is submitted.

Regular Agenda

16 Chestnut Street (Marc & Sheri Kingsley) – Field change to parking lot screening.

Mr. Hill reviewed the approved site plan from November 2007. He explained that Mr. & Mrs. Kingsley were asking for a field change to the fencing on the south side of the property and eliminate some fencing on the back of the property. This change would also include trees and a stone wall. Exhibit B indicates all proposed changes.

Mrs. Kingsley stated that the biggest reason for the change is that the original plan does not truly screen the neighboring properties.

Mr. Schuermann stated that he likes that the proposed field changes break up the property line.

Mr. Jensen asked about the configuration of the parking lot and where it leads to.

Mr. Hill explained the site plan including parking areas and green space.

Mr. Jensen stated that aesthetically it would be nice to extend the proposed plan to the southwest corner of the property.

Mrs. Kingsley explained that the reason for not extending the fencing was due to snow removal and storage. She further explained that being their own neighbor the screening in that area is not crucial.

Mr. Blabey questioned Mrs. Kingsley on being their own neighbors.

Mrs. Kingsley stated that they also own 180 Main Street and explained the relationship to 16 Chestnut Street.

Mr. Hill stated that the purchase had taken place after the original site plan approval and therefore had required screening from this property.

Mr. Schuermann made a motion to approve the field change for 16 Chestnut Street as submitted in Exhibit B dated 10/27/09. Mr. Blabey seconded the motion and a vote had the following results:

AYES: Blabey, Graumlich, Hill, Jensen, Schuermann Motion carried.

Commercial Paid Parking

Mr. Tillapaugh reported that Mr. Austin has drafted a letter to be mailed to the three identified lots, Leatherstocking, the Batting Cage and Mr. Russo’s lot. He explained that the letter advises the property owners of the new law and invites them to make an application in order to become a compliant lot. He further stated that if the owners choose not to become compliant the Village will serve them with a violation ticket.

Mr. Hill asked how each property owner would be treated; pointing out that each lot has different issues which need to be addressed under the law.

Mr. Tillapaugh stated that the will all be treated the same. He explained that although the lots may have different issues which will need to be addressed those issues will be addressed after a legal application is filled and they appear before the Planning Board for review. He further explained that there is no difference in the law and therefore all non-conforming lots will be treated equally.

Mr. Austin stated that each lot is intrinsically different and have unique issues which will require each applicant’s process to be unique. He continued to state that the initial portion of the process or filing of an application is the same for any applicant. Mr. Austin explained that the hope is that by informing property owners now, they will be able to apply and complete the planning process over the winter to be able to complete necessary changes in the spring prior to the peak income season to avoid the loss of income.

Mr. Hill stated that there is a question as to whether or not the parking spaces at the batting cage are considered a parking lot.

Mr. Tillapaugh stated that the law indicates that five or more paid parking spaces are required to abide by the new law. He continued to state that the burden of proof is the responsibility of the property owner.

Mr. Hill shared minutes from 2007 for both the Planning Board and ZBA in which the parking spaces at the batting cages were discussed. He continued to explain that he does not find any evidence of the Planning Board approving the parking plan for this location.

Mr. Schuermann stated that he recalls their appearance and stated that signage was also an issue.

Mr. Hill stated that the new law provides the opportunity to clear up this situation.

Mr. Tillapaugh stated that he anticipates opposition with compliance. He continued to state that he feels that the Village is on good legal ground to oppose this opposition.

Mr. Austin stated that the argument of a property being grandfathered has been worked out and that no parking lot is grandfathered. He pointed out the portion of the law which stated that a use which is not identified within the law is considered illegal or not permissible.

Mr. Blabey stated that the parking areas at the batting cages are not paved. He asked if the law requires that the parking area be paved.

Mr. Austin clarified that the parking area needs to be a durable dustless surface.

Mr. Blabey stated that this parking area may require additional gravel.

Mr. Hill stated that he assumes the intent of the law requiring a durable dustless surface is to reduce the mud and dust.

Mr. Blabey stated that later in tonight’s agenda the Board will be looking at the legal size of a parking space. He stated that it would be beneficial to these owners to have the required size of a parking space resolved prior to their applications being heard.

Mr. Hill stated that realistically that might not be feasible as a change in the law requires a public hearing before the Board of Trustees can act on it. He pointed out that the process will take at least three months. He stated that this will significantly reduce the amount of time the property owners would have to prepare their lots for the 2010 tourist season.

Mr. Austin stated that the law only requires that parking spaces be nine feet wide and 180 square feet. He explained that this allows the Board the latitude to make adjustments to the size of a space. He further explained that the space could include the distance that the space extends beyond the wheel stop.

Mr. Blabey stated that the definition of a parking space indicates that the space must be 9’ X 20’.

Mr. Hill stated that the only wiggle room for the Board is the ability to allow spaces which are 8 ½ ‘ wide for use by employees.

Mr. Tillapaugh pointed out that if the owners wait for a change in the law it will affect their ability to become compliant prior to the summer season. He further stated that most of the parking lots in question are already at maximum parking.

Mr. Blabey asked how much time the owners would be given to submit an application.

Mr. Austin stated that they would have sixty days from the date of the letter to file an application.

Discussion of Parking Recommendations to the Board of Trustees

Mr. Hill explained that the discussion of parking in the business district concerns three questions posed by the Board of Trustees several months ago in which they requested the Planning Board do the following: asses the parking need in the business district, identify impediments in the parking law which may be discouraging development in the business district and propose changes to the current law that would remove said impediments. He further stated that Mr. Blabey and Mr. Schuermann had worked together to prepare information regarding these issue which were presented to the PB in September for review. Mr. Hill opened up a discussion about the report and the need for an agreement from the PB on a recommendation to the BOT.

A discussion of the parking requirement for retail stores, office space, museums, and wholesale/warehouse floor space in the business district resulted in the following motion:

Mr. Blabey made a motion to eliminate the accessory parking requirement for retail stores, offices, museums, and wholesale/warehouse floor space in the business district. Mr. Jensen seconded the motion and a vote had the following results:

AYES: Blabey, Graumlich, Hill, Jensen, Schuermann Motion carried.

A discussion of the parking requirement for long term rentals, at least 30 days, in the business district resulted in the following motion:

Mr. Blabey made a motion to waive the accessory parking requirement for long term rentals, over 30 days, in the business district. Mr. Jensen seconded the motion and a vote had the following results:

AYES: Blabey, Graumlich, Hill, Jensen, Schuermann Motion carried.

A discussion of the parking requirements for hotels, motels and tourist accommodations in the business district resulted in the following motion:

Mr. Blabey made a motion to require one parking space per dwelling unit for hotels, motels and tourist accommodations in the business district. Mr. Schuermann seconded the motion and a vote had the following results:

AYES: Blabey, Graumlich, Hill Jensen, Schuermann Motion carried.

A discussion of the definition of a dwelling unit and the location of required parking space for a dwelling unit in the business district was held.

Mr. Austin stated that a dwelling unit could be considered a place of abode, designed for or used as a residence including but not limited to hotel/motel units, apartments, tourist accommodations or houses.

The Board concurred with Mr. Austin’s definition.

Mr. Hill asked if a tourist accommodation should be required to be owner occupied or if they should be allowed to have a paid staff similar to a hotel or motel.

Mr. Blabey asked if this was a parking issue.

Mr. Hill stated that it was not a direct parking issue but it could effect parking requirements.

Mr. Austin stated that he feels that an available parking space with a contract or lease could be considered an acceptable parking space.

Mr. Tillapaugh stated that the issue of being owner occupied can be a contentious one. He stated that the ZBA feels that someone should be on site to address issues as they arise.

Mr. Hill stated that if Tourist Accommodations are treated the same as Hotels and Motels then it could be appropriate to allow them to hire a staff person to run the business.

Mr. Blabey stated that his thoughts were that a group of investors may consider the purchase and development of several buildings in the business district but would not want to occupy the building. If they worked together they might consider a tourist information center were the tourist would check in receive keys and other instructions. This same location could be the call center should any issues arise.

Mr. Blabey made a motion to allow parking for Tourist Accommodations in the Business District to be provided in a legally established off street parking space in the business or commercial district. Ms. Graumlich seconded the motion and a vote had the following results:

AYES: Blabey, Graumlich, Hill, Jensen, Schuermann Motion carried.

A discussion of the requirement for loading berths within the business district resulted in the following motion:

Mr. Blabey made a motion to eliminate the requirement for off street, on site, loading zones in the business district. Mr. Schuermann seconded the motion and a vote had the following results:

AYES: Blabey, Graumlich, Hill, Jensen, Schuermann Motion carried.

A discussion of the required size of a legal parking space resulted in the following motion:

Mr. Blabey made a motion to reduce the length of a diagonal or perpendicular off-street parking space from twenty (20) feet to eighteen (18) feet. Ms. Graumlich seconded the motion and a vote had the following results:

AYES: Blabey, Graumlich, Hill, Jensen, Schuermann Motion carried.

A discussion of the Village offering parking leases to long term rental occupants resulted in the following motion:

Mr. Hill made a motion that the Village of Cooperstown’s Board of Trustees look into leasing parking spaces within the Doubleday Parking lot on a year round basis for occupants of long term rentals.

Mr. Schuermann seconded the motion and a vote had the following results:

AYES: Blabey, Graumlich, Hill, Jensen, Schuermann Motion carried.

A discussion of allowing three story construction in the commercial district was held.

Mr. Blabey stated that this would allow for the development of multi-family units with a maximum population density by having parking on the first floor and two full floors of living space. He continued to state that this would also allow for more green space.

Mr. Hill stated that before a decision on allowing three story construction is made the Village needs to develop a comprehensive plan.

After discussion of the benefits of allowing three story construction in the commercial district and the need for a comprehensive plan which would give the PB direction in this matter Mr. Blabey made a motion to allow three story construction in the commercial district. No second was obtained and Mr. Blabey withdrew his motion.

A discussion of allowing a driveway to be developed through a residential property to access a commercial property took place.

Mr. Blabey recommended that this type of development be allowed with review by the DPW and the Planning Board. He explained that there are a very small number of properties affected by this law. He gave Mohican Motel and the Verizon properties as examples.

Mr. Austin stated that a better solution would be to change the Zoning Law, specifically the map, to make these properties contiguous.

After additional discussion Mr. Blabey made a motion to change the zoning law to allow driveways in residential zones which access commercial properties. Mr. Schuermann seconded the motion and a vote had the following results:

AYES: Blabey, Schuermann
NOES: Graumlich, Hill, Jensen Motion defeated.

A discussion of the zoning law requiring a driveway be at least seventy-five (75) feet from an intersection resulted in the following motion:

Ms. Graumlich made a motion to recommend that the zoning law be changed to require that a driveway be at least seventy-five (75) feet from any intersection unless otherwise approved by the Planning Board on the recommendation of the Village DPW. Mr. Blabey seconded the motion and a vote had the following results:

AYES: Blabey, Graumlich, Hill, Jensen, Schuermann Motion carried.

66-70 Main Street (Joe Cannata) – Request to receive permanent status for previously approved temporary 24” X 14 ½” Green Mountain Coffee hanging sign.

Mr. Hill reviewed the application and asked for comment by the Board.

Ms. Graumlich stated that after the “Green Mountain” sign was put up she received complaints from other businesses about the advertising of a specific product. She continued to state that the PB granted Mr. Cannata the temporary sign permit on good faith that he would apply for permanent signage based on his claims and implications and yet he made no effort to bring a valid application before the Board.

Ms. Graumlich made a motion to deny the request to change the current temporary sign permit to a permanent sign permit. Mr. Blabey seconded the motion and the following discussion was held:

Mr. Austin explained that the law does not restrict what the applicant may put on their sign, he stated that they may choose to use their allotted signage in any way they see fit.

Ms. Graumlich stated that she understands Mr. Austin’s point but that the Board has been lenient and helpful in everyway to Mr. Cannata’s request and he continued to not follow through with the requirements of the application process. She explained that she is uncomfortable allowing this signage.

Mr. Blabey asked what the basis for rejecting product oriented signage has been.

Mr. Hill read the Legislative Intent from the sign law and stated that he believes the rejection has been based on what Planning Board members feel the Village would look like with branding on signage.

Mr. Austin stated that the issue is more relevant if the signage were to become a swaying menu board of the multitude of items which might be located inside any specific business. He further stated that this one sign fits the criteria of being attractive, matching the historic nature of the building and is the only signage which is currently in use on this property.

Mr. Hill asked if there was anything in the law which would permit the brand signage.

Mr. Tillapaugh explained that Mr. Cannata is permitted signage by law although there is no specific mention of branding. He continued to state that the denial of Mr. Cannata’s signage would be very difficult to defend in court.

Ms. Graumlich stated that the sign was only approved on a temporary basis with the understanding that Mr. Cannata would return with a sign proposal.

Mr. Austin stated that the proposed signage meets all of the guidelines for a projecting sign.

Mr. Blabey asked how Coke is allowed to continue to have the vending machines and the signage that goes with the machines throughout the Village. He further asked how the “Green Mountain” sign is different from the Coke machines.

Mr. Hill stated that in the past the PB has not looked favorably on signs that promote brand name products.

Mr. Blabey asked about the recently approved “Verizon” sign.

Mr. Hill stated that they sell 100 % Verizon merchandise.

Mr. Austin gave examples of area businesses where their signage is misleading in order to draw business into their store. He concluded that it is a marketing technique that some business owners choose to use.

Mr. Blabey stated that just because the PB does not like the sign does not mean that it can prohibit it. He continued to state that if the residents are unhappy with the law which allows branding on signage then they should voice their concerns to the BOT and ask them to change the law. He further stated that he does not feel the Board can legally deny the sign requested.

Mr. Austin stated that the Board can restrict Mr. Cannata to one sign for all three store frontages which appear on the tax map as one parcel.

Mr. Blabey withdrew his second.

Ms. Graumlich withdrew her motion.

Mr. Schuermann made a motion to accept the proposed sign application for 66-70 Main Street as submitted as the one-single legally established projecting sign for the property of 66-70 Main Street. Mr. Jensen seconded the motion and a vote had the following results:

AYES: Blabey, Hill, Jensen, Schuermann
NOES: Graumlich Motion carried.

Minutes

Mr. Schuermann made a motion to approve the minutes from September 22, 2009 and September 29, 2009 as presented. Ms. Graumlich seconded the motion and a vote had the following results:

AYES: Blabey, Graumlich, Hill, Jensen, Schuermann Motion carried.

Meeting adjourned at 7:49 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Truax, Deputy Village Clerk


September 29, 2009
Planning Board Minutes (In draft form - Subject to change)

A special meeting of the Planning Board of the Village of Cooperstown was held in the Village Office Building, 22 Main Street, Cooperstown, New York on September 29, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. Members in attendance were Acting Chair - Charlie Hill, Richard Blabey, Finn Jensen, Sally Graumlich, Matt Schuermann and alternate - Cindy Falk. Also in attendance were ZEO – Tavis Austin, Village Attorney – Martin Tillapaugh and Deputy Village Clerk - Jennifer Truax. Twelve members of the public were present.

Call to order at 4:30 p.m.

Regular Agenda

1 Beaver Street & 33 Beaver Street (David Karl for MIBH) – Final Site Plan Review of findings from Kathryn Wolf of TWLA.

Mr. Hill introduced Ms. Wolf and asked that she review her findings.

Ms. Wolf stated that she feels overall the plans for the projects at 1 Beaver Street and 33 Beaver Street were very well done. She further stated that they largely achieved the overall conditions as required by the Village and that she only had minor changes. She reviewed her findings for 1 Beaver Street, Bassett Hall, and shared how they corresponded to MIBH’s matrix.

A discussion between MIBH and Ms. Wolf occurred regarding the use of Swamp Oak trees, their root system and need for water and their location near the required wall footings.

Mr. Blabey asked if the trees were being suggested for shielding.

Ms. Wolf stated that is was not necessarily for shielding but for mitigation of the large portion of asphalt.

Mr. Blabey asked who would be affected by the trees or lack thereof.

Ms. Wolf stated that they would mainly affect the users of the parking lot.

Mr. Blabey asked how the Planning Board would have an interest in the suggested trees if they only affect the users.

Mr. Hill clarified that this recommendation is in addition to the required screening as specified in the “conditions.” He further explained that the PB was looking mainly at screening from Susquehanna and Beaver Streets.

Mr. Austin stated that the trees do have a visual impact. He stated that if the Board were to think about Oneonta Walmart and the absence of vegetation which tells those passing by that there is a parking lot over the hill this parking lot will have a similar effect. He further explained that the vegetation or lack of will have a great visual impact.

Ms. Tamara Lecuyer, PE for MIBH stated that they were not opposed to the addition of vegetation in the two striped areas of the Bassett Hall parking lot as proposed by Ms. Wolf on page 2 Condition #4 of her recommendation but they would prefer to add shrubs.

Mr. Hill asked the members of the PB if they felt the conditions for Bassett Hall have been met.

Mr. Schuermann stated that any asphalt that can be eliminated would be a benefit but that he feels the conditions are met without the elimination of the striped area.

Dr. Falk stated that she feels that due to the visual impact it would be beneficial to eliminate the striped area and add vegetation of some kind to this area.

Ms. Graumlich concurred, stating that vegetation in this area would soften the area aesthetically.

Ms. Lecuyer stated that trees were planned for the center island of the parking area.

Mr. Hill stated that although the PB would like to see some sort of vegetation in the striped area it is not a condition which requires that MIBH comply. He continued to state that it can only be given as a suggestion from the consultant to beautify the aesthetic of the area.

Mr. Hill asked that the PB move forward with the review of Harrison House parking.

Ms. Wolf reviewed her findings for Harrison House.

Mr. Karl stated that he agrees with all of the recommendations except the two plantings in the rear.

Ms. Lecuyer explained that the plantings have been added over the drainage system.

Ms. Wolf apologized for not noticing the drainage system originally and suggested that the planting areas be reduced in size.

Ms. Lecuyer stated that they would be willing to work to move some aspects of the drainage system to allow for smaller plantings in this area.

Mr. Karl asked if moving trees outside this area on to the lawn behind the striped space would be an appropriate in place for the plantings.

Ms. Wolf stated that she had not added anything to this area due to questioning the grade in this area.

Mr. Austin stated that the planter would serve as an island with a curb and if the catch basin was up grade it should function properly.

Mr. Hill suggested placing the filter outside of the curbed area.

Ms. Lecuyer stated that it would need to be outside the curbed area to facilita