town of pittsford development review committee (drc) - planning comments - march 8, 2013

7/29/2019 Town of Pittsford Development Review Committee (DRC) - Planning Comments - March 8, 2013

1/13

G:\DPW\Planning, Zoning, & Development\Planning Board\Drc reports\Mitchell Rd Concept Sub'13.doc 1

DATE: March 8, 2013TOWN OF PITTSFORD

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Planning CommentsFor Planning Board Meeting 03/11/13

SUBJECT: Mitchell Road Concept Subdivision55 Mitchell RoadTax Parcel # 164.11-02-12.11

The Town of Pittsford Development Review Committee (DRC) has reviewed the subject application. Thefollowing points have been identified forPlanning Board consideration:

A written response to these comments must be provided for Planning Board and DRC Committeereview prior to a decision on this application. An electronic file of this document will be providedupon request to assist in the preparation of a response (standard to all reports from hereon)

PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES:

GENERAL

1. This is a Type I action pursuant to SEQRA. Town Staff on behalf of the Planning Board is conductinga coordinated review requesting the Planning Board be established as Lead Agency, mailedFebruary 15, 2013. The Applicant has prepared a Part I Full EAF for the Planning Boardsconsideration. If the Planning Board is established as lead agency, a full EAF Part II should becompleted prior to a SEQRA determination. (DPW)

2. As stated in the application materials, Homes by Ryan has submitted application for ConceptSubdivision approval. The total property is 18.52 acres and is proposed to be developed into 19 newsingle-family homes with the existing home located at 55 Mitchell Road on a 3 acre parcel. (DPW)

3. A site walk with the Developer, Staff, Town Engineer, and Planning Board members should takeplace as weather permits. (DPW)

4. The proposed subdivision is zoned Residential Neighborhood RN. The RN district determines thebuilding side yards (setbacks) based on the lot width, rear buffers (setbacks) are 20 feet; the frontyard (setback) is based on the neighborhood in this case the Planning Board has discretion to setthe front yard build to line (setback). The design engineer should review the RN code and ensurethe proposed lots yield setbacks and buildable areas that will work for the proposed homes. (DPW)

5. This property falls within the Local Waterfront Overlay District which adds a layer of Planning Boardreview to ensure that the proposed plan is Consistent with the Local Waterfront RevitalizationPlan. Before reaching a decision on the project the Planning Board should review a Coastal

Assessment Form for the project as well as the LWRP and make specific findings regarding theLWRP that can be included in a decision on the application. (DPW)

6. The application materials were forwarded to the Village of Pittsford, we expect that the Village willprovide comments under separate cover. (DPW)

7. The Design Review and Historic Preservation Board will provide comments under separate cover.(attached) (DPW)

8. Will any site lighting be proposed as part of this development? The Planning Board should considerpossible impacts of lighting, if proposed. If lighting is not privately owned a lighting district extensionwill must be approved by the Town Board. (TE)(DPW)


2/13


9. The site includes and is adjacent to substantial woodlots; these woodlots contribute to the characterof the surrounding area which is encompassed by Mitchell Road, Palmyra Road, the Village and theErie Canal. The woods provide habitat for wildlife (there was ample evidence of birdlife and deer),significant aesthetic value and buffering, and help improve air and water quality (particularly being soclose to the canal). Removing the woodlots will have a negative impact on the area, clearing shouldbe minimized as much as practical. Clearing limits should be discussed with the Planning Board, butfinal clearing limits may not be possible to establish until Preliminary plans are developed.(EB)(DPW)

10. Many neighbors will have their views changed dramatically, particularly the home at 41 Mitchell Rd.The wooded area between their home and Mitchell Road would be replaced with a house. (EB)

11. To eliminate confusion, the name of this project should be something other than Mitchell RoadProperty as there is an existing Mitchell Road Subdivision. (DPW)

TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS

12. It would be more desirable to route the trail from the canal (along the Niagara, Lockport, OntarioROW) to Rt. 31 and possibly eliminate the sidewalk along the subdivision road. (PD)(PRAB)

13. A concrete sidewalk should be planned / constructed from the existing village sidewalk, past theproposed entrance and terminate at the Niagara Lockport Ontario Power Corporations ROW.(DPW)(PD)(PRAB)

14. The area appears to be well-used for recreation. During a site visit a large number of footprints in thesnow and ice in both Power Company rights-of-way were observed. The aerial view on the mapshows evidence of a path through the woods near the canal. This may be from walkers or from deer.There is a lot of evidence of deer in this area (as well as possible remnants of a tree stand or treehouse in the woods). (EB)

15. Development will negatively impact the nature experience currently possible in this area. If the

proposal is approved, access to the Power Company rights-of-ways and the canal should bepreserved.(EB)

16. It is recognized this application may go through changes which might influence how trail/sidewalkaccess is routed. In such case the PRAB would like to have additional opportunity tocomment.(PRAB)

17. Trail access to Mitchell Road is recommended to be maintained on the RGE ROW. Sidewalkeasements exist along the frontage of 55 Mitchell Road. (PRAB)

SANITARY

18. The proposed project is not in a sewer district at this time. Extension of the Pittsford Sewer District toinclude this parcel will be necessary. The sewer district extension process can take as long as 3months, so the applicant should allow as much lead time as necessary. Please contact PittsfordSewer District when you are ready to apply for the district extension. (PSD)

19. More information regarding the proposed sanitary sewer connection will need to be provided.Extension of the sanitary sewer should also be considered for the existing adjacent lots and MitchellRoad properties. A meeting with the Sewer Department should be scheduled to discuss sanitarysewers (TE) (PSD)


3/13


STORMWATER, GRADING, EROSION CONTROL

20. Please note that this application will require a full Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) forreview as the total disturbance will be equal to or greater than 5 acres. Also, a Notice of Intent (NOI)and MS4 SWPPP Acceptance Form will be required to be completed and submitted for review. (TE)

21. The project is also required to take into consideration the Green Infrastructure and PlanningTechniques detailed in Chapter 5 of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual(SMDM). Please note that if the design does not comply with these requirements it will require a 60-day review from the NYSDEC before final approval can be granted. (TE)

22. Vehicle access will be necessary to stormwater facilities, it is possible that several small facilities willbe required; consideration for this possibility should be given as the plan develops. Generallyfacilities on private property are avoided if practical. (DPW)

23. The wooded area between the farm field and the canal are on a slope, its possible there could bedrainage and or erosion issues.(EB)

24. The existing ditch/ stream that runs from the western property line thru the site is to be depicted onthe plans. It is our understanding that this area is wet with potential wetlands onsite. It is ourrecommendation that this area be investigated to determine to what extent wetlands exists if any.(TE) (DPW)

25. There are existing drainage culverts along NYS Route 31 that need to be identified on these plans.The materials, size and elevation information is to be provided. (TE)

STREETS/PAVING/TRAFFIC

26. Site distance data should be provided for the proposed entrance. (DPW)

27. The cul-de-sac design should reflect the standard detail with islands or an approved alternative. Theproposed tear drop shape presents challenges for snow removal.( DPW)

MISCELLANEOUS

28. Other features such as drainage ways and existing topographical elevations should be provided aspart of the response to this report. (DPW)

29. The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has identified that the property falls within anArcheologically Sensitive Area determined by the Circle and Squares Map. A Phase 1 CulturalResource Investigation should be required by the Planning Board. (DPW)

30. Energy towers and power poles should be shown on the plans for visual aid and reference. Bothenergy entities should be contacted for possible buffering and or easement requirements if any.

(DPW)

31. Landscaping/berms could be considered behind lots 101-104 and 112-114 to provide a visual bufferfor the existing residential lots who would be facing the rears of these proposed lots. (TE)

32. The design Engineer will need to coordinate with the associated utility companies regarding crossaccess, abandonment/ removal of the existing utilities and proposed new locations and connections.

All correspondences with these utility companies shall be forwarded to the Town of Pittsford. (TE)


4/13


33. The existing driveways, utilities and septic system locations for the existing lots along Mitchell Roadare to be identified on the plans. Also all easements (i.e. cross access easements) are to beidentified on the plans. (TE)

34. Vegetative buffering should be considered by the developer adjacent to the RG&E property,Glencannon properties, and Canal Corp. lands. (PD)

35. There will be loss of agricultural land, this property is not in a Monroe County Agricultural District.(EB)

36. Presumably these houses would be high-end houses. Its possible the transmission lines runningthrough their the neighborhood will negativity impact the aesthetics of the development.(EB)

37. The proposal calls for "traditional, New England style architecture." The architecture on Mitchell Roadis quite varied and interesting. Variation of architecture in the development should beconsidered.(EB)

38.A proposed road name(s) should be submitted to Monroe Countys 911 office and approval should beincluded with the Preliminary Subdivision application. (DPW)

39. Comments from Monroe County Planning are attached and incorporated as part of this report. (DPW)

TOWN OF PITTSFORDDEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Technical Comments

For Planning Board Meeting 03/11/13

SUBJECT: Mitchell Road Concept Subdivision55 Mitchell RoadTax Parcel # 164.11-02-12.11

The Town of Pittsford Development Review Committee (DRC) has reviewed the subject application. Thefollowing technical points should be made a condition of approval. Any objection to these commentsshould be included in the required written response to this report.

GENERAL

40. As typical with subdivisions the Planning Board will require the standard Recreation Fund fee(currently $ 850.00) be applied to each new home that is built, this fee is collected as part of thebuilding permit application process. (DPW)

41. Will this project be a phased project? An overall phasing plan identifying each proposed phaseshould be provided with preliminary plan submission. (TE)

42. Turning movements, radius and heights of utility wires are to be provided demonstrating that allemergency vehicles can safely access the site and all of the proposed lots. (TE)

43. The proposed property line between Lots 112-114 and lot 120 may need to be adjusted to meet theTowns setback requirements for accessory structures as the existing tennis court is within 5 feet.(TE)(DPW)

44. Subdivision signage will be subject to Planning Board approval. Any proposed signage should beincluded with a Preliminary Subdivision application. (DPW)

TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS


5/13


45. Sidewalk surfaces should be concrete, (PD)

46. Trial surfaces should be reclaimed asphalt pavement millings. (PD)

SANITARY

47. Sewer entrance fees will be required for this proposal. These should be paid before the plan issigned. (PSD)

48. Easements should be required as necessary by the Planning Board to provide legal access to thesanitary sewer for properties adjacent to this proposal. (PSD)

STORMWATER, GRADING, EROSION CONTROL

49. Please note that there are additional stormwater requirements that are to be met. The Town is anMS4 and the site is located within the Irondequoit Creek Watershed which states, any landdevelopment that increases the amount of impervious surface by 15,000 sf or has 6,000 sf ofadditional parking area is required to complete a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) inaccordance with the Irondequoit Creek Watershed Stormwater Management Report Requirements.This information is to be included on the erosion and sediment control plan and within the SWPPP.(TE)

50. The developer shall not disturb greater than five (5) acres of soil at any one time without prior writtenauthorization from NYSDEC or the jurisdictional MS4. If proposed to disturb more then 5acres, awaiver will be required from the Town of Pittsford (MS4) and is to be included within the SWPPP priorto submission of the NOI to NYSDEC. (TE)

FIRE SAFETY

51. Verify turning radius for the cul-de-sac. (FM)

52. The first hydrant should be located prior to lot 101, the remaining hydrants could be pulled back

accordingly. (FM)

53. The Fire Department prefers hydrants be located at the throat of the cul-de-sac. (FM)

54.An unobstructed height of 13-6 is required for fire apparatus, additional clearance from the powerlines is likely required by the power company, this additional clearance, if any should be verified.(FM)

MISCELLANEOUS

55. All correspondences with NYSDOT are to be forwarded to the Town for their files. (DPW)

DPW Department of Public WorksEB Environmental BoardPSD Pittsford Sewer DepartmentPD Parks DepartmentPRAB Parks and Rec BoardDR&HPB- Design Review & Historic Preservation BoardTE Town EngineerFD Fire Department (PFD Pittsford, BFD Brighton)MCPD Monroe County Planning DepartmentFM Fire Marshal


6/13



7/13



8/13



9/13



10/13



11/13



12/13



13/13


town of pittsford development review committee (drc) - planning comments - march 8, 2013

Documents