HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1987-02-03 ' FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Clerk . E2 _ . .
,. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 3 , 1987
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , February 3 , 1987 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Virginia . Langhans , William Lesser ,
James Baker , Robert Kenerson , Edward Mazza , David Klein ,
Carolyn Grigorov , John C . Barney , Esq . ( Town Attorney ) ,
Robert R . Flumerfelt ( Town Engineer ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town
Planner ) , Andrew S . Frost ( Town Building Inspector / Zoning
Enforcement Officer ) .
ALSO PRESENT : John Ullberg , Dr . John D . Wayman , Richard L . Atkins ,
Robert E . Cook , . Douglass M . Payne , Edward Cobb , Karl
Niklas , Mary Wessel , Frances Connelly , Mary Trochim ,
Attorney Elizabeth Bixler , Donald Layton , William E .
Harding , Jack Burns , Robert Hines , Esq . , Stephen
S aggese , Vincent Franciamone , Jagat P . Sharma , Thomas
P . Niederkorn , Peter D . Novelli , William Raffel
( ICB -TV , WICB -FM ) , Fred Yahn ( Ithaca Journal ) .
Chairman :May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . and
• accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and
Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on January 26 , 1987 and January 29 , 1987 , respectively ,
together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said
Notice upon the parties with interest on January 29 , 1987 .
Mrs . Langhans welcomed Dr . William Lesser , the Planning Board ' s
newest member . The Board members expressed their greetings also .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 22 , 1986
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . David Klein *
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that the Minutes
of the May 22 „ 1986 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board be
and hereby are approved as written .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Langhans , Lesser , Baker , Kenerson , Mazza , Klein , Grigorov .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr . Frost distributed to each Board member a . copy of his January
1987 Report of Building Permits Issued to which was attached his
Planning Board 2 February 3 , 1987
January 1987 Report of Building / Zoning Activities .
PUBLIC HEARIA{G : SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO A
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL APPROVAL OF A SCHOOL USE FOR THE PROPOSED NEW
CORNELL PLANTATIONS SERVICE BUILDING , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON
CALDWELL ROAD NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF CALDWELL ROAD AND FOREST HOME
DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 67 - 1 - 8 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT
R - 30 . CORNELL UNIVERSITY , OWNER ; JOHN ULLBERG , AGENT .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 40 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr .
Ullberg was present and appended drawings for the proposed facility to
the bulletin board .
Mr . Ullberg , Cornell University Campus Planning Landscape
Architect , addressed the Board on a proposal to construct a
maintenance / service building to support ground maintenance operations
for Cornell Plantations . This building will replace an existing
service building which is now off Forest Home Drive and Plantations
Road near Beebe Lake . The proposed site for the new facility is near
the Water Filtration Plant . Mr . Ullberg indicated Caldwell Road ,
Plantations Road , and Forest Home Drive on the map . The building will
be comprised of a three - bay garage , a carpenter shop , three offices ,
and a field worker break room . Also included in the project is
• driveway access to the back with parking for eight cars . Mr . Ullberg
indicated elevation drawings for the building .
Chairman May asked if there were anyone from the public who
wished to speak .
Dr . Robert E . Cook , Director , Cornell Plantations , spoke from the
floor and stated that there were a couple of considerations when they
discussed replacing the old service building . One was to try to
locate it in a place where it served the Botanical Gardens . Secondly ,
and most importantly , a structure was wanted that was most consistent
with The Plantations . In designing the building , a farmhouse - type
building was desired with an associated barn and with an atmosphere of
fifty to a hundred years ago about it . Dr . Cook felt that this
structure will blend in very nicely with the site and also will be
unobtrusive and attractive to everyone .
Mrs . Langhans asked Mr . Ullberg why the building has to be so
tall , with Mr . Ullberg responding that one of the bays has a hydraulic
lift for taking vehicles up . The use of the roof diminishes some of
the sense of that height insofar as it is a pitched roof , but does not
have a flat facade , and the building is 26i feet to the peak of the
roof .
Chairman May asked if anyone else from the public wished to
• speak . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 45
p . m .
Planning Board 3 February 3 , 1987
• Mr . Mazza inquired as to what materials would be used in the
construction , with Mr . Ullberg responding , stained wood board and
batten siding . Mrs . Langhans asked where the new entry road is going
to be , with Mr . Ullberg responding that it is a continuation of a
drive that already exists , bearing to the right . Mr . Kenerson asked
if storage tanks would be in - ground . Mr . Ullberg stated that the
tanks would tie 1 , 000 gallon capacity tanks each , above ground .
Chairman May inquired as to what these tanks are used for , with Mr .
Ullberg responding that there is a gasoline tank and a diesel fuel
tank . Mrs . Langhans asked how the catch basin would be handled ,
noting that it is so close to Fall Creek and wondering if there would
be a contamination problem . Mr . Ullberg stated that there is an oil
separator which prevents oils and gas from passing through the system .
Chairman May inquired as to where the discharge would go . Mr . Ullberg
said they have a lift station that is going to the Town sewer near the
Caldwell Road bridge .
MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . Edward Mazza :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the site plan review and the consideration of a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a
request for Special Approval of a School Use , pursuant to Article
V . Section 18 , Paragraph 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance , and with respect to a request for variance of Article
0 V , Section 18 , Paragraph 16 , for the proposed new Cornell
Plantations Service Building , proposed to be located on Caldwell
Road near the intersection of Caldwell Road and Forest Home
Drive , Tovrn of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 67 - 1 - 8 , Residence District
R- 30 .
2 . This projE! ct has been reviewed by the Planning Board at a Public
Hearing ort February 3 , 1987 .
3 . This project is an Unlisted action for which the Zoning Board of
Appeals , in considering Special Approval and a height variance
for such project , is the Lead Agency for environmental review .
4 . A negative declaration of environmental significance has been
recommended by the Town Park and Open Space Planner , contingent
upon the following :
a . that a variance of Article V , Section 18 , Paragraph 16 , be
granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for construction of
the proposed service building , with the building height not
to exceed 36 feet , and
be that the project comply with all applicable codes and
regulations .
• THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED ;
That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
Planning Board 4 February 3 , 1987
• the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative declaration of
environmental significance be made for the above - referenced action ,
contingent upon the following :
a . that a variance of Article V , Section 18 , Paragraph 16 , be
granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for construction of the
proposed service building , with the building height not to exceed
36 feet , and
be that the project comply with all applicable codes and
regulations .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Baker , Klein , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the site plan review and the consideration of a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a
request for Special Approval of a School Use , pursuant to Article
• V , Section 18 , Paragraph 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance , and with respect to a request for variance of Article
V . Section 18 , Paragraph 16 , for the proposed new Cornell
Plantations Service Building , proposed to be located on Caldwell
Road near, the intersection of Caldwell Road and Forest Home
Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 67 - 1 - 8 , Residence District
R- 30 .
2 . This project has been reviewed by the Planning Board at a Public
Hearing on February 3 , 1987 .
3 . This project is an Unlisted action for which the Zoning Board of
Appeals is the Lead Agency , and for which the Planning Board has
recommended to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative
declaration of environmental significance be made .
4 . The following materials have been reviewed by the Planning Board
at a Public Hearing on February 3 , 1987 :
a . SEQR Short Environmental Assessment Form .
b . Plants entitled , " Plantations Service Building , Cornell
University - Design Development " , dated January 19 , 1987 ,
and " Plantations Service Building for Cornell University -
Floor Plans , Elevations and Sections " , ( undated ) , by Lawson ,
• Knapp & Pulver , Architects ,
5 . The Planning Board finds that there is a need for the proposed
Planning Board 5 February 3 , 1987
• use in the proposed location on the grounds that :
a . the E? xisting service building is inadequate for the needs of
Cornell Plantations , and
be the proposed facility is compatible with land uses in the
vicinity .
6 . The Planning Board finds that the existing and probable future
character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected on
the grounds that the project and its program management , as
proposed , will not represent a significant change in use from
current bind use patterns .
7 . The Planning Board finds that the proposed change is in
accordancE� with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town
on the grounds that :
a . the project use and design is appropriate for the proposed
location , and
be the project is consistent with zoning regulations , subject
to the granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals of Special
Approval for the proposed use and a height variance for the
proposed building .
THEREFORE , IT I: S RESOLVED .
i . That the Planning Board report and hereby does report its
approval of the site plan for the proposed facility , provided
that the :required variances and approvals are received from the
Zoning Board of Appeals .
2 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Zoning Board of Appeals that Special Approval for the
proposed use be granted , and that a variance of Article V ,
Section 18 , Paragraph 16 , be granted for construction of the
service building as proposed , with the building height not to
exceed 36 feet .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Baker , Klein , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May declared the matter of Site Plan Review and
Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with
respect to the Cornell Plantations new service building duly closed at
7 : 50 p . m .
• PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Tlanriing Board 6 February 3 , 1987
Town Planner Beeners requested that the Board consider the
spreading out over a longer time period the number of development
applications which the Planning Board has to see and review . The
Board expressed its concurrence . Ms . Beeners suggested that spreading
out the larges- projects still leaves enough time for the smaller
subdivisions that seem to come in as soon as the weather breaks .
Ms . Beeners reported that Richard Schoch , Town Park and Open
Space Planner /Manager , is assisting her with planning issues .
Chairman May asked Town Engineer Flumerfelt if he had anything
which he wished to report on . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that he did not
having anything at this time .
PUBLIC HEARING :; CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD
WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED REZONING OF 1013 , 1019 , 1021 , and 1029
DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHAC.A TAX PARCELS N0 . 6 - 43 - 1 - 7 , 6 - 43 - 1 - 8 ,
6 - 43 - 1 - 9 , AND 6 - 43 - 1 - 10 , FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT TO RESIDENCE
DISTRICT R- 9 .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 00 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Town Planner Beeners addressed the Board with respect to Parts II
and III of the Environmental Assessment , and a further summary , as
follows .
" PART II - Environmental Assessment - Danby Road Rezoning
A . Action is Unlisted .
Be Action is :receiving coordinated review ( N . Y . S . Department of
Transportation , Tompkins County Department of Planning ) .
SUMMARY OF ACTION
The area to be rezoned to Residence District R - 9 would consist of
four lots , each with a dwelling , and would extend west to include
approximately 590 feet along the centerline of Danby Road . The total
acreage of these lots is 2 . 03 ± acres .
Based on available frontage and lot area , two of the subject
parcels , Parcels 6 - 43 - 1 - 7 and 6 - 43 - 1 - 10 , could potentially be
resubdivided to create up to one additional lot on Parcel - 7 , and up
to two additional lots on Parcel - 10 . The existing number of dwelling
units is assumed to be four . The ultimate number of dwelling units ,
with potential future resubdivision and the maximum permitted in
Residence District R- 9 , is estimated at 14 . Under the current
Multiple Residence zoning , the maximum number of dwelling units would
be 35 .
• The rezoning of 2 . 03 ± acres as proposed would reduce the total
amount of land 2: oned as Multiple Residence District from 33 . 3 acres to
Planning Board 7 February 3 , 1987
. 31 . 27 acres . This reduction could be mitigated by the rezoning of
other suitable land for Multiple Residence use .
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 43 - 1 - 1 , located at 1007 Danby
Road , was included in the area petitioned for rezoning from Multiple
Residence District to Residence District R- 9 . This parcel has been
under consideration since December 2 , 1986 for site plan approval of a
30 - unit multiple residence project . The project is being reviewed by
the Planning Board as a Type I action . The request for rezoning of
this parcel is being considered along with the consideration of site
plan approval .
As currently proposed , a multiple residence project on this
parcel with a density compatible with the existing and potential
character of the neighborhood , as to be determined by the Planning
Board in further Type I environmental and site plan review and to
include site - specific mitigation measures as also to be determined in
regard to such factors as density , drainage , traffic safety , and plant
materials , will have no significant adverse impact . Any potentially
significant adverse impacts which might result from the retention of
Multiple Residence District Zoning on Tax Parcel 6 - 43 - 1 - 1 are expected
to be substantially mitigated through the achievement of density ,
drainage , and design improvements as to be determined in further
review of this project .
• C . Could action result in any adverse effects on , to or arising from
the following :
Cl . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or
quantity , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste
production or disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding
problems ?
No significant adverse impact is expected as a result of the
proposed rezoning , except as might result from further subdivision and
residential R- 9 development . Any potential adverse impact which might
result from such further residential development , such as
site - localized drainage management and erosion control , and the effect
of reduced yard requirements of Residence District R- 9 rezoning , can
be substantially mitigated as a part of specific development review .
C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archeological , historic , or other
natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character ?
Same as Cl .
C3 . Vegetation or fauna , movement of fish or wildlife species ,
significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species ?
Not expected . No information has been received indicating the
presence of unique habitats or species on the lots proposed for
rezoning that would warrant other than the proposed rezoning .
C4 . A community ' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted ,
Planning Board 8 February 3 , 1987
• or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural
resources ?
The subject parcels were included in a Multiple Residence
District established by the Town Board in April of 1965 as an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance . Multiple Residence District zoning
permits single and two - family residences , but residents of the subject
four parcels have petitioned for the proposed rezoning .
The rezoning action will not have a significant adverse impact on
community plans or goals , or a change in land use or intensity , except
in regard to -the loss of 2 . 03 ± acres of land zoned for multiple
residential use , which loss could be mitigated by the rezoning of
other land for multiple residence use .
C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely
to be induced by the proposed action ?
No significant adverse impact is expected . Similar actions would
be subject to further review .
C6 . Secondary , cumulative , or other effects not identified in
C1 -C6 ?
Not expected .
• C7 . A change in use of either quantity or type of energy ?
Not expected .
PART III
No significant adverse impacts are expected that cannot be
mitigated through further development review . The use would be
consistent with existing zoning and land use patterns , except that it
should be noted that the intent of the petition submitted requesting
the rezoning of certain properties along Danby Road was to maintain
existing single -. and two - family dwellings , while the neighborhood land
use trend has been to multiple dwellings , which are permitted in both
Residence District R- 9 ( through cluster subdivision ) and in Multiple
Residence Districts .
A negative declaration of environmental significance is
recommended , subject to the future consideration of other property for
multiple residence zoning .
Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Town Board
Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner
Review Date : January 27 , 1987
SUMMARY - MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT - DANBY ROAD
• Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner 2 / 3 / 87
Existing acreage 33 . 3 ac .
Planning Board 9 February 3 , 1987
• Less ParcE! ls 6 - 43 - 1 - 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 - 2 . 03 ac .
Total Remaining MR 31 . 27 ac .
The Multiple Residence District was established by the Town Board
in April , 1965 . The District is located ± 3 / 4 mile from the Ithaca
College entrance , ± 1 3 / 4 mile from the Ithaca Commons , and 1 mile from
Buttermilk Falls State Park . The District is adjoined by Ithaca
College land to the north on which development may be extremely
limited due to slopes and vegetation . On the east and south , the
District adjoins R15 and R30 residential areas . On the west are R9
residential lands .
The Danby Road - South Hill corridor has a range of land use
densities and building scales . There is a mixture of single - and
two - family strip R- 9 development with a range of lot sizes , and
several multiple dwellings and duplexes , some of them clustered .
Northward are the buildings and facilities of the Ithaca College
campus and several industries . Southward is the Danby Road / King Road
commercial district .
The 453 ± feet of frontage along Danby Road in the southwest
corner of the District is feasible for the location of primary access
to the lands of the District , and for future local street
interconnections in the vacant lands zoned for residential use
adjoining the District , such as a potential connection to future
" Evans Lane " from King Road . The 200 ± feet of frontage of parcel
•
6 - 43 - 1 - 1 is potentially appropriate for limited access to a portion of
the lands of the District , such as is currently recommended to be
restricted to private access to the proposed Multiple Residence
project on Tax Parcel 6 - 43 - 1 - 1 and on a small portion of Tax Parcel
6 - 43 - 1 - 2 . 2 , with a potential secondary , private driveway connection to
potential future interior roads of the District . However , public road
access through Parcel 6 - 43 - 1 - 1 is not recommended . Any intersections
or drainage work within the right of way of Route 96 -B ( Danby Road )
would require final approval by the New York State Department of
Transportation .
The District is characterized by areas of poor drainage , seasonal
wetness , and erodible soils , which might require additional sitework
expenses in any future development . The primary soil on the site ,
Erie channery silt loam , poses moderate limitations in building
construction and site development . Waterproofing is typically
required for foundations , and drainage and stormwater management must
be carefully designed . On - site retention will be entailed in future
development of the backland of the District . Erosion control and
revegetation practices will also be necessary in any development to
mitigate potentlal impacts due to soil and drainage constraints .
The following are suggested as general conditions which should be
considered as requirements for potential future development in the
District :
• Based on preliminary analysis , an estimated 7 . 5 acres or
approximately 25 % of the total remaining acreage ( including the
Planning Board 10 February 3 , 1987
• acreage of Parcels 1 , 2 . 2 , and 6 ) may be costly or undesirable to
develop , and is recommended for open space and drainage management .
Such land would include poorly drained areas , on - site stormwater
retention improvements , habitats of uncommon plants , and a 50 - foot
deep buffer that is proposed in this review to be located along the
eastern boundaries of Lots 7 , 81 9 , and 10 ( which are proposed for
rezoning to R- 9 ) . Any open space reservation would be subject to
further review and determination if new development is proposed for
the Multiple Residence District .
It is recommended that development in the District be clustered
to minimize site infrastructure costs . Such clustering could result
in a decrease In roads , earthwork and utilities , the conservation of
important undeveloped open space , and the provision of adequate
drainage and stormwater improvements .
Multiple residential development could be clustered on those
areas most suitable for development . Specific cluster location , and
gross and net residential density distribution will require future
site - specific review . Higher net densities should be permitted in
cluster areas where development is most suitable , and where
infrastructure cost can be reasonably economized . Lower overall
densities for the District would be achieved through the conservation
of open space for drainage management and recreation . At this time ,
it is considered that a range of net densities using the cluster
• technique could be achieved .
The location of primary access to the District should be within
the southernmost 453 feet of District frontage on Danby Road , as to be
determined in future review , and as to be approved by the New York
State Department of Transportation . Provision should be made for a
future road connection from Danby Road through this frontage of the
District to connect with the potential extension of future " Evans
Lane " from East King Road .
It is recommended that access through Parcel 6 - 43 - 1 - 1 be private ,
and be limited to a specific number of dwelling units . Provision
should be made for a private driveway connection at a later time from
any development on Parcel 6 - 43 - 1 - 1 to a potential cul - de - sac or
interior road in the backland of the District .
The permitting of a gradation in height of potential future
multiple residential development such that more than two stories could
be built in situ areas of low visual impact should be considered .
Subject to further review and approval , the retention of Multiple
Residence District zoning on Tax Parcel 6 - 43 - 1 - 1 , at a density to be
found by the Planning Board to be compatible with the existing and
probable future character of the neighborhood , and as subject to
further review , is considered at this time not to have a significant
adverse impact on the environment ( see review of Lambrou project ) . "
• Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
there were anyone who wished to speak .
Planning Board 11 February 3 , 1987
Attorney Elizabeth Bixler spoke from the floor and asked for
clarification as to whether this was a Public Hearing to consider the
petition to rezone the five parcels as requested , or a Public Hearing
to consider the rezoning of four parcels . Town Attorney Barney
responded that the Public Hearing has to do with consideration of a
recommendation to the Town Board with respect to the four parcels
cited . If there were going to be consideration of the rezoning of the
fifth parcel , there would have to be a re - publication of the Notice of
Public Hearing . Chairman May noted that the petition asks for the
rezoning of five parcels . Town Attorney Barney stated that a petition
does not necessarily govern what the Board does .
Mr . Karl Niklas , 1005 Danby Road , spoke from the floor and stated
that the lot which is not currently under consideration was , in fact ,
the provocation for the petition requesting the five - lot rezoning .
Mr . Niklas felt that the real issue is density and stated that this
was what caused the petition in the first place , through the
neighborhood . Mr . Niklas stated that the issue of rezoning is not as
relevant as a cap on the density of dwelling units on that parcel of
land . Mr . Niklas suggested , on the basis of compatibility with nearby
projects of a similar nature , a cap of four dwelling units per acre .
Ms . Mary Wessel , 1013 Danby Road , spoke from the floor and
indicated on a map the concept of the particular lot indicating single
homes all the way down and then the 30 -unit proposed site . One of the
• issues is that this lot is basically surrounded by a residential
neighborhood . The other point is that this particular section was
originally R 9 and changed in 1965 to Multiple Residence . Ms . Wessel
felt that it was important to note that that particular parcel was not
purchased until 1967 and houses existed on each of these separate
lots . Ms . Wessel stated that these residents should have some
protection of zoning which was originally R - 9 . Town Attorney Barney
asked how many people in the four lots have bought their property
since the rezoning of that area . Ms . Wessel answered two were there
at the time of rezoning and two have since bought property . Ms .
Wessel said a plan for 29 acres was discussed and felt that it was
significant that the original plan by Herman was to have a mixed use
residential development on that areage . Town Attorney Barney stated
that when Mr . Herman bought that lot in 1967 it was already zoned
multiple . Town Attorney Barney asked if the property owners of the
properties adjacent to that lot wanted to stay zoned multiple . Ms .
Wessel said they wanted to rezone to R- 9 .
Ms . Frances Connelly , 1013 Danby Road , stated that the residents
are trying to protect the neighborhood as it exists , but still allow
development to occur ,
Mr . Niklas spoke about the ecological sensitivity of the area ,
and quoted briefly from a letter from Nancy Ostman of Cornell
Plantations to Ms . Beeners , dated January 29 , 1987 , as follows :
" . . . Unfortunately , from the available information it would appear that
• Mr . Lambrou has inadvertently selected the most environmentally
sensitive portion of the multi - family zone for his development . . . "
Mr . Niklas noted that Peter Novelli , Engineering Consultant , in his
Planning Board 12 February 3 , 1987
report specifically pointed out that there is a problem of inadequate
capacity inherE! nt in the trunk sewer as it crosses the West Clinton
Street bridge in the City and continues toward the Wastewater
Treatment Plant , with it being probable that , at times , the trunk
sewer will not handle this additional load which could result in sewer
backup in the City and could result in the discharge of raw sewage to
Six Mile Creek ,
Mary Trochim , 120 McFaddin Hall , owner of 1019 Danby Road , spoke
from the floor and asked for clarification regarding the petition
entered as a group requesting the consideration of the rezoning of all
five of these pieces of land , but the Board decided to look at only
four of them . Mrs . Trochim asked what the process is for the Board to
reconsider to include that fifth parcel of land or to set up an
arrangement to consider that .
Town Attorney Barney stated that the Board can choose to consider
acting on all five parcels , not acting , or acting on some . Mrs .
Langhans , commenting that she was not at the January meetings , asked
for clarification as to the four under consideration when the petition
included Mr . Lambrou ' s property . Town Planner Beeners responded that
she felt it more advantageous to maintain that property as it has been
zoned for a long time . Town Attorney Barney stated that another
element is that of just plain fairness . Town Attorney Barney stated
that , in terms of the five pieces of land , one is involved in a
procedure before the Board as to whether it should have a multiple
residence development constructed upon it , and , if it has such
multiple residences what the level of density should be . From a staff
level , the concE? rn is if it is rezoned , is that fair to the person who
is buying the property knowing it is multiple residence at this time .
Mr . Niklas stated that , for the record , if the issue of hardship
is raised , he [ Niklas ] was quite prepared to buy this parcel of land
regardless of what it is zoned , from Mr . Herman , or Mr . Lambrou . Mr .
Niklas stated that his real concern was that the land be used fairly
and sensitively for the community . Mr . Niklas stated that he had
indicated his inclination to Mr . Herman ' s lawyer and that inclination
will be communicated at some point . Mr . Niklas stated , also for the
record and for Mr . Herman ' s real estate agent , that he will buy that
piece of land .
Ms . Connelly stated that the other issue of fairness is fairness
to the neighborhood . Ms . Connelly stated that , as she understood it ,
Mr . Lambrou has not bought the lot and his site plan can be moved and
the neighbors would accept this multiple residence if the density were
made compatible with R- 9 .
Mrs . Trochim stated that there seems to be some ambiguity about
the timing of zoning and how that relates to zoning of the 29 acres .
Mr . Jack Burns , Real Estate Agent for Mr . Herman , spoke from the
• floor and stated that he showed Mr . Lambrou the property in question
and that it was his understanding that , first , since 1965 there have
been at least three or four reviews of the zoning in the Town of
Planning Board 13 February 3 , 1987
• Ithaca where the Planning Board has looked at any possible changes in
the way the community was going and nothing was ever changed as to the
zoning of that area . Mr . Burns stated that Mr . Lambrou said he wanted
to buy the property contingent upon the approval of the development by
the Town . Mr . Burns stated that there is very little hardship as far
as Mr . Herman is concerned , however , Mr . Lambrou has spent $ 8 , 000 . 00
on this project so far .
Mr . Niklas stated that he felt weighing the hardship of over
sixty living units versus one person was inappropriate . Also , Mr .
Lambrou was offered 1033 Danby Road to move his project site to ; this
project could be moved less than one -quarter of a mile to be built in
an area that is already established for student dwelling units .
Mr . Jagat P . Sharma , Architect for Mr . Lambrou , stated that they
do not own the 29 acres , the property at issue is two acres , and when
the project was started it was zoned multiple .
Mr . Burns :Mated that , economically , when you go beyond a certain
amount of acreacre , then the situation comes up as to how to take care
of that acreage , and , if it is going to be feasible . When there is
more acreage to get density down it will not be economically feasible .
Also , any change of zoning would be detrimental to the whole area and
to the four people living there . Realistically , it is not a
residential area by any means , and for future sale of homes , options
• should be left open as to multiple dwellings and not R- 9 .
Mr . Edward Cobb , 1005 Danby Road , spoke from the floor and stated
that no one is asking Mr . Lambrou to buy more land , they are asking
him to move the site less than one - quarter mile away . Another factor
to consider is -the houses that border the area if 30 apartments are
built .
There being no further comments from the public , Chairman May
closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 00 p . m . and asked for Board comments on
the proposed rezoning of the four lots .
Mr . Klein stated that , basically , he felt that the residents
wanted their land reverted to R- 9 , and that he had no objection to
that . Mr . Klein stated that the Lambrou property is zoned multiple
residence and lie would be concerned about the implications for
precedent , and also legally , with considering a rezoning for that
parcel , even though , perhaps , the whole rezoning possibly was in error
twenty years ago . Town Attorney Barney responded , pointing out that
there was a complete re - adoption of the Town Zoning Ordinance and map
which took place in 1968 , which , among other amendments , was to cure
any potential defects in prior years . At that time , the properties in
question were already zoned multiple residence and without reference
to any specific project or plan that zoning was kept in place . Mr .
Klein stated that: he agreed with Ms . Beener ' s approach in leaving the
Lambrou parcel as multiple residence and to allow the Planning Board ,
• through the planning process , to lower the density with development
that will be of comparable density within the area and buildings that
are appropriate in scale .
Planning Board 14 February 3 , 1987
• Mr . Mazza stated that short of rezoning , those four neighbors
could get together and put some restrictive covenants on their own
lots which would limit what could happen on those lots , which they
could change later by themselves if they wanted to , and yet , still
stay within the current zoning since there is more flexibility for
them under the current zoning .
Attorney Robert Hines spoke on behalf of Mr . Herman and stated
that he did not think the lot was in jeopardy . Attorney Hines stated
that the Notice did not include that fifth lot . Attorney Hines stated
that he did not feel it would be appropriate to close the Public
Hearing and then add something to the matter under discussion .
Dr . Lesser asked if it were necessary to contact the mortgage
holders if the four lots were rezoned . Mr . Mazza stated that this
proposal for rezoning is at their request , so they would have to get
in touch with their mortgage holder to see if it violates any terms of
their mortgage .
MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson :
WHEREAS :
i . This action is a recommendation to the Town Board on the rezoning
of 1013 , 1019 , 1021 , and 1029 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcels No . 6 - 43 - 1 - 7 , 6 - 43 - 1 - 8 , 6 - 43 - 1 - 9 , and 6 - 43 - 1 - 10 , from
• Multiple Residence District to Residence District R- 9 .
2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town Board has been
legislatively designated to act as Lead Agency in the
environmental review of such proposed rezoning . The Tompkins
County Planning Department and the New York State Department of
Transportation are potentially involved agencies which are being
notified of this action .
3 . This action is the result of the consideration of a referral from
the Town Board concerning a petition dated December 8 , 1986 ,
signed by the residents of 1013 , 1019 , 1021 , and 1029 Danby Road ,
requesting the rezoning of 1009 - 1011 [ sic . ( 1007 ) ] , 1013 , 1019 ,
1021 , and 1029 Danby Road from Multiple Residence District to
Residence District R - 9 , which petition was received by the Town
Supervisor , and which was referred by the Town Board to the
Planning Board on December 31 , 1986 .
4 . The request in the petition for the rezoning of 1007 Danby Road ,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43 - 1 - 1 , from Multiple Residence
District to Residence District R- 9 , and a report to the Town
Board pertaining to this request , is being considered by the
Planning Board along with the request for site plan and
subdivision approval for a Multiple Residence project proposed to
be located on this parcel , such project having been under
• consideration and under Type I environmental review by the
Planning Board since December 2 , 1986 .
Planning Board 15 February 3 , 1987
• 5 . The Town Planner has recommended that such rezoning as
recommended herein will have no significant adverse environmental
impact , conditional upon the future consideration of other
property for multiple residence zoning .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does
recommend to the Town Board that the Town Board determine a
negative declaration of environmental significance for the
rezoning of 1013 , 1019 , 1021 , and 1029 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcels No . 6 - 43 - 1 - 7 , 6 - 43 - 1 - 8 , 6 - 43 - 1 - 9 , and 6 - 43 - 1 - 10 , from
Multiple Residence District to Residence District R - 9 .
2 . That the Planning Board finds the following :
a . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed
location .
b . The existing and probable future character of the
neighborhood in which the use is to be located will not be
adversely affected .
c . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive
plan of development of the Town .
• 3 . That the Planning Board finds that the retention of Multiple
Residence District classification at this time on Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 6 - 43 - 1 - 1 , 1007 Danby Road , will have no
significant: environmental impact , conditional on further
environmental and site plan review of any potential development
on this parcel , and that , subject to such conditions , the
retention of such classification will result in neither a
significant. alteration of the purpose of land use control nor the
policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board , and therefore ,
recommends to the Town Board that the Multiple Residence District
classification of this parcel at this time be retained .
4 . That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does
recommend to the Town Board that the Town Board rezone 1013 ,
1019 , 1021 , and 1029 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No .
6 - 43 - 1 - 7 , 6 - 43 - 1 - 8 , 6 - 43 - 1 - 9 , and 6 - 43 - 1 - 10 , from Multiple
Residence District to Residence District R- 9 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Klein , Langhans .
Nay - Mazza , Lesser ,
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
• Chairman May declared the matter of the recommendation to the
Town Board with respect to the rezoning of four lots on Danby Road
duly closed at 9 : 20 p . m .
Planning Board 16 February 3 , 1987
Mr . Mazza asked Ms . Beeners to elaborate on the side yard
requirements in a multiple residence zone as opposed to an R- 9 zone .
Ms . Beeners stated that each side yard in an R- 9 zone may not be less
than ten feet in width , except for a garage , either attached or
separate from the dwelling which may be seven feet from a side line
which is not a street line , and further , when the height of the
building exceeds 30 feet , each side yard must be equal to half the
total height of the building . Ms . Beeners stated that in a multiple
residence zone , the side yard may not be less that the height of the
nearest structure . In R- 9 , the rear yard may be not less than 30 feet
in depth ; in Multiple , the rear yard may be not less than twice the
height of the nearest structure . In R - 9 , the front yard cannot be
less than 25 feet ; in Multiple , the front yard cannot be less than 50
feet . Ms . Beeners commented that there are yard advantages in
Multiple , and also there is the advantage in Multiple of being able to
have multiple dwellings without having to go through the cluster
process for which the property in question is the wrong size .
Additionally , there is the requirement that in any multiple residence
development proposal , it must be done in accordance with Article IX ,
Site Plan Approval . Ms . Beeners noted again that there is the site
plan review in Multiple which you do not have in R - 9 .
ADJOURNED HEARING FROM DECEMBER 2 , 1986 , AND JANUARY 6 , 1987 , WITH THE
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ON JANUARY 6 , 1987 : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN
APPROVAL AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED 30 — UNIT MULTIPLE
• RESIDENCE PROJECT TO BE LOCATED IN A MULTIPLE •RESIDENCE DISTRICT AT
1007 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 43 - 1 - 1 , AND AS
REVISED FOR JANUARY 6 , 1987 , ON A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL
N0 . 6 - 43 - 1 - 2 . 21 AND CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEAL �cl THAT VARIANCE OF ARTICLE VI , SECTIONS 28 , PARAGRAPH
5 , AND 29 , PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , BE
GRANTED . JACK M . HERMAN ET AL , OWNERS ; GUS E . LAMBROU , APPLICANT ;
JAGAT P . SHARMA , ARCHITECT / AGENT .
Chairman May stated for the record that he was withdrawing from
all discussion with respect to this matter due to possible conflict of
interest . Vice Chairman Grigorov took over the Chair ,
Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the Lambrou matter duly opened at
9 : 25 p . m .
Mr . Jagat P . Sharma addressed the Board and stated that the
proposal before the Board this evening is , basically , the same plan as
was presented at the last meeting , January 6th , that is , a 450 - foot
property facing Danby Road , two acres , with a density of 15 units per
acre , and with no variances being requested . The first building
contains six units with four buildings in the back . Another 50 feet
was purchased and the project moved back to 70 feet from the road with
the rear yard increased . Mr . Sharma stated that he and Mr . Lambrou
are not opposed to moving this project to another site , but they need
guidelines from the Board . Mr . Sharma spoke about the recommendation
• from Town Planner Beeners to reduce the project to 4 . 5 units per acre .
Mr . Sharma stated that he felt this was almost like changing to R- 9
because the Ordinance allows 17 units per acre . Mr . Sharma stated
Planning Board 17 February 3 , 1987
. that the original project site was 1 . 7 acres and now it is 2 acres .
There are 40 parking spaces as per the Zoning Ordinance .
Ms . Beeners stated that the project is the same except for the
increase in the front and rear setback . Mr . Sharma worked with her as
to how things could be worked out that would be compatible with R - 9
single family homes and one idea was the reduction in density in an
area 150 feet deep along the front of the parcel .
Ms . Beeners noted the receipt , on February 2 , 1987 , of a letter
to her from Nancy Ostman , dated January 29 , 1987 , reviewing the site
as to the rarE! and uncommon species of plants in the site . Vice
Chairman Grigorov asked if any of that has been designated wetlands ,
with Ms . Beeners responding that it has not and adding that potential
impacts as far as noise , parking , impact on uncommon plants and access
get fairly specific . Continuing , Ms . Beeners stated that in some
respects this lot could be treated as a cluster of the development on
the remaining land and , perhaps , the same environmental considerations
that might be placed on the development of the remaining lands should
be placed , as well , on this property , and noted that there is a 20 % to
25 % undevelopable area on the remaining multiple residence land . Ms .
Beeners stated that it would be her recommendation that a higher net
cluster multiple residence density be allowed in the southern portion
of the site , next to the gray duplexes built by Evan Monkemeyer , where
access is better and you could have higher apartment densities on a
potential Town road . Comparable densities exist along Danby Road on
single and two - family lots and also in some of the local multiple
dwelling projects , whether it is Cayuga Vista with 4 . 5 units per acre ,
or Majestic Heights at four units per acre where there is open space
reservation for the purpose of botanical preservation . Ms . Beeners
stated that there is enough environmental impact and also enough
opportunity to :mitigate that environmental impact by requiring that
the density on this property be reduced to 4 . 5 dwelling units per
acre , or a total of nine dwelling units on the two acres . The density
scenario would be equivalent to R- 9 conventional platting on the
two - acre site with a 60 - foot right of way , two R- 9 lots in the front ,
four lots in the back - - six dwellings or a possible total of 12
dwelling units on the two acres , however , as to what kind of open
space reservation there would be for site drainage management and for
protection of plants in back , Ms . Beeners estimated there would be ,
also , a 25 % open space requirement . Ms . Beeners recommended that
higher cluster densities be permitted in the southern section of the
Multiple Residence District and that permission for building heights
greater than two , three , or four stories , if feasible , be granted in
the southern part of the Multiple Residence District where it would
not substantially affect views and would effectively achieve some more
open space .
Mrs . Langhans asked about the density on the two acres as it is
presented . Ms . Beeners stated that mitigating measures would have to
be looked at and any additional parking that might be needed . Also ,
• if a new site were that close to existing houses , there might have to
be additional buffering requirements . The parking and any revisions
that might be necessary as far as turning radii for fire trucks would
Planning Board 18 February 3 , 1987
• make it impossible to say , okay , you can build 15 units per acre on
another site . Ms . Beeners stated that the highest density in the Town
is 16 per acre at Summerhill , as approved , but it is all not built as
yet and what has been built at Summerhill is actually 13 per acre .
The highest density at this time is 13 , and , in addition to that ,
Candlewyck , Warrenwood , and Winston Court are three storied .
Dr . Lesser asked how large an area is considered when evaluating
these botanical impacts . Ms . Beeners responded that some of the
plants mentioned in Dr . Niklas ' letter are locally uncommon in the
Cayuga Lake Basin and specific to South Hill , Ms . Beeners referred to
Ms . Ostman ' s interpretation in her letter of January 29 , 1987 , and
also to the field test she , herself , had done with Mr . Schoch on South
Hill in connection with several projects on South Hill . The uncommon
plants identified in Dr . Niklas ' letter of December 22 , 1986 , are
plants growing on an area that was apparently bulldozed within the
last five or six years and either regenerated or spread from an area
such as the wooded wetland which is to the north of the entire
multiple residence district . Ms . Beeners stated that she had talked
with Ms . Ostman. and asked whether those plants might be growing in
some other old fields on South Hill and Ms . Ostman had said that an
old field situation might be more like a pasture where you would have
more topsoil . In this situation , and for this plant habitat , you
would have none . Ms . Beeners stated that she agreed with Ms . Ostman
in that it might not be very easy to transplant those plants . Ms .
• Beeners stated that she felt , based on the information the Board has
now , that that stand of uncommon plants should be protected as much as
possible .
Attorney Robert Hines pointed out that the parcel is zoned for
multiple residence . Town Attorney Barney stated that the neighbors
are correct in that , originally , there was a plan put up and the
zoning was done in the context of a particular plan , however , the
zoning has also been kept in place through a couple of revisions of
the ordinance . Town Attorney Barney stated that in order to do
anything a specific plan has to be presented and that plan is subject
to the approval of the Planning Board . Town Attorney Barney stated
that there is a problem with the flora and fauna of this particular
site which dictates a certain level of density in order to preserve
that . If the project were moved to a different site , a different
level of density might be appropriate , but 15 units per acre may still
not be allowed .in an area which , at the present time , is basically
comprised of single- or two - family residences .
MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board reject and
hereby does reject the site plan for the proposed Multiple Residence
project , as presented to said Planning Board this date , February 3 ,
1987 , based upon :
• 1 . The excessive density not in character with the surrounding area .
2 . Deficiency of parking , and , if the parking were to be met , it
Planning Board 19 February 3 , 1987
• would have a greater negative impact on the site .
3 . The existence of the uncommon plants on the east end of the site .
4 . The height of the buildings at two - and - one - half or three stories ,
as opposed to two .
5 . The insufficiency of the proposed recreation area at the front of
the site off the road .
6 . The potential hazard of the driveway location vis - a - vis Route
96B .
Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Klein , Langhans , Mazza , Lesser .
Nay - None .
Abstain - May .
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of the Herman / Lambrou
multiple residence project duly closed at 10 : 05 p . m .
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED 186 - UNIT " CLUSTER "
SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 BACKLOT OF THE
INTERSECTION OF EAST KING ROAD AND TROY ROAD , 119 . 57 ± ACRES , TOWN OF
• ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 32 . PAUL B . ERDMAN , OWNER ; EDWIN
HALLBERG , DEVELOPER ; THOMAS P . NIEDERKORN , CONSULTANT .
Chairman May took over the Chair , declared the above - noted matter
duly opened at 10 : 06 p . m . , and read aloud from the Agenda as noted
above .
Mr . Niederkorn , Planning Consultant , appeared before the Board
and appended colored maps to the bulletin board with respect to the
proposed clustered subdivision . Mr . Niederkorn noted that approval of
the concept had been given by the Planning Board on January 6th to go
ahead with a clustered subdivision .
Mr . Niederkorn , indicating on the map , showed the slope of the
land on the parcel , noted a fairly broad flat plain through the center
of the parcel , and indicated the whole northwestern portion of the
site which he described as fairly heavily wooded . Mr . Niederkorn ,
commenting that a major concern was bedrock near the surface , stated
that the subdivision was designed so that they could avoid the area
with bedrock problems . Mr . Niederkorn stated that test borings were
conducted , eight test holes dug and they did not find a spot where
bedrock was less than about 8 feet below the surface . Mr . Niederkorn
stated that the rest of the soils in the upper portion of the site are
reasonably good and drainage can be taken care of properly . Mr .
Niederkorn stated that the features of the particular parcel are its
location and view . Utilizing a colored map on the bulletin board , Mr .
• Niederkorn indicated that the road depicted in red represents the
roadway necessary to serve the actual cluster development and the road
depicted in orange represents the roadway necessary to serve some
Planning Board 20 February 3 , 1987
• additional single family lots . Mr . Niederkorn stated that a
significant and substantial reduction in the amount of roadway has
been achieved by reducing the roads by about half , some 5 , 000 square
feet . Potential recreation areas have been established and they have
to be discussed with the Planning Board for its input . The objective
is to provide some public recreation area which would be deeded to the
Town . Mr . Hallberg is proposing some private recreation area for this
community , one of which is close to an access point owned by the Town
of Ithaca . There is also the NYSEG right of way which could become an
extension , basically , of the recreation areas since it cannot be built
upon . Mr . Niederkorn indicated on the map the phasing that is
proposed , the first phase being the closest to Troy Road where that
corner of the parcel would consist of 12 units and 770 lineal feet of
roadway . The :second phase would consist of 32 units and 900 lineal
feet of roadway . The third phase comes up around the corner of the
roadway intersection and makes part of the roadway connection , adding
three additional clusters , 36 units , with 900 lineal feet of roadway
involved . The fourth phase adds three more clusters , 40 units , with
1 , 600 lineal feet of roadway , and comes in from East King Road . The
final phase , phase V , would be building the single families with the
cul de sac - - 59 units , 2 , 600 lineal feet of roadway . The entire
process should take somewhere in the neighborhood of four years . One
of the problems pointed out by the Town Planner is that the
Subdivision Regulations limit the length of a cul de sac to 1 , 000
feet .
• Mr . Peter Novelli , Engineering Consultant , addressed the Board as
to drainage and stated that he is anticipating typical roadside
drainage , generally following the contours of the land and swales
around each cluster to divert flow to the roadway ditches . Mr .
Novelli showed two potential locations for stormwater retention ponds
so that the runoff leaving the site could be limited to the conditions
that existed before the development . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the
intention is to control the drainage in a way tht will prevent more
water from running off the property after development than is running
off now .
Mr . Niederkorn stated that the 32 - acre area of the parcel which
is heavily wooded is to remain forever wild as an undeveloped area .
Access to this undeveloped area would be by right of way . Mr . Mazza
asked who would own it . Mr . Niederkorn stated that ownership is still
to be determined . It could be owned by the Association just like they
own at Commonlan. d , or , it may be taken over by the Nature Conservancy
or possibly Cornell . In any case , it would be secured in such a way
that later on it. would not be developed . Mr . Niederkorn spoke of the
typical four -unit cluster shown in a diagram on the Sketch Plan , each
being on its own parcel of land with direct access to a public road .
Dr . Lesser asked Mr . Niederkorn if the developer has given any
consideration to traffic flow in the area , and what kind of impact
that might have . Mr . Niederkorn said that the main roads are Troy and
• East King and , in terms of numbers , four trips per day per unit , it
would generate 400 to 500 vehicle trips per day on both roads . Mr .
Niederkorn stated that he felt there would be no problem for those
Planning Board 21 February 3 , 1987
• roads to handle the additional traffic . Mr . Niederkorn stated that
the site itself is such that the roads are laid out in a such a way
that the grades are minimized . Chairman May asked what the maximum
grade within the subdivision would be , with Mr . Niederkorn responding ,
problably less than 10 % .
Mr . Niederkorn referred to the small sketch plan of a typical
four - unit subdivision , diagramatic , shown on the Deer Run Subdivision
Sketch Plan dated January 27 , 1987 , which had been distributed to the
Board and noted that two units would share a drive and there would be
a combined green area between the drives . Chairman May stated that
the question of the 1 , 000 feet of road is significant with respect to
the cul de sac , adding that he would like to see a second opening as
soon as possible for emergency vehicles . Ms . Beener. s stated that , as
far as the 1 , 000 feet off the road is concerned , she was planning on
working with Mr . Niederkorn to see what the Fire Department might have
to say . Ms . BE! eners stated that she felt the opening from East King
Road should be done such that the last phase should , perhaps , be one
of the earlier phases . Chairman May expressed his concern about fire
protection , if the 1 , 000 feet ended up having a 10 % slope as the last
phase .
Chairman May informed Mr . Niederkorn that he could proceed with
the preliminary plan stage .
• ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the February 3 , 1987 meeting
of the Town of ]Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 30 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Mary S . Bryant , Recording Secretary ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
•