Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1985-12-03 FILED TOWN _ OF ITTHACAA � ®ate1�� A � ' L�7`.a'` k TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Cler DECEMBER 3 , 1985 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , December 3 , 1985 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Vice Chairman Carolyn Grigorov , Virginia Langhans , Edward Mazza , David Klein , Barbara Schultz , James Baker , John C . Barney , Esq . ( Town Attorney ) , Lewis D . Cartee ( Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ) , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Landscape Architect ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Town Councilwoman Gloria C . Howell , William S . Downing , John E . Majeroni , Jerold M . Weisburd , Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 32 p . m . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 3 , 1985 MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mr . James Baker : • RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of September 3 , 1985 , be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Klein , Schultz , Baker . Nay - None . Abstain - Langhans , Mazza , The MOTION was declared to be carried . STAFF REPORT - Peter M . Lovi Mr . Lovi stated that there is one thing which he would like the Board to act on and that is whether or not to have a second meeting in this month of December . There is one action that could come up which is a two - lot subdivision of lands on Mecklenburg Road , proposed by Ms . Anna Stuliglowa , and which also needs a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to permit the use . Mr . Lovi stated that he did not see any problems with it . Mrs . Langhans , noting that that meeting would be December 17th , stated that she would prefer not to have a meeting unless really necessary . Vice Chairman Grigorov agreed that , it being so close to Christmas , it should only be held if necessary . Mr . Lovi , commenting that he did not think waiting until January would hold up the actions of this developer , stated that he will call Ms . Stuliglowa and if it does make a difference he will schedule a public hearing . Planning Board 2 December 3 , 1985 • REPORT OF THE PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE TO THE TOMPKINS COUNTY PLANNING BOARD - Carolyn Grigorov , Mrs . Grigorov reported that the last meeting of the County Planning Board , November 13 , 1985 , was a panel presentation on the roles of the different health agencies in the community - - Tompkins Community Hospital , the Reconstruction Home , Nursing Homes , and Residential Care facilities . Mrs . Grigorov reported that , today , she received in the mail a large report on the County Space Study with respect to the various places available and being studied as possible locations for various County offices . Mrs . Grigorov offered to share the report with anyone who would like to borrow it or look at it . REPORT OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR - Lewis D . Cartee Mr . Cartee noted that the Board members had each received in their packets a copy of his October 1985 and November 1985 Report of Building Permits Issued . For the record , Mr . Cartee ' s October 1985 Report sets forth that 35 building permits were issued for a total of $ 12 , 438 , 530 . 00 in improvements , as compared with October of 1984 when 12 permits were issued for $ 213 , 200 . 00 in improvements . Mr . Cartee ' s November 1985 Report sets forth that 14 building permits were issued for $ 454 , 497 . 00 in improvements , as compared with November of 1984 • when 18 permits were issued for $ 372 , 825 . 00 in improvements . Mr . Cartee reported that Marine Midland Bank is applying for a new sign permit , noting that , as the Board knew , their " Time and Temperature " sign went out of whack , and in place of that they have put the words - - " All Your Banking Needs " . Mr . Cartee pointed out that , as the Board knows , signs of this nature come to the Sign Review Board for approval . Mr . Cartee noted that the sign is 31 . 5 square feet in size , the same as the original . Mr . Cartee asked if the Board felt there was a need for it to review it . Mrs . Schultz noted that it is really not any different in size . Vice Chairman Grigorov wondered if there were any way to get them to continue to have the time and temperature . Responding that he did not think so because it is very expensive , Mr . Cartee noted that Sign Permits No . 1 , 21 3 , and 4 for Marine Midland were the very first sign permits issued by the Town under the 1972 Sign Ordinance . Mr . Cartee asked again if there were a need for the Board to see it . Mr . Klein asked if all the signs are in compliance , with Mr . Cartee responding , yes . Mr . Klein wondered if there were anything in the present Sign Ordinance that requires the Board to see it . Mr . Cartee responded , no , adding that it is the Board ' s prerogative . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone wanted to review it . Town Attorney Barney asked if the original basis were non - conforming . Mr . Cartee stated that it is an approved sign ; it is not non - conforming . Town Attorney Barney asked if the sign met the requirements now , with Mr . Cartee • responding , yes , adding that the only change is from the time and temperature to " All Your Banking Needs " . Mr . Cartee reiterated that the sign is 31 . 5 square feet , adding that 50 square feet is Planning Board 3 December 3 , 1985 • permitted . It was the consensus of the Board that the sign change presented no problem . Referring to his October 1985 Report of Building Permits Issued , Mr . Cartee drew the Board ' s attention to the permit issued to Cornell University for student housing costing $ 1 , 554 , 000 . 00 . Mr . Cartee stated that the construction is located on Jessup Road between Triphammer Road and Pleasant Grove Road and involves a complex of housing units , two buildings of which are in the Town and the others in the Village of Cayuga Heights , Mr . Cartee noted that the Planning Board did not review this project as it is outside its purview . Mr . Cartee stated that they are two -bedroom units for senior - type students and the total project involves some 320 student townhouses . Mr . Cartee stated that he would like to mention the Memorandum he received from Chairman May [ November 26 , 1985 ] with respect to whether or not there has been compliance with the landscaping requirements of the Phase I development on Penny Lane of Commonland around the buffer zone . Mr . Cartee stated that his reply is in the mail and it is a one - liner indicating that he is reviewing the landscaping plans for Commonland and will report to Chairman May in the near future . Mr . Cartee offered that he was totally unaware at this moment of the status of the landscaping at Commonland , adding that he has not been involved with it , however , with the help of Ms . Beeners , he hoped in the near future to come up with some answers . Mr . Cartee stated that , • in the meantime , he had some reservations about the second paragraph of Chairman May ' s letter wherein he suggests that he [ Cartee ] " hold up any further certificates of occupancy or building permits until there is evidence of compliance with the landscaping requirements . " Mr . Cartee stated that his concern is certificates of compliance . Mr . Cartee stated that , as the Board knows , between October and April is hardly the time for plantings . Mr . Cartee stated that this is all as a matter of information and he will get back to the Board later for the Board to address head on . Ms . Beeners stated that she has made a couple of site visits and has met with Mrs . Claudia Weisburd , walked the site , examined the plan that was submitted as part of the final approval package , and has looked at quantities that were planted and it appears that approximately one - third more than was called for in evergreens has been put in at a close spacing , but perhaps , of a slightly smaller size . Ms . Beeners stated that it appeared to her that the requirements have been met . Ms . Beeners stated that one thing Mr . Fabbroni brought up at a previous Planning Board meeting was the fact that there is a timeframe involved with this and , as agreed on the planting plan , the evergreens are the most critical and are to be four feet high over a period of three or four years . Ms . Beeners stated that it seemed to her that they are progressing pretty well and the growth will occur within the timeframe . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked about the buffer on Slaterville • Road . Ms . Beeners stated that that was to be addressed on a property owner basis . Vice Chairman Grigorov offered that it was not the property owner who did it . Ms . Beeners stated that it seemed to her Planning Board 4 December 3 , 1985 • to be in process as on the plan but in a somewhat smaller size . Ms . Beeners stated that she has not explored with the landowners what their sentiments are , however , her evaluation is that it appears to be sufficient considering what was approved . Ms . Beeners stated that she has made some suggestions to Mrs . Weisburd who is now quite interested in landscape architecture , as a student at Cornell , insofar as some improvements could be made by adding some larger evergreens to give more variety . Ms . Beeners stated that she would expect that the developer is going to manage those plantings there now to see that they fulfill the buffer requirements . Mr . Cartee stated that , hopefully , there will be a report for the first meeting in January . Mrs . Langhans stated that she thought the landscaping between Penny Lane and the house on Slaterville Road had not been complied with . Mr . Cartee offered that there are some behind Marion ' s house ; there are plantings that Mr . Weisburd has placed there and , if memory served him right , the size of those trees was agreed upon between Mr . Marion and Mr . Weisburd . [ For the record , the following letter , enclosing a full report prepared by Ms . Beeners , was sent to Chairman May , with copies to the members of the Planning Board , by Mr . Cartee on December 16 , 1985 : " It appears that the landscaping at Commonland Community is in compliance with requirements as outlined in Final Site Plan Approval dated 2 / 1 / 83 , with the exception of " The Meadows " site now under construction . " ] Vice Chairman Grigorov thanked everyone for their reports . • ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A 30 - UNIT CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION ON 7 . 1 ACRES AT # 921 AND # 925 - 35 MITCHELL STREET AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR THE REZONING OF SAID PARCELS FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R30 TO RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 . TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS 60 - 1 - 3 AND 60 - 1 - 4 ; WILLIAM DOWNING , OWNER / DEVELOPER . Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 50 p . m . Mr . Downing was present . Mr . Downing distributed to the Board members copies of various drawings in connection with the project including a Survey Map of the Beatrice C . Reddick Property , No . 921 Mitchell Street Ext . , dated July 15 , 1969 , a U . S . G . S . Map of the entire area and showing the project location , a site plan showing three alternatives for the development of 16 lots under R- 9 zoning , a cluster plan with three alternatives shown , and a section plan showing two sections . Mr . Downing noted that the property is located on Mitchell Street and the request is for 30 units on that property . Mr . Downing stated that he was sure the Board members were all aware of the manner in which the number of units is determined if one wants to establish cluster housing , that is , for example , in R15 there are certain size and depth requirements and you take the number of lots and multiply by • two and that is the number of clustered units . Mr . Downing stated that they are asking for R9 with some variances . Mr . Downing stated that the actual geography is , of course , like most properties , Planning Board 5 December 3 , 1985 . somewhat up and down and it is true that some of the areas would be rather difficult . Mr . Downing , noting the 30 units in one plan , or 32 possible lots , stated that their proposal is for 30 units which they would like to have . Mr . Downing stated that , as far as environmental impact is concerned , when you buy a lot and build a house on it , there is an environmental impact . Mr . Downing stated that those of us who build houses do not think that is an undesirable element . Mr . Downing stated that he thought the EAF review which Mr . Lovi prepared is exceptionally well done and he agreed with almost all of his recommendations . Mr . Downing referred to Mr . Lovi ' s eight - page review of the project , noting particularly , first , Mr . Lovi ' s review of the question on the EAF having to do with " Impact on Air Quality " . Mr . Downing stated that he [ Downing ] would not like to have a restrictive covenant against wood stoves , as recommended by Mr . Lovi . [ " 7 . d . The developer should draft a restrictive covenant indicating that wood stoves or fireplaces will not be permitted within the development . " ] Mr . Downing offered that if the zoning were R9 and houses were built in such a zone , you would not say - - " No fireplaces . " Second , Mr . Downing referred to Mr . Lovi ' s review of the question on the EAF having to do with " Impact on Visual Resources " . 1 " 10 . The project is expected to have some impact on views , vistas , or other aspects of the neighborhood or community visual character . This conclusion is based upon the fact that the construction of a recreation pond will completely change the natural quality of the existing drainageway . RECOMMENDATION : The impact of this pond , other than its effect on the natural drainage system described above , will be aesthetic and is properly considered under site plan review . In this matter I have no recommendation at this time and I believe that the Planning Board should be free to act without prejudice . " ] Mr . Downing stated that the parcel is surrounded by Cornell University , adding that the Research Lab [ Cornell High Voltage Lab ] looks like a factory . Mr . Downing noted that on the other side there is the Pig Farm in the distance , otherwise , agricultural land , and so , the impact on other people would presumably be pretty minimum . Mr . Downing noted the right of way which is a bicycle path all the way over to Cornell University . Continuing , Mr . Downing stated that they did propose to set aside the required property for parkland contrary to what Mr . Lovi has said in his review in No . 12 . a . [ " Impact on Open Space and Recreation . 12 . This project will not have a significant impact on the quality or quantity of existing open spaces and recreational opportunities in the community . This conclusion is based upon the following facts : a . No land is proposed to be dedicated to the Town for a public park or recreation area . . . " ] Mr . Downing stated that he did not know whether that was a rejection of the park . Mr . Lovi stated that his was just an observation . Mr . Lovi stated that , as he understood it , all lands in the project will be • privately maintained , and what No . 12 says is neither positive nor negative on the environment . Planning Board 6 December 3 , 1985 Mr . Downing stated that he thought there was a typographical error in No . 18 which indicated that there has been public controversy concerning the project at this time . Mr . Downing stated that there has been no public controversy , adding that he has called people at Cornell and they have expressed no opposition . Mr . Lovi agreed that the word " no " had been inadvertently left out . Mr . Downing stated that this piece of property is a very difficult one to develop and noted a " gorge " down through the middle of it and also the narrowness of it . Mr . Downing stated that the only way to develop it is through cluster housing which would be pretty much as they have clustered it in this plan . Mr . Downing stated that it is very unlikely that it would ever be developed in any other way . Mr . Downing commented that Cornell University does not buy property or sell property all that easily , so , it would probably sit much as it is . Mr . Downing stated that his request of the Board is for consideration and , hopefully , approval of the plan as proposed which is based on R- 9 density , but which allows them not to observe the buffer zone required because of roadways , a dam , access , in other words , within that 30 feet . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked Mr . Downing to say something about the pond , wondering if it were in connection with the old dam and drainage . Mr . Downing responded , no , not drainage , just to make it look better , and added that he realized he had to get a permit from DEC . Mr . Downing stated that he gathered from what Mr . Lovi ' s assessment reports that that stream has no other serious impacts on watersheds or other drainage . Mr . Downing commented that at one time there was a road to the south side to a quite good - sized lake all the way up to Cornell University , and , on the east side as well , actually about 2 acres , with fish . Vice Chairman Grigorov noted that the pond shown is about an acre , with Mr . Downing responding , yes , a little less , and adding that this is not a finalized design , and further adding that they want to make it as big as possible . Mr . Downing stated that he asked Cornell if he could use the right of way for the dam and they thought there would be no problem and it was possible , but , proper arrangements with Cornell are necessary to make the proper flow through there . Vice Chairman Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were any comments from the public present . Mr . John E . Majeroni , Manager , Cornell University Real Estate Department , spoke from the floor and stated that Cornell is really not concerned about the proposal and the fact that the land is being developed , but , Cornell was a little concerned about the representation that Cornell concurred with the change in zoning . Mr . Majeroni stated that Cornell is concerned with a change in zoning at • the site only because this seems to be a " happening " place in the Town of Ithaca . Mr . Majeroni suggested that , rather than a change in zoning for one small site , the Board look at a change in zoning in the Planning Board 7 December 3 , 1985 • whole area . Mr . Majeroni stated that that seems to be what Town zoning is charged to do . Mr . Majeroni stated that this seems to be spot zoning . Mr . Majeroni stated that if Cornell came in with some plan , they would expect to be treated the same way . Mr . Majeroni spoke of there being no financial market under the existing R- 30 for that land , adding that they would hope to see specific R - 9 in this area , especially in relation to East Hill Plaza , etc . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked Mr . Majeroni how big an area he was talking about , because most of the land up there is Cornell land . Mr . Majeroni stated that it is up to the Board to rezone , but , if it does , Cornell would expect to have their parcels reviewed the same way . Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Majeroni if Cornell University were asking for a rezoning . Mr . Majeroni did not respond . Vice Chairman Grigorov stated that a rezoning request can be entertained at any time . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak . Mr . Downing stated that he would certainly consider an offer from Cornell University to buy the property , adding that he objected to their objecting this way . Mr . Majeroni stated that Cornell thought about buying it . • Town Councilwoman Howell , commenting that she was surprised that there were no neighbors present , stated that she was a little apprehensive about the density , adding that Mitchell Street is already overloaded with traffic . Mr . Lovi pointed out that there are two actions for the Board to consider tonight , the first of which is a recommendation to the Town Board on the Environmental Assessment Form , Mr . Lovi noted that the Planning Board is not the Lead Agency , however , he was sure the Town Board would want the Planning Board to look at it . Mr . Lovi stated that the second action is a recommendation pursuant to Article XIV , Section 78 , of the Zoning Ordinance whereby the Planning Board must make a determination as to ( i ) need , ( ii ) character , and ( iii ) the change being in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town . Mr . Lovi offered that the Board could focus its discussion on those specifics which it must go over before it gets to the specifics of the site . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked Mr . Lovi what he thought about the inference of spot zoning . Mr . Lovi , commenting that he did not want to take away anything from what Mr . Majeroni said - - it has some merit - - stated that whenever there is a rezoning , when you address the particular needs of one parcel , you may be leaning toward what some people might call spot zoning which is a pejorative term , but , as long as a proposal is being treated as similarly situated parcels in the Town , it is , in his mind , less of a spot zoning . Mr . Lovi stated that • it is true that in the area Cornell University is the dominant landowner and most of the adjacent land is either developed , owned by an association as in the case of the cemetery fixed use , owned by Planning Board 8 December 3 , 1985 • Cornell , or Cornell -owned open land . Mr . Lovi offered that Cornell buys and sells land all the time , and , if they choose to interpret a favorable decision in Mr . Downing ' s case to what they can represent to a future buyer , that is up to them . Mr . Lovi stated that he did not think it is a spot zoning if you consider that much of the land which lies close in , which is in the Town , is near the City . To the extent that you are bringing this parcel into conformance with what exists as R9 , he was comfortable . Mr . Lovi opined that as far as attorneys would argue , he could not say , but as a planner , he felt it is consistent with our patterning of zoning . Mr . Lovi stated that he thought R9 should be considered , some smaller lots , not as many two - unit buildings . Mr . Lovi stated that he did not have a problem with an R9 zone , adding that insofar as whether , with this particular parcel , this is the right way to go is another question . Mrs . Schultz , noting that Mr . Downing wants 30 units in the R9 , asked how many units he could have if the parcel remained R30 . Mr . Lovi stated that he came to a number in the mid - teens . Mr . Lovi offered that it had been difficult to compute a specific number over the telephone and around the table , however , on the basis of a ball park number , it would not be over the teens . Mrs . Schultz spoke of the 3 . 5 units per gross acre requirement . Mr . Lovi , noting that that cap is not set forth for R9 zones , only R15 and R30 , stated that , in any event , that is only relevant where you can grid out a parcel into lots ; this is one that you cannot do that with because the parcel is • too narrow and too long - - one tier of lots would be 150 feet wide . Mr . Lovi commented that at an R15 zoning , it gets into , maybe , the 20s , but still does not create 3 . 5 per acre . Mr . Klein asked if he were correct in stating that this site is totally within R30 , with Mr . Lovi responding , yes . Mr . Klein showed the size of the R30 on the zoning map and stated that he knew about the cemetery across the road , and the R9 across the road , and the multiple family across the road . Mr . Klein offered that the transitional area would be R15 and then R30 , adding that it did look like a spot zoning to him which would be unpalatable . Mr . Lovi noted that when you look with a sharp focus at the parcel and the parcels immediately adjacent , there is R15 between that and the City , multiple at Eastwood Commons , and R9 across the street . Mr . Lovi stated that , again , this is for the Planning Board to make the judgment , adding that his impression , if you look at the land uses within 500 feet to 1 , 000 feet of this property , was that he was comfortable that the rezoning is not inconsistent . Mr . Majeroni suggested that the Board might want to locate " that " property on " that " zoning map to see that there are several hundred feet of R30 land . Discussion followed as the map was perused . Mr . Majeroni commented that this should be part of a comprehensive plan for the area , likening this parcel to a toothpick . Mr . Majeroni stated that there is no question that some day this will be residential land , however , R9 is out of character . Town Attorney • Barney commented on Cornell ' s criteria for consistency with overall plans as they were putting student buildings in the City . Further discussion followed . Planning Board 9 December 3 , 1985 • Mr . Downing , commenting that some things are right before the eye but , at the same time , there are some which may escape , stated that he has in mind building cluster housing which , being in the $ 120 , 000 . 00 range , will be of high quality and the object , as a form of architecture , is to be attractive and achieve an exclusive neighborhood , with a little pond , a service building with sauna , and so on . Mr . Downing stated that it is surrounded , of course , by land that is owned by Cornell University , and to suggest that it is land that might be developed in the next ten years is rather farfetched . Mr . Downing offered that Cornell has been searching for developers of the Savage Farm and what he has in mind would probably compete with this . Mr . Downing commented that , if they are competing , they would be competing somewhat on the level of Eastwood Commons , adding that they have a slightly different concept - - townhouses - - some people would own an amount of garden land , and it would have its own unique character . Mr . Downing stated that , in the long run , development of the Savage Farm , which underlies the probable market for something of this nature , one could see that it might well be in Cornell ' s interests to diminish a development of this sort . Mr . Downing stated that a development of an R9 type on Cornell land is as unlikely as a warm sunny day tomorrow . Mr . Klein noted that , on one of the site plans before the Board , Mr . Downing has added , in the southern end , Phase 2 . Mr . Klein offered that the concern , obviously , in going to R9 is to get 30 • units . Mr . Klein wondered if it were totally unfeasible to build just on the northerly end , save the pond , and the road to get to the back , plus utilities , plus sewer , and asked if it were absolutely mandatory to build Phase 2 to have this feasible . Mr . Downing pointed out that they are in the early phases of this analysis and to say that they are guaranteeing to build Phase 2 is something they would not want to do . Speaking rhetorically , Mr . Downing commented that , as your client , you would probably advise me to keep in mind if that part would make it financially feasible , we would obviously be able to do it . Mr . Downing stated that , without the Board ' s endorsement , and the Town Board , they are not going to fight opposition , and , if it were public versus private , they would abandon it and take their lumps . Mr . Downing stated that he thought the concept has validity and he thought they can probably carry it off . Mr . Downing stated that they need , first , a vote as to validity , and , to encourage them to continue , they need authorization to build as 30 units , and , if it turns out that it is too expensive - - utilities , etc . - - that would be a problem , but he was not guaranteeing that . Mr . Downing stated that if the Board says he can only develop half of the property and the rest must stay forever wild , or gobbled up by everyone else - - the neighbors - - he was not sure they would do it . Town Attorney Barney asked if it were really unfeasible to do it under R15 . Mr . Downing responded that there would not be enough lots , thirteen or fourteen units would be economically unjustifiable . Town Attorney Barney indicated that fourteen is what could be done at R30 , • and asked what happens at R15 , adding , with what has traditionally been done when water and sewer are available , that is clearly beyond spot zoning . Planning Board 10 December 3 , 1985 • Mrs . Langhans pointed out that there is also the question of the 30 - foot buffer . Mr . Lovi offered that the Planning Board has the authority to waive some of the requirements which is something that has to be discussed up front . Mr . Downing pointed out the use of a private driveway . Town Attorney Barney asked if there has been a calculation done on the basis of R15 , with Mr . Downing responding , yes , and adding that they made a plan and , with some of land unbuildable , it comes out in the low 20s . Referring to the north side and half of the property , Mr . Downing stated that all he can reasonably fit in , in terms of numbers of units , is 18 which includes the house that is there now . Mr . Downing stated that under any level of zoning that is all that will fit . Mr . Lovi asked the Board to look at the " middle " plan [ on the drawing with three approaches to the develoment ] , and pointed out that there are 16 lots , with # 1 through # 13 all 150 feet deep , and , also pointed out the width - - 360 feet for lots # 1 through # 6 . Mr . Lovi stated that you could have three lots under R15 , with four more past " that " [ indicating ] , and two " there " . Mr . Lovi stated that the absolute maximum is 18 , maybe 20 . Mr . Lovi stated that this is a good example of a piece of property , no matter what you do , you cannot get near the 3 . 5 per acre . Mr . Klein offered that , thus , under the R15 sketch process , 18 to 20 units , would be allowed which would take care of the front of the • property . Mr . Mazza , commenting that the center is being taken out for park and the gorge , asked if that is additional land . Mr . Lovi stated that the requirement for parkland is ten per cent and it is desirable to encourage a developer to put this where it serves the best purpose . Mr . Mazza wondered if there were not an existing dwelling unit , with Mr . Lovi responding , yes , and indicating it on one of the plans . Mr . Mazza asked if that existing dwelling will be counted as one of the total dwelling units , with Mr . Lovi resonding , yes . Vice Chairman Grigorov stated that when Mrs . Langhans and she walked the land it seemed to them to be the only way to develop it . Mr . Downing stated that if this is not developed this way , it will probably never be developed . Mrs . Langhans offered that she had no reservations with the buffer on the west side , adding that on the east side is the only place to put their road , but , not knowing what is going to happen to the property next door , Mr . Downing is leaving himself without a buffer . Mr . Downing stated that whatever happens next door it would not affect their gardens , adding that Cornell would not affect anybody , you can be sure . Mr . Majeroni stated that he guessed he would not accept that , because there is no room for a buffer on his land , it will move over to Cornell land . Mrs . Langhans pointed out that the buffer will be the road . Mr . Downing noted that the buffer is the driveway , actually . Mr . Downing spoke of permission to build the dam , noting that the dam is already built , just the pond requires permission . • Mr . Mazza stated that he thought what Mr . Lovi said earlier was right in that there are two things before the Board to consider - - ( 1 ) Planning Board 11 December 3 , 1985 • a recommendation to the Town board for rezoning or no rezoning - - ( 2 ) if that were to be recommended then to consider placing of the lots , and all that to arrive at the number of units . Mr . Mazza offered that , to address the first issue , he would ask Mr . Downing to address the three points that Mr . Lovi addressed before under Section 78 . With respect to need , Mr . Downing stated that there is the substantial development of a shopping center in the neighborhood , just a few hundred yards away , which would suggest that they would like to have development - - they need customers . Mr . Downing noted the existence of Cornell Quarters which is not particularly attractive and the intensity would suggest that housing was needed of some sort or other in the area . Mr . Downing stated that he did not propose a development of that nature . Mr . Downing offered that there is a need , adding that certainly the existence of Commonland and the great success that it has had attests to that , and people agree with having various types of housing . Mr . Mazza offered that it was not necessary to address the need for residential land there , but , what Mr . Downing is asking for is a change in zoning from R30 to R9 and it is that difference that the Board has to address here . Mr . Downing offered that the price of the land makes it necessary , if it is to be used for housing , to make it at the density at which it is proposed . Mr . Downing explained that under R9 there could be 15 houses , or , with open space , build cluster housing . Mr . Downing stated that , because of the character of the property , it is not easily developed , and , it is squeezed in between two pieces owned by Cornell University which are not in the private domain . Mr . Downing offered that , for economic reasons - - the cost of the land per unit - - they thought this is the only way for it to be developed . Mr . Lovi recalled that , earlier in the evening , Mr . Downing discussed development of Cornell ' s Savage Farm and made reference also to Eastwood Commons , with these two being properties substantially comparable in quality , cost , and ambiance . Mr . Lovi noted that Eastwood Commons is roughly 50 % developed , the Savage Farm is such that literally hundreds of units could be put on that site . Mr . Lovi posed the question rhetorically - - is there a need for a rezoning to accommodate this parcel , adding that we realize the implications if the cost of the land is very high , but , given the amount of suitably zoned land , is there really a need for yet another development which is going to be addressing that market niche ? Mr . Lovi asked Mr . Downing if he knew there is a market . Mr . Downing responded that that is why he made the proposal , adding that he had talked with some Trust Officers and they have scads of people who own big houses and want some alternative ; they do not feel comfortable with Commonland ; they are not comfortable with Eastwood Commons which is zoned multiple . Mr . . "Downing stated that he thought there was a market for it . Mr . Lovi asked if the Board wanted to take that in as a Finding . Mr . Mazza mused that maybe the price of the land is too high , and stated that using the price of the land as a reason for this rezoning is not right . Mr . Downing indicated that he has an option to buy at a • fairly high price . Mr . Mazza offered that if that is the only reason , he did not see that that is a real reason to get past number 1 . Mr . Downing responded that he was not sure that it was , adding that he did Planning Board 12 December 3 , 1985 • not know if the Planning Board would have to address the market . Mr . Downing reiterated that his is a proposal for somewhat higher quality housing , higher priced and of good quality , without buying a $ 200 , 000 . 00 house in Cayuga Heights . Mr . Downing stated that he thought there was a market place and that , he thought , was his responsibility . Mr . Lovi noted that if the land is rezoned and Mr . Downing makes certain commitments and it does not turn out , he loses and the Town loses . Mr . Downing stated that the project would be of the same price level as Eastwood Commons . Mr . Downing stated that a developer takes a risk and he thought it was okay for this site . Mr . Downing stated that he did not think the Planning Board should determine that . Mr . Downing pointed out that there are to be only 30 units ; it would never be more than 30 units . Mr . Mazza stated that he was not arguing with Mr . Downing that there is a need for that type of housing , adding that he happened to agree with him very strongly , however , it has to do with the need to make it a rezoning . Mr . Downing wondered what Mr . Mazza would say about instead of Cornell ' s developing the Savage Farm , they would do it next door . Mr . Mazza responded that he would ask the same questions . Mr . Majeroni stated that at the Savage Farm every proposal is within existing zoning , adding that they agreed there is a need , but that it should be done within existing zoning . Mr . Jerold Weisburd , House Craft Builders , [ Commonland Community ] , spoke from the floor and stated that there seems to be an underlying assumption that , if the density is greater , then a development is less desirable . Mr . Weisburd stated that he took exception to that . Mr . Weisburd pointed out that one area in Commonland with fairly high density is " The Meadows " where the units are porch to porch and , on the basis of the reaction , people seem to like that . Mr . Weisburd stated that Jane Jacobs , a very well known planner of national repute who has written many books on the subject of urban planning , has stated that you cannot equate high density with less desirable planning or that there is less planning in terms of facilities for neighborhoods , adding that Ms . Jacobs has also written that the real question is how the density works and how people are going to live . Mr . Weisburd offered that to assume that high density means a lessening of desirability is inappropriate . Mr . Mazza wondered if it might not be possible to get some closeness by having the front part developed " that way " [ indicating ] , but not the back . Mr . Mazza stated that the issue is not how closely the development is tucked together , the issue is the number of units on this number of acres . Mr . Weisburd offered that the area in the middle is not big and its life is gauged by the life around it and , as such , it enlivens the back area . Mr . Downing referred , at this juncture , to the second point in • Section 78 of the Ordinance raised by Mr . Mazza , that is , the existing and problable future character of the neighborhood . Mr . Downing offered that the neighbors across the street , East Lawn Cemetery , will Planning Board 13 December 3 , 1985 • not complain or be affected . Mr . Downing stated that on the east side is Cornell University agricultural land and , in view of the Savage Farm development , will probably not be developed . Mr . Downing stated that on the west side , the High Voltage Lab is the immediate next door neighbor , adding that anything done would ease the pressure of that rather unattractive neighbor . Mr . Downing stated that on the highway side , they want enough buffer around that , adding that they would like the houses not to be affected by the noise of the traffic . Mr . Downing stated that it is proposed that the houses turn their face away from that and also be quite far back , and , with only a little sign at the entrance , one might never know there was a development in there . Mr . Lovi stated that there are four aspects of that point which he wanted to raise . Mr . Lovi suggested that , when the Board is considering the neighborhood , it think in terms of a specific neighborhood so that the Town Board knows what the Board perceives the neighborhood is - - from " here to here " . Mr . Lovi suggested that , then , the Board look at existing land uses there and , then , use its best judgment as to how they see that neighborhood changing over the next five - ten - twenty years . Mr . Lovi suggested that , finally , the Board look to what would be the changes to the external features peculiar to that neighborhood and with respect to the Town as a whole . Vice Chairman Grigorov wondered if Mr . Lovi were suggesting that • the Board arbitrarily forget about what it has been talking about as far as neighborhood . Mr . Lovi stated that the Board should spend some time defining the neighborhood it thinks this affects . Mr . Downing asked if he might suggest that there really is no neighborhood there . Mr . Lovi stated that he was not talking so much of that , as he was of an area which has some recognized physical connection . Mrs . Langhans spoke of the City line up to Judd Falls and up to Maple Avenue . Mr . Downing described the little houses at Cornell Quarters , the building that looks like a factory , the shopping center , and a private conclave . Mr . Downing offered that the probable future character of that Ag School land is , probably , agricultural , and the probable future character of the High Voltage Lab - - Hans H . Fleischmann ' s lab is that it will continue there for a long , long time . Mr . Mazza stated that he suspected Mr . Downing was right about the Cemetery and the High Voltage Lab , but he was not so sure about the rest . Mr . Downing suggested that as to the future needs , it will be a long , long time before anything that happens in there can affect the community and , as far as traffic goes , Mr . Lovi has indicated in his review , a total additional traffic load of 140 trips per day on Mitchell Street , representing a small increase . Mr . Downing stated that it is a little piece of property all by itself in an area that will probably not develop for thirty or forty years , adding that it was somewhat amusing to think this project could affect matters adversely . • Mr . Majeroni stated that it was not fair to say that it is not ever going to develop , adding that Cornell has received purchase offers . Mr . Downing asked if it were on the market , with Mr . Majeroni Planning Board 14 December 3 , 1985 • responding , no . Mr . Downing asked if it were ever on the market , with Mr . Majeroni responding , yes . Mr . Downing offered that it may be developed in the same way as this is proposed , adding that he thought everyone would agree that that would not be in the immediate future . Mr . Majeroni pointed out that the Town Board represents Cornell University too and that the Planning Board needs to do the same . Mr . Downing suggested that it does help Cornell if there are more taxpaying properties in the area . Mr . Lovi suggested that we look at the USGS map for just a minute and note the circle around the property as drawn on that map . Mr . Lovi asked if the Board thought that circle is too restrictive , or , should it look farther . Vice Chairman Grigorov stated that discussion has been about a larger area . Mr . Lovi asked if he might suggest looking at an area , say , bordered by Maple Avenue , Judd Falls Road , Pine Tree Road , Honness Lane , Slaterville Road , to the City line , adding that obviously the City line also encompasses many of the land uses that we can forseeably see changes in in the next fifteen years . Mr . Lovi suggested that there is truth to what both Mr . Majeroni and Mr . Downing are saying - - not to the same items at the same time but the uses which are already there . Mr . Lovi noted that the Cemetery is fixed , Cornell Quarters and Maple Avenue housing are fixed land uses for which there would be no change over some time , the commercial properties are there - - Ideman ' s properties , etc . Mr . Lovi stated that we could expect increased traffic on these roads , along • Mitchell Street - - much of the property has been discussed on Mitchell and Judd Falls and is owned by Cornell as ag land . Mr . Lovi stated that the remaining properties are either held by a number of small private landowners of lots in R15 and which have already been built upon or , it would be reasonable to expect would be built upon in the next period of time with one or two - family houses , and that leaves Eastwood Commons and then some open land behind the properties which front on Slaterville Road , Mr . Lovi stated that his conclusion is that the major component of unbuilt land which could offer a change is the land owned by Cornell University , Mr . Lovi stated that he was sure Cornell has considered a variety and will continue to consider a variety of development as a part of their fiduciary responsibility . Mr . Lovi offered that it is very difficult to judge this project , Mr . Downing ' s project , without asking if it is being held hostage to what Cornell might or might not do with its land . Mr . Lovi stated that most of the other large uses in the area are fixed - - there is something there , or are on the books and approved , adding that the Cornell land and Mr . Downing ' s land are two where the action is going to be in this neighborhood . Mr . Lovi suggested that if part of the Board ' s recommendation is to consider this development , but also consider what Cornell ' s long - term plans might be for their holdings , then it , perhaps , can satisfy Mr . Majeroni ' s concerns that the Board is not looking at this in a long - term planning manner and satisfy Mr . Downing that the Board is not holding this hostage to what Cornell University does . • Mr . Majeroni stated that , if this is approved , then Cornell could get from that that the Town interprets that this is okay . Mr . Lovi commented that it would appear there is a lesson to be learned here . Planning Board 15 December 3 , 1985 Mr . Downing stated that the size and character of the property is not too different from the Cornell Quarters property , however , he has organized it in a manner more contemporary , but in the same neighborhood , with a line of housing units which might be of less density . Mr . Downing turned to the third and final part of Section 78 which is that the proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town . Mr . Klein stated that , there , one might look at that , as a change to R9 , as spot zoning . Mr . Klein stated that that was his hang- up . Mr . Downing pointed out that this parcel is the only privately owned piece of land in the neighborhood . Vice Chairman Grigorov pointed out that the parcel itself is already a " spot " . Commenting , let ' s be reasonable , Mr . Downing stated that he has great respect for Cornell University and what it has done and he is not against Cornell , adding that " that " [ indicating ] land is agricultural which , may be housing , but that would be too far away . Mr . Downing offered that Cornell ' s interest in housing for Cornell -University - related people is over on the Savage Farm and , surely , over the next thirty years , at the Savage Farm . Mr . Downing suggested that this piece could well just stay held hostage to Cornell , as it was described by Mr . Lovi . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked if the Board agreed with the definition of the neighborhood . • Town Councilwoman Howell noted that the backyards of those houses on Clover Lane on the railroad bed would be close to the project , adding that those back yards are near to the railroad bed . Town Attorney Barney pointed out that , actually , the adjacent property is owned by Cornell University . Vice Chairman Grigorov offered that the parcel would mostly have a buffer of Cornell . Mr . Downing noted that the bikeway is a buffer also . Mr . Downing pointed out that the cluster proposed for the south end of this property is several hundred feet from the top , adding that people would not know it is there and describing hedgerows . Town Attorney Barney stated , in terms of development costs , Mr . Downing has mentioned price of the land as a factor . Town Attorney Barney suggested that that be forgotten for the moment and , aside from that , he would ask if there are other development costs that make it less feasible to do this with less than 30 units . Town Attorney Barney noted that a road will have to be built to get to the south end . Mr . Downing responded , yes , they would certainly have to build a road . Mr . Downing offered that there was no overriding reason to develop the back except that it would make an attractive little place to live . Mr . Downing pointed out that it would be limited in its use - - only 12 units making a nice neighborhood , with six of them looking out over the pond and six from the other direction looking at wooded land . Mr . Downing mused that it has an attractive kind of note to it , stating that his only interest is as an aesthetic and attractive • asset . Mr . Downing stated that he does not have a strong profit motive , but , it has to make sense . Mr . Downing reiterated that this 0s just two little enclaves of townhouses which would be attractive Planning Board 16 December 3 , 1985 • for the small area - - 12 feet on one side and 18 ' on the other , and which would cause no harm and would be close to Cornell . Mr . Downing stated that , in spite of what Mr . Majeroni says , it will be a long , long time before the Cornell land is developed . Town Attorney Barney asked if it were economically possible to develop it if Mr . Downing were to put twelve on the north end and ten on the south side of " that " lake . Mr . Downing responded that he was inclined to think it would not be , adding that he really felt the cost of the land must be considered and cannot be just forgotten . Town Attorney Barney suggested that , then , the reason is really what the land is costing and that it is not worth it if it is not rezoned . Mr . Downing , commenting that he could not understand some of this , stated that the project would be of benefit with no adverse effects , adding that it does not hurt the neighbors but supports them with housing exclusive in nature in that particular neighborhood which , he thought , will upgrade the neighborhood . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked Mr . Lovi if the three points had been covered . Mr . Lovi suggested that they have to be brought together , and added that there is the EAF to consider . Mr . Lovi suggested that there were two things to do - - ( 1 ) go over the Minutes - - ( 2 ) ask staff to do that , with the Board modifying the schedule . Mr . Downing stated that his option expires in June of 1986 and there are plans to draw , bids , etc . , so , he did not have a great deal of • flex . Mr . Lovi suggested that if the Planning Board has no comments on the EAF or does not wish to make any , just pass it on to the Town Board for it to feel free to make a determination , and , then , at the meeting of the 17th of this month , by which time Mrs . Fuller and he will have gone through these Minutes , a recommendation made . Mr . Lovi stated that the Town Board has scheduled a public hearing for the 9th and it could take up the EAF at that time . Discussion followed with respect to Section 78 and a resolution , with Town Attorney Barney noting that it was implicit that those three points have to be spoken too Mr . Klein stated that , since the issue before the Planning Board is a recommendation for rezoning , whichever way the Board recommends , obviously , the Town Board has to take action . Mr . Klein pointed out that the Planning Board still has cluster review whether R9 , R15 , or R30 , and then the EAF is back in the Planning Board ' s lap . Mr . Lovi stated that that was not correct , pointing out that the environmental review is a unified review - - not a separate review - - and that is why his EAF was so detailed . Mr . Lovi stated that there is one EAF for the whole project . Mr . Klein pointed out that the rezoning impacts the EAF and , so , he had trouble splitting them . Town Attorney Barney offered that if R15 there is one impact , if R9 , another , and stated that he would think they would be separate at some point . Town Attorney Barney , commenting that this plan is preliminary , noted that he saw two exits on to the road . Mr . Lovi stated that he agreed that that is one of the issues , adding that when the Town Board looks at • the EAF there are certain things they can hold in abeyance , and further adding that they have done that in the past , however , in any case , the actual determination is not going to come back to this Planning Board 17 December 3 , 1985 • Board . Town Attorney Barney stated that he did not think the Planning Board is being asked to recommend on the EAF , with Mr . Lovi responding , no , but it has in the past . Mrs . Langhans stated that two weeks ago Mrs . Grigorov and she walked this whole property . Mrs . Langhans stated that it is a very difficult piece of property to put any development on . Mrs . Langhans stated that it is a beautiful piece of property and the gorge in the middle is spectacular and divides the property in half . Mrs . Langhans stated that the way it is presented could be very well done , noting that you would have to waive the buffer zone for the road or you would squeeze it too much in the middle . Mrs . Langhans stated that she felt she was not really able to speak to whether it could not be done unless rezoned , financially , or even if just the front were done , which , as far as she was concerned she had nothing against having woods out back - - having the pond , and woods would be fine , however , it would appear that financially , she guessed , it is not possible . Mrs . Langhans stated that she really did not see anything wrong with rezoning this land for this project . Mrs . Langhans stated that she would be prepared to offer a motion to the effect that the Board would recommend to the Town Board that this piece of property be rezoned from the R30 to R9 and that the three criteria which the Planning Board has to speak to have been met , based upon the information presented tonight and based on the information in the EAF . Vice Chairman Grigorov wondered if that could be backed up . Mr . Lovi • stated that he personally thought that in making these recommendations , a mere statement of the conclusion is not enough , but , to the extent that there have been two hours of public hearing where a lot of things have been said and the Board has considered all of them , if the Board thinks it satisfactory , that was great . MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov0 RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , based upon plans and information presented to said Planning Board at Public Hearing duly and properly held on November 19 , 1985 , and , at Adjourned Public Hearing duly and properly held on December 3 , 1985 , and further based on the information contained in the completed Long Environmental Assessment Form , Parts I and II , Item # 18 of Part II , at page 10 , having been amended to read that " There has been no public controversy concerning the project at this time . " , THAT , the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that properties known as 921 Mitchell Street and 925 - 935 Mitchell Street , and currently designated as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 3 and 6 - 60 - 1 - 4 , Beatrice C . Reddick Estate , Reputed Owner , be rezoned from Residence District R30 to Residence District R9 , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board • determine and hereby does determine that the criteria set forth in Article XIV , Section 78 , paragraphs 1 , 2 , and 3 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , have been met . Planning Board 18 December 3 , 1985 • By way of discussion , Mr . Mazza stated that he guessed he did not see the need to rezone this , as much as he liked cluster housing , and , as much as he would like Mr . Downing to do cluster housing which , based on his reputation , would be very good , however , he was not sure it has to be done at this density . Mr . Mazza offered that he would love a plan to do the same thing at a lower density and to work with that , adding that he thought that would be a far different request . Mr . Mazza stated that he did not think , with respect to the criteria that the Board has to find , as set up in the Zoning Ordinance , that the Board can make a determination that those criteria have been met . Mr . Mazza stated that he was somewhat reluctant to say this because he was afraid it kills the project , but the only reason it kills the project is because that person who wants to sell the property is asking too much for it . Vice Chairman Grigorov stated that she felt that the reason it has to be rezoned is because so much of the land is unbuildable , adding that , certainly , part of the reason for requesting rezoning is that so much of the land is unbuildable . Mr . Klein stated that that is why it is so much more suitable for cluster . Mr . Mazza offered that he did not think that is a reason for increasing the density . Vice Chairman Grigorov suggested that if you could build on all of it , you could get that number of units , and asked Mr . Lovi if that were not correct . Mr . Lovi responded that that would be the case if the land were flat , but , with these dimensions , the numbers would not be substantially different . Vice Chairman Grigorov stated that it is not as crowded as it seems . Mr . Lovi stated that , compared to Ivar • Jonson ' s project with 16 , 000 square feet and this with 10 , 000 square feet per dwelling unit , it is roughly 50 per cent more dense than Jonson ' s or Commonland . Mr . Lovi stated that it is more dense with an R9 zoning , adding that , if you develop it at R30 , you would be in the same ball park as in others - - one house , 15 , 000 square feet . Mr . Klein stated that he thought the rezoning to R9 bothered him as spot zoning , however , the economics of the project seem to dictate more units . Mr . Klein mused that multiple residence , zoning -wise , might be more acceptable , adding that he thought developing the northern end for 18 to 20 units is , economically , rather costly . Mr . Klein stated that he thought the whole scheme would be attractive and he would be more comfortable with R15 zoning . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Langhans . Nay - Mazza , Klein , Schultz , Baker , The MOTION was declared FAILED . Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the William Downing matter duly closed at 10 : 00 p . m . DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO THE SECOND PLANNING BOARD MEETING IN • DECEMBER . The Board discussed with Mr . Cartee and Mr . Lovi , the upcoming Y Planning Board 19 December 3 , 1985 • items which for which it may be necessary to have the second meeting in the month of December , among which were a satellite dish antenna proposed for the roof of Dillingham Center Ithaca College , maybe Varn , Stuliglowa , and , perhaps even , Downing . MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz : RESOLVED , that the Planning Board will meet next on December 17 , 1985 , at 7 : 30 p . m . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , Mazza , Klein , Schultz , Baker . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the December 3 , 1985 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 10 p . m . • Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . •