HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1987-09-01 r
FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date g!�2a
• TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk
SEPTEMBER 1 , 1987
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , September 1 , 1987 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , James Baker , Carolyn Grigorov ,
Virginia Langhans , David Klein , Robert Kenerson , William
Lesser , John C . Barney , Esq . ( Town Attorney ) , Susan C .
Beeners ( Town Planner ) , Robert R . Flumerfelt ( Town
Engineer ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) ,
ALSO PRESENT : Anne Ouellette , Peter D . Novelli , Lawrence P . Fabbroni ,
Rocco P . Lucente , Stephen P . Lucente , Keijo Autio ,
George W . Dengler , Arthur A . Sherwood , Steve Heslop ,
Bruce Rich , Lynn Rich , Donald C . Ball , William K .
Spencer , Richard L . Atkins , Jack Decker , Dan McClure ,
Dick Patterson , Scot Raynor , Larry Thayer , Alice
Thayer , Richard J . Cunningham , Charles Kehler , Jane
Sherwood , Victor A . Lazar , David Collum , James Hilker ,
Richard E . Essen , Joan M . Essen , Willis Hilker , Timothy
Ciaschi , Harry Lin ( WVBR- FM93 -News ) .
• Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 34 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 August 24 , 1987 , and August 27 , 1987 , respectively ,
together with the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice
upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion ,
as appropriate , upon the Clerks of the Town of Ulysses , the Town of
Dryden , and the Town of Ithaca , upon both the Clerk and the Building
Commissioner of the City of Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County
Commissioner of Public Works , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of
Planning , and upon the applicants and / or Agent , as appropriate , on
August 25 , 1987 .
PUBLIC HEARINGS : CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR
" BRIARWOOD " , A 26 - LOT SUBDIVISION , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED BACKLOT OF
HANSHAW ROAD , EAST OF BIRCHWOOD DRIVE , BIRCHWOOD DRIVE NORTH , AND
PINEWOOD PLACE , ON A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO .
6 - 70 - 10 - 3 . 5 ( 38 . 15 ± ACRES ) , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , ROCCO P .
LUCENTE , OWNER / DEVELOPER ,
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 36 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Messrs .
Rocco and Stephen Lucente were present , as was their Engineer ,
Lawrence P . Fabbroni .
Mr . Fabbroni appeared before the Board and appended a large copy
of the final subdivision plat , the highway and sewer and drainage
Planning Board - 2 - September 1 , 1987
O profiles and details , and the engineering details to the bulletin
board . Mr . Fabbroni stated that there was no substantial change from
the sketch plan approval through the preliminary subdivision approval ,
granted July 7 , 1987 , stages , adding that the final subdivision plat
has the final metes and bounds on the lots . Mr . Fabbroni stated that
all the lots are in excess of 15 , 000 square feet in an R- 15 area zoned
for single - and two - family homes , which is what is intended for this
26 - lot subdivision . Continuing , Mr . Fabbroni reviewed some of the
questions that: arose in the preliminary plan approval , noting that one
of the questions asked was - - what was a more accurate dimension for
the remaining land at the east end of " this " big block of land that
will still remain , east of the proposed 26 lots ? Mr . Fabbroni stated
that the field survey indicated the width of the stretch more
accurately as 160 feet rather than 150 feet . Mr . Fabbroni also noted
that a question was raised concerning rock lining the area where the
developer diverted " this " flat stream [ indicating ] . Mr . Fabbroni
noted that the detail drawing [ indicating ] shows the section that is
brought along the east line of lots # 18 and # 19 , adding that the water
and sewer is also indicated on the drawing . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out
that the drawing also indicates the hydrants at the end of the water
lines . Mr . Fabbroni commented that , basically , the area is designed
to adhere to the water and sewer standards of the Town , and also of
the Health Department .
At this point , Mr . Fabbroni noted one correction on the
Engineer ' s Report , stating that the runoff factor is 0 . 3 rather than
0 . 4 . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the surface drainage is provided by lot
line swales and the natural intermittent stream within the project .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that the design. for drainage structures is for
ten- year storm flows with runoff of 0 . 3 , adding that all driveway
culverts will be the Town minimum of 15 " . Mr . Fabbroni stated that
that is a composite factor for roughly one -half - acre lots , and you
have to take into account the wooded nature of the land , and the flat
nature of the land .
Mrs . Langhans wondered why lots # 14 and # 15 have a little jog
out , adding that lot # 16 does not look as though it has the width of
100 feet . Mr . Fabbroni responded that lot # 16 is 100 feet by 150
feet , adding that all the lots are 100 feet in width . Mr . Fabbroni
explained that the reason for the jog is because you lose square
footage on the curve , if you will , so the only way you can get 15 , 000
square feet is to add back into it . Mr . Fabbroni stated that all of
the lots are in excess of 15 , 000 square feet .
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
there were anyone present who had any questions or comments .
Mr . Victor Lazar , 108 Woolf Lane , spoke from the floor and stated
that it was his understanding that the lots are one -half - acre lots ,
with Mr . Fabbroni responding , no , and adding that the overall density ,
when you figure the open space and the roads , makes it a half - acre
• density . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the lots are all at least 15 , 000
square feet and , obviously , are a little in excess of a third of an
acre .
Planning Board. - 3 - September 1 , 1987
• Mr . David Collum , 1456 Hanshaw Road , spoke from the floor and
asked for help in identifying on the map exactly where Warren Road is
located . Mr . Fabbroni , indicating on the drawing , stated that Warren
Road is " way over here " , Hanshaw Road is " down here " , Pinewood Drive
is off the two Birchwoods , and the easternmost development is " right
here " ; Sapsucker Woods Road is " over here " , and the Bird Sanctuary is
" here " . Mr . Collum wondered if the open area will be developed , with
Mr . Fabbroni responding that the open area already exists and will be
developed in a similar fashion in the future , but not at this time .
Ms . Beeners stated that it was her understanding that in the future
development of that land , the Board can consider requiring an
additional ten per cent open space .
There appearing to be no further questions or comments , Chairman
May closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 46 p . m . , and brought the matter
back to the Board for discussion .
Chairman May asked Mr . Flumerfelt if he had any comments from an
engineer ' s standpoint . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that the project looks
very straightforward engineering -wise and , in his opinion , careful
attention has been given to the water and sewer improvements and the
drainage . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that he did not anticipate any
problems .
There appearing to be no further questions or comments from the
Board , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion .
• MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Dr . William Lesser :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the consideration of Final Subdivision Approval
for " Briarwood Park " , a 26 - lot , 39 - unit subdivision , proposed to
be located backlot of Hanshaw Road , east of Birchwood Drive ,
Birchwood Drive North , and Pinewood Place , on a portion of Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 70 - 10 - 3 . 5 .
2 . This is an Type I Action for which the Planning Board , acting as
Lead AgE! ncy for environmental review , made a negative
determination of environmental significance on July 7 , 1987 .
3 . Preliminary Subdivision Approval was granted to this Subdivision
by the Planning Board on July 7 , 1987 , with the condition that
improvement plans be approved by the Town Engineer ,
4 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on September 1 , 1987 , has
reviewed the following material :
" Final Subdivision Plat - Town of Ithaca , County of Tompkins
Briarwood Park " , designed by Lawrence P . Fabbroni ,
P . E . , L . S . , dated March 25 , 1987 , revised through
August 31 , 1987 ;
" Highway and Sewer and Drainage Profiles and Details -
Briarwood Park " , same designer , dated August 13 , 1987 ,
Planning Board - 4 - September 1 , 1987
• revised August 31 , 1987 ;
" Engineering Details - Briarwood Park " , same designer , dated
August 13 , 1987 , revised August 31 , 1987 ;
" Engineer ' s Report - Briarwood Park - Town of Ithaca " ,
prepared by Lawrence P . Fabbroni , P . E . , revised August
31 , 1987 .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final
Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as herein proposed , with the
following conditions :
a . Approval of the final improvements , including storm drainage ,
highway , and water and sewer plans , by the Town Engineer ;
b . The potential future road connection to Sapsucker Woods Road
through a 50 - foot right of way , as shown on the aforementioned
subdivision plat , shall be constructed as a condition of any
final subdivision approval for the potential completion of
development of the remaining lands of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No . 70 - 10 - 3 . 5 ;
c . A 20 - foot pedestrian / bicycle pathway , containing an 8 - foot paved
trail , substantially as shown on " Highway and Sewer and Drainage
• Profiles and Details - Briarwood Park " , dated August 13 , 1987 ,
shall be provided from Briarwood Drive between Lots 19 and 20 to
the potential future road connection to Sapsucker Woods Road as a
condition of any final subdivision approval for the potential
completion of development of the remaining lands of Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70 - 10 - 3 . 5 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Lesser , Langhans , Baker , Grigorov , Klein , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May declared the matter of final subdivision approval
for Briarwood Park duly closed at 7 : 52 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
SUBDIVISION OF A 1 . 02 ACRE PARCEL ( A . K . A . TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL
NO . 6 - 23 - 1 - 11 . 113 ) FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 23 - 1 - 11 . 112
( 24 . 07 ACRES ORIGINALLY ) , AND FURTHER , CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED 21 - UNIT , SINGLE - FAMILY , DETACHED ,
CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON A PORTION OF TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 23 - 1 - 11 . 112 , OFF WOOLF LANE , AND FURTHER ,
CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH RESPECT TO
THE PROPOSED REZONING OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 23 - 1 - 11 . 112
• AND 6 - 23 - 1 - 11 . 113 FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 TO RESIDENCE DISTRICT
R- 15 . TIMOTHY CIASCHI , OWNER OF PARCEL N0 . - 11 . 112 ; KEIJO K . AUTIO ,
OWNER OF PARCEL NO . - 11 . 113 ; SCOT RAYNOR , LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT , AGENT .
Planning Board - 5 - September 1 , 1987
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 53 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Messrs .
Ciaschi and Autio were present , as were his Landscape Architect , Mr .
Raynor , and his Contractor , Mr . Daniel McClure .
Mr . Raynor appeared before the Board and appended four large
colored maps of " Westwood Hills " to the bulletin board , entitled ( 1 )
Site Plan - Phase One , ( 2 ) Planting Plan and Cluster Layout , ( 3 )
Cluster Density Plan , ( 4 ) Conventional Plan Density , Mr . Raynor
stated that , originally , the amount of land involved was 24 . 07 acres ,
however , the project now involves 23 . 05 acres . Mr . Raynor stated
that , as most everyone knows , there is a proposal to bring water and
sewer up into this area and , with the advent of water and sewer , the
area probably would change ; therefore , there is , they think , no need
to keep it as R - 30 zoning , because , essentially , with water and sewer
available , the zoning can go to R- 15 which would make the lots a
little smaller . Mr . Raynor , commenting that there is a lot of land
here , stated that they are looking to do this project in phases , Phase
One being 21 units . Mr . Raynor pointed out that the units are
clustered and each cluster has three units . Indicating on the Site
Plan - Phase One map , Mr . Raynor noted that the order in which houses
would probably be built would be along " here " first and then ending up
" here " . Mr . Raynor also indicated the future road extensions which
would tie into Grove Road and then continue south to presently
undeveloped land , and a future road that would go up to land that Mr .
Ciaschi also owns in the Town of Ulysses . Mr . Raynor stated that
there are no plans to do anything with the Ulysses land at this time .
Mr . Raynor also indicated the presently proposed extension of Woolf
Lane to DuBois Road . Mr . Raynor , indicating on the Site Plan - Phase
One map , noted an open space system , as is required by the Town ,
commenting that this is used for a system of parks and playgrounds .
Again , indicating on the Site Plan - Phase One map , Mr . Raynor stated
that the proposed open space system has access on both sides of the
road , and will continue in a linear fashion to other properties
running north and south . Now indicating on the Planting Plan and
Cluster Layout map , Mr . Raynor noted the " Typical Cluster Layout "
portion of the map and stated that the cluster would contain three
houses of roughly 1 , 200 square feet each , adding that each one has a
garage and at the back there is a deck which is ground level , or could
be a patio at. some time . Mr . Raynor stated that the space in the
front is the entrance with a common drive up to " this point here " , at
which point the driveways split off . Again indicating on the " Typical
Cluster Layout: " , Mr . Raynor explained that " this " parcel of land is
owned by " this back lot owner " , adding that there is an easement under
which these three lots share the cost of the driveway up to a certain
point . Mr . Raynor stated that the lots are generally in the vicinity
of , at least , 12 , 718 square feet , with the largest lot being 14 , 562
square feet . Mr . Raynor stated that the overall cluster size is 200
feet by 200 feet and has 90 feet of road frontage , with a 20 - foot
easement for the driveway . Mr . Raynor pointed out that they have the
standard setbacks for " cluster " , which are 15 feet for rear yard , and
stated that there are 30 feet between clusters should that back lot be
adjacent to other land not in the cluster , adding that that would be
• Planning Board - 6 - September 1 , 1987
• the buffer area . Mr . Raynor pointed out that there is a 25 - foot
setback from the front , and a 30 - foot setback from the main road ,
which is Woolf: Lane . Referring to the " Typical Planting Plan " portion
of the Planting Plan and Cluster Layout map , Mr . Raynor stated that
the site is generally secondary growth from old farm land , and there
are some seed trees that have matured . Mr . Raynor stated that as many
of the mature trees as possible will be retained providing that they
are not in the middle of a proposed road . Mr . Raynor stated that they
are proposing a wide variety of plants , several different kinds of
shade trees , and six different kinds of flowering trees . Mr . Raynor
noted that they also will have hedges for screening and to block key
areas for privacy , adding that they would try to retain as much of the
natural quality of the site without leaving it too " woodsy " looking .
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
there were anyone present who wished to speak to this matter .
Mr . Victor Lazar , 108 Woolf Lane , spoke from the floor and asked
how many acres were in the original proposal , with Mr . Raynor
responding , 24 . 07 acres . Mr . Lazar asked how much was in the original
plot that was presented about a year ago , with Mr . Raynor responding
that , including the land in the Town of Ulysses which is 6 acres , it
was 30 . 07 acres . Mr . Lazar inquired about extending Grove Road , with
Mr . Raynor responding that they are planning on extending Grove Road
at a future date . Pointing to the Site Plan - Phase One map , Mr .
• Lazar asked how many acres were within the " red " outline , with Mr .
Raynor responding , approximately seven . Mr . Lazar asked how many
units were being proposed , with Mr . Raynor responding , 21 . Mr . Lazar
stated that this is a much higher concentration than was originally
proposed a year ago . Mr . Raynor explained that that was under the
R- 30 zoning where the minimum lot is 30 , 000 square feet , however , with
municipal water and sewer coming into the area , you can go to a higher
density .
Mr . Bruce Rich , 253 DuBois Road , spoke from the floor and asked
if he were correct in saying that each one of those homes will be on
less than a quarter - acre lot , with Mr . Raynor responding , not really ,
since one quarter of an acre is a little under 11 , 000 square feet and
they are proposing at least 12 , 718 square feet .
Mr . Donald Ball , 244 DuBois Road , spoke from the floor and asked
if the developer were proposing in the future somewhere between 50 and
60 units in that particular area which he owns in the Town of Ithaca ,
with Mr . Raynor replying , right , adding that what they had done for
the Town was prepare a density study showing " this " road configuration
[ indicating ] urith the type of density you could get under different
scenarios . Mr . Raynor explained that one scenario was to use its
present configuration of the roads and have R- 15 sized lots , which are
essentially 100 feet wide by 150 feet deep , and upon each of such lots
the developer could put two dwelling units , and noted that there could
be 35 lots on the site and each lot could have a house with an
apartment , in other words , 70 dwelling units . Mr . Raynor pointed out
that Mr . Ciaschi is proposing to develop only 55 dwelling units .
Continuing , Mr . Ball stated that , actually , what we are talking about ,
Planning Board - 7 - September 1 , 1987
• as far as the increase in traffic goes , is not necessarily 21 more
units as we discussed last time , but 50 to 60 more units which means ,
maybe , half again as many automobiles . Chairman May interjected that
the issue under discussion as this time is the present proposal , with
Mr . Ball responding that we have to look to the future .
Ms . Beeners stated that she had received a telephone call from a
resident who -was concerned about the density regarding this project
and also concerned about the implications of having water and sewer in
this area . Ms . Beeners noted that once water and sewer are provided
under R- 30 zoning , and with two families per lot , you would have 2 . 3
units on an acre of land . Ms . Beeners pointed out that what we have
here with the R- 15 proposal is virtually the same as what one would be
able to have if the zoning were to remain the same - - R- 30 - - and the
utilities were to be provided . Ms . Beeners stated that it is
substantially less than the 3 . 5 units per acre which is the maximum
permitted in R - 15 cluster . Ms . Beeners commented that it is an
interesting fact that if it did stay R- 30 , utilities were put in , lots
with a main unit and an accessory apartment were put in , you would
have about thea same density as that presently being proposed .
Mr . Daniel McClure , Mr . Ciaschi ' s contractor , spoke from the
floor and , commenting that one of the points being mentioned is that
the density for the 55 units would be 2 . 39 units per acre , stated that
55 is the maximum number of units on the entire parcel , adding that
• their intention is to increase the lot size if the market will bear
that . Mr . McClure stated that the 55 units are basically answering
the request of the Town for an overall plan , adding that their
proposal at the present time is 21 units , and further adding that 55
is just the maximum number and not their initial intention .
Mr . Charles Kehler , 106 Grove Road , spoke from the floor and
asked about the 1 . 02 acre subdivision , with Mr . Raynor replying that
that particular parcel of land is owned by Mr . Autio and needs to be
actually subdivided out .
Mr . George Dengler , 250 DuBois Road , spoke from the floor and
questioned what was going to happen with the Autio property , with Mr .
Raynor answering that eventually a house would probably be constructed
on it , adding that a road will be put in for access , in the future .
Town Attorney Barney inquired about the present status of the
Autio property , with Mr . Autio responding that he has a right of way
from Grove Road to his property and that he could build a house there
if he wanted to . Town Attorney Barney asked if Mr . Autio ' s deed had a
provision in it for a right of way , and further asked if that right of
way were located with any precision or if it were to go wherever Mr .
Ciaschi said it would go . Mr . Autio stated that it was he who
determines where it goes , adding that it extends from Grove Road ,
Mr . Dengler , commenting that the whole plan changes the
• neighborhood , stated that most people in the area have , and have had
for years , a house on an acre of land , or more . Mr . Dengler stated
that , now , all of a sudden , they are going to put three houses to
• Planning Board - 8 - September 1 , 1987
approximately less than an acre , adding that , even though the rest of
the land is going to be , maybe , an acre or so with a house on it , they
still are putting 21 houses on seven acres . Chairman May stated that
there is no question that the lot sizes are legally reduced when you
bring water and sewer in .
Mr . Larry Thayer , 103 Woolf Lane , spoke from the floor and asked
if it automatically changed the zoning when sewer and water were
brought in , with Chairman May responding , no , and adding that this is
acted upon by the Town Board . Directing his comments to Mr . Thayer ,
Town Attorney Barney stated that there is a limitation on the size of
a lot if you do not have public water and public sewer which is
basically that imposed by the Health Department , adding that that
normally goes away when public water and public sewer are there . Town
Attorney Barney stated that the Town ' s Ordinance provides , in its
terminology , for an automatic reduction in lot size only in R- 9 ,
however , usually when water and sewer is brought in the Town Board
rezones the area served from R- 30 to R- 15 .
Mr . Dengl. er wondered if West Haven Road was changed to R- 15 from
R- 30 , as water and sewer was just recently acquired , with Town
Attorney Barney responding that he was not aware of it being changed .
Mr . Klein pointed out that West Haven Road was already zoned R- 15 .
Mr . Rich asked what the difference was between R - 15 and R - 30 ,
• adding that it was his understanding that you could not house animals
horses , chickens , etc . - on your property . Chairman May stated
that there were a number of things within the Zoning Ordinance having
- to do with uses . Town Attorney Barney , commenting that there were
really no significant differences between R- 30 and R - 15 , the major
difference being the permitted lot size , stated that the minimum lot
size in R- 30 is 30 , 000 square feet and the minimum lot size in R- 15 is
15 , 000 square feet . Mr . Rich , commenting that the " country " was being
wiped out of the area , inquired if the surrounding land will remain as
R- 30 , " with Town Attorney Barney responding , not likely , and adding ,
wherever the water and sewer is going within a fairly short period of
time it will all be zoned R- 15 .
Ms . Beeners , commenting that she did not think the " country " was
going to be totally wiped out in that area , stated that we have a
situation here where we have DuBois Road and Trumansburg Road and a
very centrally located area that is close to the Hospital and to the
Biggs Complex . Ms . Beeners noted that there is really good access and
pointed out that the area is such that the soils are not good for
private systems so you have to have public water and sanitary systems
as have been petitioned for . Ms . Beeners stated that there are areas
farther to the west and also to the east where either for
agricultural reasons or for topographic and other limitations , where
we do not see a great deal of utility extension . Mr . Rich stated that
there is a lot of land that goes from Route 96 to Ulysses that is
undeveloped and once it starts it will continue and they will lose the
• " country " . M ;3 . Beeners offered that she hoped we would gain some
other things at the same time .
Planning Board. - 9 - September 1 , 1987
• Mr . Ball asked about the proposed roads and where the water and
sewer lines would be placed , with Mr . Raynor responding that they
would be adjacent to the roads . Town Attorney Barney noted that the
lines normally run in the road right of way but usually on one side or
the other of the pavement .
At this juncture , Mr . Raynor distributed to the Board members
copies of the engineering drawings which had been prepared by T . G .
Miller Associates , Engineers / Surveyors .
Mr . Dengler voiced his concern regarding the proposed road ,
stating that it will be right next to his property and that when the
road is built there will be an embankment from 3 to 5 feet in back of
his house . Mr . Dengler stated that the land drops off and that the
developer will have to cut through that bank , leaving him with a
5 - foot high wall of dirt . Mr . Raynor stated that the area would be
filled and sloped , adding that if any problems arise they will be
rectified .
Mr . Richard Cunningham , 107 Woolf Lane , spoke from the floor and
asked if the "' long , narrow , green strip [ indicating on the map ] was
exclusive of the NYSEG right of way , or was that part of the right of
way where the park area is proposed . Indicating on the map , Mr .
Raynor pointed out that portion which was part of the right of way and
the area which is exclusive of it and the area that was half exclusive
• and half right of way . Mr . Cunningham wondered how the developer
could claim that area to be free if NYSEG has the right of way for it ,
with Mr . Raynor responding that he did not claim it to be free and
adding that it is the owner ' s , Mr . Ciaschi ' s , land and he can
certainly deed it over . Mr . Cunningham commented that you cannot do
much with it if you grant the exclusive right of way to any utility .
Mr . Raynor noted that the developer had originally proposed to the
Town a greenbelt that would serve two purposes - - it would increase
the buffer size from 30 feet to 50 feet all the way around the
property , and it also provided a loop system for a bike trail ,
walking , etc . , and still be able to continue a system to the north and
south . Mr . Raynor stated that the developer was asked to look at
eliminating that , making the lot sizes larger , and that is what they
did .
Ms . Jane Sherwood , 254 DuBois Road , spoke from the floor and
wondered if the residents could elect to keep their wells if they so
chose . Mr . Flumerfelt responded that the time limit has not been set
yet , but generally there is a grace period of a few years .
Mr . Lazar asked how the developer proposed to have access to the
recreation area in green [ indicating on the map ] , with Mr . Raynor
responding that from Woolf Lane there is a 25 - foot access point and
from Grove Road there is a 25 - foot access point .
Mr . Ball asked about the drainage area and the procedure of
• building , with Mr . Raynor stating that the road will be built to Town
specifications and , at the same time , the drainage swales will be
worked out so that any runoff that occurs will be channelled , adding
• Planning Board - 10 - September 1 , 1987
that the water will continue along the road and flow into a 28 - inch
steel culvert underneath DuBois Road and continue to the east .
Mr . Sherwood voiced his concern regarding a pond that is to the
rear of his property . Mr . Raynor stated that when he visited the site
he noticed that the pond was over its capacity , adding that at that
time there was concern by two landowners , Mr . Sherwood and Mr .
Freeman , and their [ Ciaschi et al ] concern was essentially to not
allow that pored to fill any more than at the present time . Mr . Raynor
stated that , with a road going through the site , you will have trucks
salting that road and you do not want that kind of water in the pond ,
and so , they are not going to be directing any water from roads to the
pond . Mr . Raynor stated that only water flowing on properties in
" this vicinity " [ indicating on the map ] will go to the pond , adding
that he believed that will be enough to feed the pond .
Mr . Rich questioned the matter of fire apparatus ingress and
egress and placement of electric lines , with Mr . Raynor answering that
all utilities will be underground . Mr . Dengler asked if he had heard
correctly that the electric lines will be underground ; Mr . Raynor
responded , yes . Mr . Dengler asked why this land was going to be R- 15
and the rest R- 30 , asking further if it were favoritism .
Ms . Lynn Rich , 253 DuBois Road , spoke from the floor and inquired
about the total development , with Mr . Raynor responding that the
. maximum number of units would be 55 .
Mr . Lazar wondered who was going to bear the expense of sewer and
water from DuBois Road into Woolf Lane , with Town Attorney Barney
responding that that has not yet been determined but it looks like the
Town will beat- the expense of bringing the water and sewer to a point
just about at the easterly line - - where " that red - lined area " is
[ pointing to the map ] - - and then the developer will bear the expense
of bringing it the balance of the way to Woolf Lane and , ultimately ,
also the balance of the expense of carrying it north and then westward
to Grove Road ,
Mr . Willis Hilker , 277 Burns Road , spoke from the floor and asked
if this were going to be a precedent set by the Town in which the Town
will bear the expenses to the developer for water and sewer . Town
Attorney BarnE! y responded that this is somewhat of a unique situation
because the other alternative , without any development at all , is that
the Town would lay a line all the way across the property - - which
would be necessary to serve both Grove Road and Woolf Lane - - so , this
was kind of a negotiated arrangement with Mr . Ciaschi , but , it has not
been signed off on . Town Attorney Barney stated that the Town does
not usually provide it for developers but , in this case , the problem
was that sewage runs downhill and the only way to get it to Grove Road
and Woolf Lane is to have it come out to the east , which requires that
a line be put in . Town Attorney Barney stated that the question is - -
where is that line going to go - - and added that the Town is trying to
• do it in a way that works with what Mr . Ciaschi has in mind for his
property . Continuing , Town Attorney Barney stated that if it does not
go that way , the Town would presumably condemn the land and proceed
Planning Board - 11 - September 1 , 1987
with laying the lines , adding that condemnation is an expensive and
time - consuming process and would probably slow up the placing of sewer
and water on Grove Road and Woolf Lane .
There appearing to be no further questions or comments from the
public , Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 30 p . m . and
brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
Ms . Beeners discussed the matter of open space , stating that in
the history of this current proposal we see that the density
calculation on the conventional plat , and on the overall cluster plan
as has been proposed , has included " this peripheral trail " [ indicating
on the map ] going around the development . Ms . Beeners stated that the
sense she has received from the Board is that that type of trail might
not really be that practical and that some of that peripheral land
might be better absorbed into the lots . Ms . Beeners noted that what
we are ending up with here , out of a total development land of ,
roughly , 24 acres , is less than the loo public open space that the
Board normally might consider requiring in a subdivision such as the
one proposed . Ms . Beeners pointed out that it is at the Board ' s
option to require that 100 , or , to accept something that is slightly
less , such as this . Ms . Beeners offered that if the Board is
satisfied with the location and the size of this open space parcel ,
perhaps it might be well to require some contribution , such as the
construction of the driveway into the park , or something that might be
. equivalent to what public open space may be deficient in this plan .
Ms . Beeners stated that she thought it was a good idea to have the
park located where it is because it does help as a buffer to the Woolf
Lane and Grove Road properties .
Mrs . Lancrhans wondered about an earlier statement regarding the
NYSEG right of way , and asked whether that can be claimed as part of
the 10 % and if it is usable land as a Town park . Ms . Beeners
indicated that. that land can be used as long as there were no tall
structures , adding that that power line right of way going north and
south would probably not be something that would be developed until
such time as there might be a possibility to extend it farther south
and north along the power lines , so that it would end up more at the
conrer of DuBois Road and Trumansburg Road . Mrs . Langhans noted that
Mr . Raynor had mentioned that the lots had been enlarged but they
seemed to her to be the same size as presented in August . Mr . Raynor
responded that lots were enlarged in certain areas - - Lots # 1 , # 21 # 3 ,
and # 21 , adding that , essentially , we are talking about lots adjacent
to private land , and further adding that the depths were enlarged .
Mr . Raynor stated that the land was juggled around in order to get
more open space along the west side of the development and to allow ,
also , for the enlargement of lots adjacent to private land .
Dr . Lesser , commenting that he was absent for the August 4th
meeting , stated that we are discussing two kinds of density - - one is
density of housing units and the other is the number of individual
• residences . Dr . Lesser stated that there is no doubt that the cluster
regulations under which this is being proposed involve a substantial
increase in the number of individual structures , from the fourteen
• Planning Board - 12 - September 1 , 1987
that would be allowed under normal R- 15 , to the proposed 21 that would
be allowed under the suggested cluster regulations . Dr . Lesser stated
that , in his opinion , that is going to be a very substantial change
from the existing land use patterns in the area , adding that he was
concerned about the character of the neighborhood .
Mr . Klein stated that he agreed with Dr . Lesser , adding that he
found the proposal visually unappealing regardless of the character of
the houses , and that there is no particular benefit from what is
proposed in cluster over the conventional subdivision . Mr . Klein
stated that he was also troubled by the common driveways , asking who
was responsible for plowing and repairing .
Chairman May stated that the Board did say that they would
consider this proposal and that it was his understanding that it was a
consideration of an increased lot size . Town Attorney Barney wondered
if it were lot size or additional green space .
Mr . Raynor stated that he had submitted to the Town two drawings ,
one of which showed the benefit , but he did not have it . Utilizing
the drawing at hand , Mr . Raynor showed how the open space system
works , comparing a cluster and a conventional subdivision .
Continuing , Mr . Raynor noted that the drawing also shows the benefit
of common open space where people share views , rather than having
individual backyards , adding that they are trying to incorporate a lot
• of that open space into each housing unit , and further adding that the
developer is :striving for detached single - family housing . Commenting
that a balance needs to be struck , Mr . Raynor stated that if the homes
are attached , they will end up as rental units and that is not in
keeping with the character of the neighborhood .
Dr . Lesser stated that the Board could possibly support the
proposed position if there were a little more space allowed around the
homes , with Mr . Raynor offering that this might be considered a high
density for this area , but it is still under the allowable density .
Dr . Lesser agreed that the proposal was under the allowable density of
dwelling units , however , because of the density of structures - - you
are talking about 21 buildings instead of the 14 buildings that you
would see if you followed the conventional case and allowed the
maximum density of 14 duplexes . Town Attorney Barney pointed out that
you cannot have duplexes , you can have a house with a subsidiary
apartment , duplexes are not permitted anywhere in the Town without a
variance . Mr . Raynor described what he termed a very good planting
plan to " ease " what some perceive as high density .
Mr . McClure pointed out the proposed four - page Declaration of
Protective Covenants of Westwood Hills Subdivision , and noted that
there are restrictions with respect to land use and building type ,
exterior storage and temporary structures , common driveways and
mailbox enclosures , fencing , landscaping , signs , garbage and rubbish ,
livestock and poultry , nuisances , television and radio antennas ,
• laundry poles and lines , and so on . At this point , Mr . McClure
appended to the bulletin board a standard grid plan under the R- 15
zoning and noted that there are 40 lots , with a potential for 80
. •
• Planning Board - 13 - September 1 , 1987
• dwelling unit : , all with 100 feet of frontage and a depth of 150 feet .
Mr . McClure stated that they are reducing that allowable number from
80 to a maxim-Lim of 55 , and getting away from something that looks like
a trailer park , and . proposing something with an entirely different
feeling . Mr . McClure stated that their proposal is marketable and
more in the interest of the Town , adding that they have 7 curb cuts
versus 21 driveways . Mr . McClure now appended another drawing to the
bulletin board which he described as the articulation of the open
space between the clusters . Mr . McClure stated that they are also
talking about lot sizes of 13 , 000 square feet , compared to 15 , 000
square feet for R - 15 zoning , so , the lot sizes are 2 , 000 square feet
under the R- 15 but with a density almost the same as R- 15 - - 2 . 39
units per acre!,
Dr . Lesser stated that 13 , 000 square feet is substantially less
than 15 , 000 square feet , about 15 % under the minimum , with Mr . McClure
responding that that is why they are proposing the cluster approach .
Town Attorney Barney stated that the theory of cluster is to allow
perhaps a more closely congregated series of houses and to compensate
for that with larger open spaces elsewhere , and the problem is that
that is not being done . Town Attorney Barney stated that a cluster is
being presented but in actual total open space area there is less
because there are more buildings on the whole - - 21 .
Mr . McClure stated that , as he sees it , cluster is an excuse for
• building apartment houses and selling them off to separate owners , to
which Town Attorney Barney responded , " I agree with you 100 % . " ,
adding , however , in each of those instances there was compensating
open space . 'Town Attorney Barney mentioned that " Edgewood " [ Weisburd ]
has lots that extend down toward the Creek , and also Grandview
[ Jonson ] has somewhat larger than normal size lots , and stated that
where this was done there were compensating factors with the open
space , adding that these were attached units . Mr . McClure stated
that , with respect to Grandview , in his opinion , they have taken
something and called it a park that is almost completely unusable on
Route 79 that sloped deeply , had no access to the majority of the
units , and is a smaller percentage than what they have offered here .
Mr . McClure stated that you could have a rectangle of open space way
off in a corner and have the rest of the land look like a trailer
park , so , he did not see how , in moving the project in that direction ,
anyone would really gain anything . Town Attorney Barney stated that
he did not think anyone was suggesting that the plan be moved in that
direction , adding that the cluster concept in itself is not bad , but
he would suggest that the developer get some more open space in there
and reduce the overall density somewhat so that you are not erecting
55 buildings . Town Attorney Barney suggested that if Mr . Ciaschi were
to come back before the Board with a plan for , say , 40 buildings in
this kind of arrangement , but with a compensating amount of open
space , the Board might be a little more receptive , adding that the
problem seems to be that there are an awful lot of buildings in a
small area .
Mrs . Langhans stated that the layout is very similar to a
conventional layout and , in her opinion , the little individual
• Planning Board - 14 - September 1 , 1987
• clusters are on a conventional layout plot . Mr . McClure offered that
the point is that they are trying to sell single family detached homes
which is not the case in most of the cluster arrangements . Mr .
McClure stated that they are looking for a neighborhood effect coming
off the main road - - Route 96 .
Dr . Lesser stated that the Board was not disagreeing with the
developer ' s concept - - they are just asking that the development be
built in a little bit larger area . Mr . McClure replied that if the
demand is there they will be more than happy to expand the lot size
and expand the house size , adding that the Ulysses section is locked
into one - acre lots .
Town Attorney Barney stated that the first unit is really three
units per acre for a total of 21 units , adding that the Planning Board
would like to see your initial proposal with somewhat lower density .
Mr . McClure pointed out that nine acres was figured in the public
spaces . Town Attorney Barney stated that the developer was talking
about a public space and he was committing not just those 9 acres ,
which would be? fine if he were doing it on that basis , however , the
park acres just apply to this part of the subdivision and that park
area should be enlarged , step by step . Mr . McClure responded that
that was their original proposal , adding that they had started out
with 7 acres " here " [ indicating on the map ] and a smaller park and
green space " around here " that gave the Town about 15 % with the
• intention of doing it step by step as they proceed with more
development , and that was rejected , so they are proposing a more
centralized scheme of park land .
Dr . Lesser pointed out why that concept did not appeal to the
Board , noting that unless that buffer was to be controlled , such as
some sort of fencing and possibly even a paved road , the Board was
concerned that: the space would very quickly be absorbed into the
neighboring houses and they would maintain it . Dr . Lesser said that ,
unless there is some separation , the Board felt that it really would
not be public access at all , but become private use , and with no other
stipulations of use or control , it would really not serve the purpose
of public land . Mr . McClure responded that that is the same
stipulation as any other park land , and noted that the developer had
offered to maintain it .
Town Attorney Barney stated that it was his understanding that in
Mr . Ciaschi ' s request for subdivision approval he was requesting the
cluster approval of lots # 1 through # 21 plus the 1 . 7 ± acres on the
park land plus the green belt that runs vertically along the west
side . Mr . McClure agreed . Town Attorney Barney stated that it was
also his understanding that , if the developer comes back for a second
phase , that there could be a request for additional park area or
additional open space . Town Attorney Barney stated that for these 21
units 9 + acres are committed without any prejudice that the next time
the developer comes in he may not get the number of units he wants
• with what he has left in the way of open space . Mr . McClure ,
commenting that he would have to defer to Ms . Beeners because the
picture changes weekly , stated that the developer would have to
• Planning Board - 15 - September 1 , 1987
• discuss the percentages involved .
Chairman May stated that the last time this was before the Board ,
the Board sent the developer back with the understanding that there
would be an increase in the open space and an increase in the lot
size . Chairman May stated that this has not been done and that it
would be to the developer ' s advantage to withdraw the application at
this point and work on it some more . Mr . McClure , commenting that he
really needed help , stated that he was referring to gross figures and
wondered , if they were to come back with 15 , 000 square feet which puts
them back in R.- 15 , is that going to be acceptable .
Mr . Timothy Ciaschi spoke from the floor and stated that he was
looking at 21 units , adding , if the Board wants more open space that
is fine with him and later on in phases he will keep on giving the
Town open space and he will cut the 55 units down and make those lots
larger . Mr . Ciaschi stated that the base phase is 21 units and here
is the open space , adding that with the next phase - - what you want ,
you get , but he needed 21 now and all he was asking for was a base
phase of 21 units .
Chairman May , commenting that he was hearing Mr . Ciaschi saying
that " this " [ indicating ] green space goes only with " these " units ,
stated that the Board should be aware that the green space that is
proposed will only go with these proposed 21 units and at such time as
• another phase is proposed there will be additional open space park
land associated with that area . Mr . Ciaschi responded that that was
correct .
Mrs . Langhans asked about the loo which the Board could require .
Ms . Beeners stated that for the 21 units on 7 acres we are looking at
seven - tenths of an acre for open space . Ms . Beeners commented that
what bothered :her about deferring the decision on where the additional
open space might go is - - where is it going to go ? Ms . Beeners stated
that we are talking about a fairly tightly defined open space and lot
layout , whether it be conventional or cluster , adding that at this
time she could understand the tendency to defer the later phases ,
however , that might lead to some inefficiencies as to the actual
development , and that is why she had the developer do an overall plan
as if they were going to do straight cluster on the entire site .
Mr . Ciaschi stated that he will be in the seventh house - - that
is how sure he is of this project , adding that it is appealing .
Mrs . Langhans stated that , in her opinion , when the Board is
talking about .larger lots , it is talking about the presently proposed
21 lots . Mr . Ciaschi pointed out that with this first phase as a base
phase , from that point , the lots are essentially going to get larger ,
adding that he wants to , and has , worked with the Town .
Mr . Klein stated that if Mr . Ciaschi proposes 21 units he has to
• go with a larger subdivision . Mr . Klein stated that the Board is not
necessarily opposed to 21 , but how much land the 21 units include ,
adding that three units placed on a 200 by 200 parcel appears too
Planning Board - 16 - September 1 , 1987
• tight .
Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Klein if you had three units on an
attached basic.; on a 200 - foot by 200 - foot lot , and you had another two
acres , roughly , outside those lots dedicated to open space , and
constructed the whole project on roughly a nine - acre parcel , would he
still have the same objection . Mr . Klein responded not necessarily ,
but by placing the units together you create more open space , with
Town Attorney Barney responding that you also create a row - house look .
Ms . BeenE� rs stated that she had a discussion with Mr . Raynor and
Mr . McClure regarding pulling the units together a little more by
bringing the rearmost unit in , so that you would still have at least
30 feet between buildings , and that would be a way to make the open
space of the backyards of all the units read a little more like what a
conventional :subdivision would look like , thus creating more of a
courtyard . Mr . McClure stated that they are not selling " public open
space " ; they are selling individual persons their own yards with their
own shrubs , grass , driveway , and mailbox , so , yes , it is going to look
a little bit different from what Mr . Barney noted because it is an
entirely different scheme .
Dr . LessE! r stated that he appreciated the last offer that was
made , but he found it a little bit difficult to evaluate it right at
this point - - the possibility of that with some additional park land
• added at some future point in time - - and he , personally , found that
difficult to approve .
Town Attorney Barney pointed out that the Board is being asked to
approve these 21 units and the open space dedication of what is shown
on the proposal presented tonight to these 21 units , so that the next
phase that is presented to the Board is entirely , again , subject to
the Board ' s review of what is going to happen when the developer comes
in with another number to add to the park . Town Attorney Barney noted
that the Board will have a chance at that juncture , in looking at
Phase 2 or 3 or whatever , to express concerns as to whether it is
sufficient open space or not . Chairman May asked if the additional
open spaces would in some way connect with the present open spaces ,
adding that he felt they should . Mr . Ciaschi stated that there will
be no problem with that , adding that they have discussed this with the
Town Planner , Ms . Beeners ,
Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Raynor about the seven acres
proposed tonight . Mr . Raynor said that seven parcels at 40 , 000 square
feet is under 7 acres . Town Attorney Barney pointed out that this
green area is 1 . 7 acres and wondered if that included the stretch all
the way to the north line and all the way to the south line . Mr .
Raynor responded that the green area is 1 . 7 acres ; the park is 1 . 3
acres , adding that the open space that they are presenting tonight is
about 20 % of the 9 acres .
• Dr . Lesser asked if there were any restrictions in utilizing
utility rights of way land as public park access , with Town Attorney
Barney responding that there are definite restrictions on use , adding
Planning Board - 17 - September 1 , 1987
• that where there are overhead poles you are not allowed to construct
anything underneath them , but you can plant grass and maintain it , but
you do not have " clear title " . Mr . McClure stated that the lower
access has nothing to do with NYSEG .
Chairman May commented that it helps considerably to improve the
open space concept of the cluster . Town Attorney Barney repeated his
understanding that there were 2 . 3 units per acre , with Mr . McClure
noting that 2 . 39 units per acre is on the sheet before the Board .
Chairman May suggested that the draft resolution would need amending ,
further suggesting that the subdivision of the 1 . 02 acre parcel might
well be attended to first .
Town Attorney Barney referred to the access to the Autio parcel
up in the northerly corner that is shown on the map , which is over a
proposed road and inquired of Mr . Autio if he could live with that
road , asking what Mr . Autio had presently regarding a right of way ,
and also inquiring about his deed . Mr . Autio stated that he has a
right of way to his place from Grove Road and when the road is
constructed he: can use the road as a right of way to gain access to
his property . Town Attorney Barney asked about the width of the right
of way , with Mr . Autio responding , 30 feet . Town Attorney Barney
wondered if a variance might be necessary , with Ms . Beeners responding
that she was riot sure whether Section 280 - a of the Town Law might be
applicable , adding that there is no building there now . Town Attorney
• Barney suggested that one of the conditions , should approval be
granted , should be that there be a new map drawn with respect to the
Autio property which shows specifically the location of the right of
way to his property , so that if , in fact , the developer does not
develop any more of this land , we have a clearly defined subdivision
of that one lot with a clearly defined location of a right of way ,
and , that subdivision approval be conditioned on obtaining whatever
approvals are necessary for actual construction on the building lot .
Dr . Lesser suggested appropriate wording . Town Attorney Barney
questioned Mr . Ciaschi as to his voluntary action with respect to the
park land , with both Messrs Ciaschi and McClure indicating that they
were voluntarily donating park land . Dr . Lesser suggested appropriate
wording for the provision of open space . Town Attorney Barney stated
that Mr . Ciaschi is voluntarily donating this first area of land , to
be considered as part of this 21 acres , and then as to any future
development there is a requirement , at the pleasure of the Board , of
up to 10 % additional open space or parkland being provided , adding
that it should be clear in any resolution that the restrictive
covenants limit the occupancy to a single family .
There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman May asked
if anyone wished to make a motion .
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
• 1 . This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
subdivision of a 1 . 02 acre parcel ( a . k . a . Town of Ithaca Tax
Planning Board - 18 - September 1 , 1987
• Parcel No . 6 - 23 - 1 - 11 . 113 ) from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 23 - 1 - 11 . 112 ( 24 . 07 acres originally ) , AND , FURTHER ,
Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for a proposed
21 - unit , single - family , detached , clustered subdivision , proposed
to be located on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 23 - 1 - 11 . 112 , located off Woolf Lane .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board , acting
as Lead Agency for environmental review , made a negative
determination of environmental significance , with certain
conditions , on July 21 , 1987 .
3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on September 1 , 1987 , has
reviewed the following material .
" Westwood Hills Residential Subdivision " - Sheets 1 - 4 ,
by Scot Raynor , ASIA , dated 8 / 87 , including " Site Plan
- Phase I " , " Planting Plan and Cluster Layout " ,
" Cluster Plan Density " , " Conventional Plan Density " .
Typical building plans and elevations , submitted by Dan
McClure .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain
• requiremeizts for Preliminary Subdivision Approval , having
determined from the materials presented that such waiver will
result in. neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the
Town Board .
2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary
Subdivision Approvals to the subdivisions as herein proposed ,
with the following conditions :
a . That an agreement between the Town of Ithaca and the
developer pertaining to the design and development of site
improvements including water and sewer mains and streets ,
substantially as described in a draft agreement currently
under review by the Town , be executed , prior to any
consideration of final subdivision approvals ,
b . That the Town Board approve the proposed rezoning of the
subject parcels from Residence District R- 30 to Residence
District R- 15
c . That a final drainage plan showing drainage improvements and
including runoff calculations be submitted for any
consideration of final subdivision approvals ;
d . That any draft covenants or deed restrictions proposed for
® the project be reviewed by the Planning Board as part of any
consideration of final subdivision approvals , and that any
such covenants and deed restrictions be approved by the Town
• Planning Board - 19 - September 1 , 1987
• Board prior to the issuance of any building permits ;
e . That any such covenants and deed restrictions include a
restriction limiting occupancy of each building to one
family ;
f . The 1 . 7 acre public parkland depicted on the Subdivision
Plan is being donated by the Owner to the Town of Ithaca .
Subsequent development , at the pleasure of the Board , shall
be required to provide up to ten per cent ( 10 % ) of any
future developed area as open space or parkland ;
g . That the subdivision map for the 1 . 02 acre lot show the
existing access to the Autio parcel before it is finally
approved by the Planning Board .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Lesser , Langhans , Baker , Grigorov , Klein , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mrs . Virginia
Langhans :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of General Site Plan Approval
and a Recommendation to the Town Board with respect to the
proposed rezoning of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 23 - 1 - 11 . 112
and 6 - 23 -- 1 - 11 . 113 from Residence District R- 30 to Residence
District 11 - 15 .
2 . This is a Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board
has been legislatively designated to act as lead agency for
environmental review . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board and the
Tompkins County Planning Department are involved agencies in
coordinated review .
3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on July 21 , 1987 and on
September 1 , 1987 , has reviewed the proposed rezoning of the
aforementioned parcels .
4 . The Planning Board , on July 21 , 1987 , recommended a conditional
negative determination of environmental significance for this
action , with such conditions including a 30 - day public comment
period which has been fulfilled .
THEREFORE , IT I: S RESOLVED :
• 1 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Town Board that a negative determination of environmental
significance be made for the rezoning as proposed , subject to the
• Planning Board - 20 - September 1 , 1987
execution of an agreement between the Town of Ithaca and the
developer pertaining to the design and development of site
improvements including water and sewer mains and streets ,
substantially as described in a draft agreement currently under
review by the Town , prior to any final consideration by the Town
Board of the proposed rezoning .
2 . That the Planning Board find and does find 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 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 approve and does approve a general plan
for the proposed rezoning , as based on the submissions reviewed
by the Planning Board on July 21 , 1987 and September 1 , 1987 .
4 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Town Board that Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 23 - 1 - 11 . 112
and 6 - 23 -- 1 - 11 . 113 be rezoned from Residence District R- 30 to
• Residence District R - 15 , subject to the execution of an agreement
between the Town of Ithaca and the developer pertaining to the
design and development of site improvements including water and
sewer mains and streets , substantially as described in a draft
agreement currently under review by the Town , prior to any final
consideration by the Town Board of the proposed rezoning .
There being no further discusision , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Lesser , Langhans , Baker , Grigorov , Klein , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May declared the matters of Preliminary Subdivision
Approval and a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding Rezoning
with respect to Timothy Ciaschi ' s Westwood Hills development duly
closed at 9 : 46 p . m .
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : CONSIDERATION OF A SKETCH PLAN FOR A PROPOSED
10 - LOT SUBDIVISION PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON CODDINGTON ROAD , NEAR
UPDIKE ROAD , ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 47 - 1 - 41 15 ACRES
TOTAL , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 , JUNE MURRAY WALL , OWNER ; RICHARD L .
ATKINS , DEVELOPER ,
Chairman May opened the discussion on the above -noted matter at
• 9 : 47 p . m . and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above . Mr . Atkins
was present , as was his Consulting Engineer , Peter D . Novelli .
• Planning Board - 21 - September 1 , 1987
• Mr . Novelli appeared before the Board , appended one drawing to
the bulletin board , entitled " Proposed Subdivision Plan - Richard L .
Atkins " , dated 7 - 14 - 80 [ sic . ] , by Peter D . Novelli , P . E . , and spoke to
the 10 - lot proposal . Mr . Novelli stated the area is zoned R- 30 and
the total project area is 15 acres . Indicating on the map , Mr .
Novelli pointed out a 1 , 085 - foot proposed road ending in a cul de sac ,
and , a short , 200 + feet cul de sac to access the proposed lots . Mr .
Novelli indicated the location of the water line about 1 , 500 feet
away , noting that the water main stops about 150 feet past Burns Road ,
Mr . Novelli stated that there is no public sewer in this area so the
developer is proposing to use on - site sewage disposal systems , unless
it can be negotiated with the Town to extend the sewer main out
Coddington Road , adding that that is a major project , but Mr . Atkins
is interested in proposing that and sharing his part of the cost . Mr .
Novelli , commenting that because there is a possible problem with
inadequate water pressure , they are proposing running off the
Northview Tank , adding that until the Town does something to loop the
water main from Coddington Road up to Troy Road , the best solution , in
the short term , would be to use a booster pump station , which the
developer is prepared to install , the same as the Town is doing on
West Hill near Woolf Lane . Mr . Novelli stated that the lot sizes
range from 31 , 000 square feet to 78 , 000 square feet , pointing out that
the developer has not included any NYSEG right of way , but he
[ Novelli ] had researched the deeds and figured the total width and
made sure that. at least 30 , 000 square feet was added in addition to
• any right of way requirements [ indicating on the map ] . Referring to
open space requirements , Mr . Novelli noted that the developer is
proposing to dedicate a 20 - foot right of way between proposed lots # 3
and # 5 connecting with the Coddington Road Community Center and their
recreation area , adding that the right of way would be in the form of
a gravel path to the end of " this " [ indicating ] cul de sac to that
property . At this juncture , Mr . Novelli stated that a point brought
up by the Town Planner was that the developer should allow for future
road extensions to the northwest and the southeast , and , if it were
possible , to have such a road right of way between the two electric
pole lines easement . Mr . Novelli , commenting that he did not think
that there was a strong likelihood that a road will ever be required
going this way or that way [ indicating ] , stated that the developer ,
however , has provided for it , adding that there is also a possibility
that the road could be extended from this point [ indicating ] to serve
this parcel [ indicating ] and provide a loop for any development that
may be done over " here " [ indicating ] .
Chairman May wondered how far the proposed development was from
Updike Road , with Mr . Novelli responding that it is 869 feet from the
centerline of Updike Road to the northwesterly property line .
Mrs . Grigorov asked if the park land were the 20 - foot pathway
shown on the plan . Mr . Novelli , commenting that that matter is open
to discussion , stated that the developer is prepared to dedicate some
land but , in discussing that issue with Ms . Beeners , she felt that it
• might be better to provide access to the Coddington Road Community
Center to concentrate recreation in one area .
• Planning Board - 22 - September 1 , 1987
• Mrs . Langhans wondered what the distance was between the two
electric pole lines , with Mr . Novelli replying that it is not shown on
the deed , but. it is scaled at 100 feet , and adding that when the
boundary survey is complete the distance will be located precisely .
Town Attorney Barney asked if the lines were transmission lines , with
Mr . Novelli responding , yes . Chairman May asked about the easement ,
with Mr . Novelli answering that , from what he noted from the deed , it
is 50 feet on each side . Town Attorney Barney asked if they are
usually 100 - foot easements , with Mr . Novelli commenting that 50 feet
on each side would be a total of 100 feet for each pole line . Town
Attorney Barney mused that 75 feet seemed to stick in his mind . Mr .
Novelli stated that there was plenty of room because of the
configuration , adding that they could only have four lots " down here "
and two " here " [ indicating on the map ] , so , there is more than ample
room , even to accommodate a 75 - foot distance . Chairman May wondered
if the developer proposed to dedicate this to the Town , with Mr .
Novelli responding , yes . Chairman May asked where the lift station
would be located , with Mr . Novelli replying that that has not yet been
decided but , :probably , would be with the street right of way , and
adding that it will be a small station , probably underground , and not
much more than a large manhole . Chairman May wondered if that size
would be acceptable to the Town , with Mr . Flumerfelt responding that
that is the type of station that is being planned presently for the
Town ' s recent water and sewer project , and adding that they are quite
small - - two or three small pumps .
• Mr . Klein inquired as to what was to the east of the subject
property . Mr . Novelli stated that there is wooded and brush land ,
adding that this particular site is an abandoned orchard . Ms . Beeners
interjected that , according to the tax map , a Mr . Smith owns two or
three properties to the east . Mr . Klein asked if the developer was
showing the full 60 - foot right of way , with Mr . Novelli answering ,
yes .
Chairman May , noting that even though this was not a public
hearing , he would ask if anyone wished to speak to this matter .
Mr . Richard Essen , 153 Northview Road , spoke from the floor and
voiced his concern as to whether their neighbors , Kate and Bill Smith ,
have any knowledge of this proposed subdivision . Ms . Beeners ,
pointing out that the proposal is at the sketch plan stage , stated
that the Board cannot make any decisions at this time as sketch plan
is the time for informal input . Ms . Beeners stated that as the matter
moves along Public Hearings would be scheduled and Mr . and Mrs . Smith
would receive Notice . Continuing , Ms . Beeners stated that she had
discussed this proposal with the Coddington Road Community Center
mainly because of the fact that there really is not an open space
dedication , or donation , involved here except for the right of way .
Ms . Beeners noted that the trail that is shown [ indicating ] would come
out behind the ball field at the Community Center , commenting that
there is an upper field that is sort of brushy right now , and adding
• that , rather than having a 10 per cent parcel being taken out , in lieu
of giving land , there could be some type of arrangement made so the
developer might donate a certain amount of money , again , in lieu of
• Planning Board - 23 - September 1 , 1987
• land , into a fund for general park improvement in this area .
Mr . Willis Hilker , 277 Burns Road , spoke from the floor and asked
if the discussion concerned the per cent value of the land or
something substantially less . Chairman May stated that it would be
somewhat an agreed upon value which would have to be something close
to the 10 per cent .
Mr . James Hilker , 255 Burns Road , representing the Coddington
Road Community Center , spoke from the floor and wondered about the
tentative plans for the subdivision , with Mr . Novelli responding that
the plans are for single family residential homes .
Mr . Richard L . Atkins , developer of the proposed project , spoke
from the floor and stated that the proposal is to build substantial
houses , up - scale houses in the 200 , 000 dollar range , because South
Hill is on they move . Mr . Atkins , commenting that he is a resident of
the Ithaca area , stated that one of the reasons that brought him to
this area , other than family ties , was the beauty of the area , adding
that he resides in both California and New York , Mr . Atkins stated
that both he and his architect , William K . Spencer , who was with him
this evening , toured the area and that Mr . Spencer had said that he
could see up - scale housing in this area , adding that if you start out
with an up - scale development that will set the tone of things to come .
Mr . Atkins stated that the homes will be in the $ 200 , 000 . 00 price
• range , adding that , fortunately , his Loan and Building Association
will be able to underwrite the financing at a very low interest rate .
Mr . Atkins stated that , interestly enough , he had not known that the
site was a former orchard until Mr . Novelli mentioned that fact - -
hence , the name , Appletree Ridge .
Ms . Beeners asked Mr . Novelli to speak to the road design ,
commenting that Mr . Novelli first came in the office , during earlier
discussions , with a plan which showed that the road was proposed
approximately :in the middle of the site , and adding that that plan was
ruled out because of the topography and also because the lot
dimensions were going to be sort of strange . Mr . Novelli responded
that that was true . Mr . Novelli stated that the most efficient design
would have been a road right up the middle , adding that 14 lots could
have been created and these lots would have made the
30 , 000 - square - foot requirement , but they would not have met the shape
requirements of the Town which are 200 feet of depth and 150 feet of
frontage . Mr . Novelli stated that another reason was because of the
on - site sewage disposal . Mr . Novelli stated that he liked to have the
systems downhill from the house , and not have to pump , although that
is a possibility . Continuing , Mr . Novelli stated that with a large
house on a 30 ,000 - square - foot lot , even without having to site a well
on a lot , it does not leave much room for any kind of a sewage system .
Town Attorney Barney , commenting that he was a little bit
troubled because if the road is moved northwest the lots are moved
• down , asked , if you put the street right along the boundary line and
make the north edge of the street Lot # 1 and drop your other lot down ,
would you not have the same shape and size with everything identical ,
Planning Board - 24 - September 1 , 1987
with the only difference being that the road is running on the upside
eliminating the need for a cul de sac ? Mr . Novelli responded that it
did not work out that way because , with the road " here " [ indicating ] ,
the front yard is " here " and " this [ indicating ] is the back yard ,
noting that a rear yard in R- 30 is supposed to be 50 feet , with a
total lot depth of 200 feet . Town Attorney Barney pointed out that
you have a choice when you are on a corner lot regarding which way you
orient it . Mr . Novelli pointed out that " these " are not corner lots
and neither are " these " [ indicating ] , adding that the front yards are
okay - - they were at least 150 feet wide - - but the depth of the lots
could not make 200 feet because the total width of the property is 414
feet and when you take out 60 feet , that gives you 180 feet each for
the depths . Mr . Novelli reiterated that that was the original
proposal , but it was unacceptable .
At this juncture , Ms . Beeners asked about the site distance . Mr .
Novelli , indicating on the map , stated that there is a sag in the road
" here " and it is not the best place to have an exit . Mrs . Langhans
mentioned that proposed Lot # 1 is going to exit onto Coddington Road ,
with Mr . Novelli responding that that was correct , noting that that is
the one lot to exit onto Coddington Road . Chairman May pointed out
that when the developer is ready to name the roads , they have to be
cleared with Jack Miller , the Tompkins County Fire and Disaster
Coordinator .
• Willis Hilker put in a plug for the extension of the water line .
There appearing to be no further discussion on this matter ,
Chairman May declared the sketch plan review for the Appletree Ridge
10 - lot subdivision duly closed at 10 : 11 p . m .
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR THE REZONING OF
TOWN OF ITHACA. TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 43 , - 4 . 44 , - 4 . 45 , and - 4 . 46 ,
2 . 29 ± ACRES TOTAL , LOCATED ON TROY ROAD AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH EAST
KING ROAD , FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 TO BUSINESS DISTRICT " B " , FOR
THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING A NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER , PAUL B .
ERDMAN , OWNER : RICHARD L . ATKINS , DEVELOPER ,
Chairman May declared discussion of the above - noted matter duly
opened at 10 : 12 p . m . and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above .
Mr . William K . Spencer , Mr . Atkins ' Architect , appeared before
the Board and appended two drawings to the bulletin board . Mr .
Spencer stated that the proposed project is bounded by East King Road
on the south , :Troy Road on the east , and then the entrance to the new
housing development , Deer Run , Mr . Spencer stated that they are
proposing to provide a commercial development that adheres to all the
setbacks of the codes - - side yard , front yard , and rear yard . Mr .
Spencer stated that the development will be located at the center of
the site following the natural topography which runs in " this
direction " [ indicating ] , which means that their parking will follow
• the topography with a well - landscaped parking lot providing a very
good buffer on both King and Troy Roads , Mr . Spencer stated that the
structure itself will be one story and will then develop by topography
• Planning Board - 25 - September 1 , 1987
• to a two - story . The building itself will be an enclosed - type housing
retail and commercial type ventures , leasing space such as , perhaps a
grocery store " here " [ indicating ] , cleaners , real estate office , small
restaurant , gift shoppe , drug store , maybe Western Union , bakery ,
beauty shoppe ,. possibly a bank , law office , medical office , maybe a
construction engineer ' s office - - for example . Mr . Spencer stated
that ingress and egress will be either off East King Road or Deer Run
Drive , Mr . Spencer pointed out that " this alleyway " [ indicating ] is a
service alley that is in the required rear setback , well - buffered by
landscaping , ZLnd any vehicles that would be stopping to service this
facility , however , will be in an area that is not in the setback . Mr .
Spencer indicated on the map that the required setback is ten feet
short of the building so that any vehicles that would be sitting there
will be out of that setback area , and commented that there have been
some discussions of the possibility of altering this service road and
perhaps instead of having it turn out onto Deer Run Drive , having it
turn out into " this " rear parking area . Mr . Spencer stated that the
building has an elevator which takes you from the covered parking area
that is shown. in " this middle section here " [ indicating ] to the
enclosed promenade area then from shop to shop , and so , in inclement
weather , you are able to come in underneath . Mr . Spencer stated that
they have tried to design something that would fit into the community ,
with sloped roofs , and although they have not zeroed in on the colours
yet , they would be something rustic that would fit into the wooded
spaces there now .
• At this juncture , Mr . Atkins joined in and stated that the
required parking , based upon the square foot requirements of rental
spaces , under the more - generous formula that they used , will be 46
open parking slots on the East King Road side , 48 open parking slots
on the Troy Road side , and 34 in the cantilevered covered section on
the Troy Road :side , up a little ramp , into the lobby , up the elevators
to the first floor promenade . Mr . Atkins stated that one of the
things he liked about this design is that it is a unique small mall in
that it is totally enclosed and featuring lighting through a large
skylight . Mr . Atkins stated that he has talked with Ed Hallberg of
the Deer Run project and he has endorsed it , adding that he [ Hallberg ]
said it would be a tremendous asset to his development . Mr . Atkins
stated that he also talked to Dave Auble of the ButterField
development and he [ Ruble ] has encouraged him [ Atkins ] that this would
be very , very fine . Mr . Atkins stated that another thing he did was
he walked all through that neighborhood and he stopped many people
cutting their :Lawns and talked with them and he asked - - what do you
think if you could have a nice shopping area in the neighborhood ?
they said that would be real fine , that ' s what we need . Mr . Atkins ,
commenting that: in order for them to just buy a toothbrush , they have
to drive all the way into Ithaca , stated that there is not one
shopping plaza ,, nothing nearby to accommodate their servicing needs .
Mr . Atkins offered that he thought this would be a good location for
that .
• Mr . Atkins now appended another drawing to the bulletin board and
stated that he had talked to some of the developers that are involved
in developing on South Hill - - Monkemeyer , Weisburd - - and several
Planning Board - 26 - September 1 , 1987
• others that want to do something on South Hill - - and some of them
have said that: they want to go on South Hill but they are waiting for
someone to put in a shopping plaza so their people can be serviced .
Mr . Atkins stated that he took the site on the corner because there is
only one major- thoroughfare on South Hill that goes east and west and
that is King Road , and it goes over and ties into Burns Road and goes
across the Sig: Mile Creek up to Slaterville Road . Mr . Atkins offered
that if you notice the South Hill in comparison with the City of
Ithaca , East Hill , Northside , Westside , it is a very large area , but
there has not been a lot of development into that area , and stated
that he then asked a question - - Why ? Mr . Atkins stated that someone
said to him that there was a big failure here on development that sort
of soured South Hill and he [ Atkins ] had said that that should not be
the case as this is the prettiest site in the whole greater Town area
that he could think of . Continuing and indicating on the drawing , Mr .
Atkins stated that , thus , from a half -mile radius here he was looking
at the 152 townhouses and the 35 single lots that this body [ Planning
Board ] approved for Deer Run , and also , the 111 townhouses approved
for ButterField on a site just about 800 feet from here . Mr . Atkins
noted that on the west side there 24 single family residences , along
the east side there are 18 ; and those people have to go into Ithaca .
Referring again to the drawing , Mr . Atkins stated that he then took a
one - and - one -half - mile radius in here and talked with some of the
people of his plans . Mr . Atkins stated that he has been working with
Dick Wilsen Real Estate , adding that at this point now he has three
• sites on South Hill , and further adding that tomorrow he is going to
make an offer on a site on King Road where there is some 40 acres of
land between Troy and Coddington and where they hope they will be able
to do a significant development of up - scale housing . Mr . Atkins
offered that he has offices in Michigan , New York , California , in
Chicago , Atlanta , and Detroit , and he wants to concentrate on this
Ithaca area as this is where he is going to live and retire . Mr .
Atkins stated that he has already bought his home here up in Cayuga
Heights , commenting that he was just beginning to buy land here . Mr .
Atkins stated that someone told him that there is some commercial
property " here at this point " [ indicating ] that , perhaps , may be
developed , so he talked with all the people in that corner . Mr .
Atkins stated that he talked to Mr . Sam Peter , commenting that he has
loaded his lot up with warhouses and storage , who told him [ Atkins ]
that he [ Sam Peter ] has no room for expansion whatsoever . Mr . Atkins
stated that he then , on the opposite corner " here " [ indicating ] owned
by a gentleman by the name of Monkemeyer , he talked with him and his
architect , noting that they are doing a school on one far end of the
land . Mr . Atkins stated that he asked him of his plans and he
[ Monkemeyer ] said he wants to do residential development , some , single
family , and once he gets done with that he might do something on the
commercial . Mr . Atkins stated that , then , on another corner there is
the Ziebart two - stall , service garage , where they have been trying to
buy that land on the corner , and so he checked that out and found that
it is a little small lot - - it does not have any more than a 60 - foot
depth . Mr . Atkins stated that , then , another gentleman , Mr . Walker
• Smith , approached him , as he listed his property , and they discussed
it , but it is a very small lot , it only has about 9 , 000 square feet
and it is not really what you can use as commercial . Mr . Atkins
• Planning Board - 27 - September 1 , 1987
• stated that then he happed to check on a piece of property on the
southwest corner where there is a large parcel which has about 13
acres zoned commercial , however , that piece of property is a downhill
lot and drop : 100 feet , and because of the costs involved , on that
site a person would have to have a large regional shopping center .
Mr . Atkins noted again that he had talked with the other developers in
the area and he thought that what really should be done is to form a
developers ' association , and include all the homeowners as auxilliary
members to that , then the type of development on South Hill can be
monitored because , right now , it is in the infant stage . Mr . Atkins
stated that he would like this Borad to give them an opportunity to go
forth and provide the services for this immediate area which is going
to have 400 families in here .
Mrs . Grigorov asked about the 30 acres of land zoned commercial
at the intersections of Danby and King which is mostly vacant . Ms .
Beeners responded that Mr . Atkins had just talked about that , adding
that there are several pieces of the Monkemeyer parcel for which they
have some very slow plans . Ms . Beeners noted that there are the
little pieces on the corners - - Ziebart , and the Sam Peter area . Ms .
Beeners stated. that then there is the 45 - acre Urciuoli parcel , some of
which is zoned R- 15 , multiple , a small Business " D " , and which
contains the largest of piece of vacant business land , just about 13
acres , on the southwest side , adding that it does have some dropping
to it , but she thought so does the subject King / Troy site . Ms .
• Beeners stated that it is there , at those four corners , that we do
have just about 30 . 92 acres that is mostly vacant and is already zoned
for business . Ms . Beeners asked the Board to refer to her letter of
August 20th to Mr . Atkins , which they had received in their packets ,
and stated that she had done some ballpark estimates of what the total
ultimate saturation of development might be with a one - half - mile
radius and also within a mile radius of the subject site , and
indicated that type of square footage that might be supportable in a
shopping center under that total saturation , adding that she was
working on an estimate standard of using 20 square feet of shopping
space per family . Ms . Beeners , referring to her letter , stated that
the estimates she had shown there were , she thought , not on a
conservative side , but would be anticipating a growth of around 5000
in 25 years . Ms . Beeners stated that right now , within a half - mile
radius of Mr . Atkins proposal , we have about 70 units that actually
exist and about 300 units that have been approved between Deer Run and
ButterField , plus some miscellaneous , so there are about 400 that can
be anticipated . Ms . Beeners stated that , within a mile radius , we
have now about 90 units , plus , of course , Deer Run and ButterField ,
etc . , adding that it is really hard to anticipate what we might have
in the future , commenting that there really is not that much waiting
out there that has been approved within that mile radius , however , her
feeling at this time is that , within a mile radius , there is probably
enough existing or currently approved development to support about
10 , 000 square feet of shopping center rather than the 16 , 000 that is
being proposed at this time by Mr . Atkins . Ms . Beeners noted that
• that was just looking at a current need . Ms . Beeners stated that what
is being shown here is something that could , she felt , support what we
might anticipate in the future , however , we really do not have the
z
Planning Board - 28 - September 1 , 1987
• information at this time , adding that she would be very interested in
talking with Mr . Atkins about the 40 acres he mentioned . Ms . Beeners
stated that she would like to see , perhaps , some more documentation or
plans that Mr . Atkins may have in that area which would indicate that
there would be the need for a center of the size that he has shown
here .
Mr . Atkins stated that , actually , on their first presentation , he
thought their plans called for 37 , 000 square feet which was a
two - story proposal . Mr . Atkins recalled that he and Ms . Beeners had
talked for over two hours and after that they did scale it down to
take the whole top floor off and dropped it down to 16 , 000 square
feet . Speaking rhetorically , Mr . Atkins stated that , if one actively
engages in buying land on South Hill , then he plans on having a large
portfolio , and , so , he stretches it out as far as two miles from the
center of the shopping center and he still finds that there is no
commercial servicing area where you can even buy a loaf of bread . Mr .
Atkins expounded on the need for a doctor ' s office , a dentist ' s
office , in the South Hill area , explaining that the need will be
served by the anticipation of the development that is going to take
place , and asked - - how many houses can you put on 40 acres ?
Ms . Beeners asked if it were practical to have a small , two - acre
site serve a two -mile radius when that two -mile radius touches a
four - corner intersection which has a total combined area of about 30
. acres already zoned for business . Ms . Beeners stated that it seemed
to her that it would be defeating the concept of a neighborhood center
which , in her mind , a neighborhood shopping center would not really be
serving outside about a mile radius , adding that she thought it would
draw away from the value of having the commercial - zoned land for a
larger scale development .
Mr . Atkins offered that , in his case , you will find that if a
person has a commercially - zoned piece of property and that person is
in the land development business , the developing of that land is one
thing , but , often times people will buy a piece of property , just hold
on to that piece of property for years and years and then , when a
developer comes along and looks at the topography of that land and
does exploratory work in that neighborhood to see what the trend is
the trend is building houses - - and eventually , someone will come
along and say , look , there are a lot of houses here and they have to
go to Ithaca to buy . Digressing for the moment , Mr . Atkins noted that
he had talked with Mr . Paul Erdman , from whom he bought the land for
the proposal being discussed tonight , adding that Mr . Erdman , at the
time , was the engineer on all that land of Beacon Hills , recalling
that he stripped one side of the street and built pads on the opposite
side to build something like 80 , 90 , or 100 units , and pointing out
that that lot across the road is stipped down to bedrock . Referring
back to the Urciuoli property , Mr . Atkins stated that , in order to
build that land up , commenting that everything is downhill or uphill
here , because a large lot like that one , 45 acres , a developer has to
• do a lot of build -up on that and that is almost impossible - -
economically , he cannot do it . Mr . Atkins stated that that is a
hundred - foot drop on that land on that corner , so , if you were to have
1
Planning Board - 29 - September 1 , 1987
• a shopping center in mid -point , it would be down below the surface of
Danby Road and you could not even see it . Mr . Atkins described that
you get the earth , build it back up , compact it , and make it a path so
you can develop the on - site parking , the on - site structure , and make
it feasible . Mr . Atkins referred to Ms . Beeners ' August 20th letter
to him on the 25 - year population and noted that , if you develop this
land , you still would not have the people in the area to support a
regional shopping center because of this enormous cost - - you would
have to have that to justify developing those 45 acres - - and only 13
is commercial . Continuing , Mr . Atkins stated , so , we say , in the
meantime , what: happens now that the people that want to move into Deer
Run are coming ? Mr . Atkins stated that he talked to Mr . Hallberg and
he told him that he has already sold eight houses , and asked , where
are those people going to go to buy a loaf of bread , see a doctor , or
dentist , or arty other necessity in the neighborhood . Referring to his
previous presentation on Appletree Ridge , Mr . Atkins noted that on
this one section here they propose to put ten houses on 15 acres , and
pointed out that this is also going to circle down into the Danby area
and they are going to be able to draw from the Danby area . Mr . Atkins
stated that the topography of South Hill is such that it keeps
developers from coming in , but he has come from California , with
nothing but hills . Mr . Atkins stated that he can build in hills , he
loves to build in hills . Mr . Atkins stated that he was happy to see
this site - - it is only a 35 - foot drop from King Road down to the end
of Troy and that is why his architect , Mr . Spencer , said that we will
• take the low side and top parking and have a minimal amount of cutting
and on the high side we will come off King Road with a one - story .
Chairman May stated that one of the concerns of the Board is
going to be the road with the sight distances on those roads .
Chairman May :Mated that the Board does not consider either King or
Troy Roads to be a good road to be dumping out a shopping center
because of the sight distances there .
Mr . Spencer wanted to make sure that he understood that Chairman
May was thinking of these intersections " here " [ indicating ] , and with
Chairman May :responding , yes , stated that they have two different
setbacks there - - pretty generous setbacks - - and , together with the
fact that they are not building up the site , gives you good
visibility . Mr . Spencer stated that they are staying with the
topography which gives you good sight visibility .
Dr . Lesser stated that the Board has to consider winter
conditions as that is an extremely windy area and we get into
conditions that might be difficult for Messrs . Atkins and Spencer to
imagine at this point and the Board ' s concern very much reflects
year - round safety of these sites .
Mr . Novell. i , commenting that he certainly understood the concern
about traffic and sight distance , stated that they have stop signs
" here " [ indicating ] both ways and he did not know how much better they
is
can really do . Mr . Novelli stated that " this " [ indicating ] makes a
logical place for an exit , pointing out that you have sight distance
up the hill with the setback , so , this one should not be a problem .
Planning Board - 30 - September 1 , 1987
• Mr . Novelli stated that the distance from Troy Road is about 250 feet
from center line to center line , suggesting that , perhaps , there
should be a four -way stop as development continues . Mr . Novelli
pointed out that Deer Run Drive is down " here " [ indicating ] dumping a
significant amount of traffic " here " [ indicating ] , and stated that ,
actually , Troy Road can handle it ; it is rated for an average daily
traffic load of 6 , 000 to 8 , 000 vehicles , commenting that it is nowhere
near capacity right now . Mr . Novelli pointed out that either they put
the traffic " here " [ indicating ] in which case they have over 500 feet
from this intersection , or , they choose not to dump the traffic on
Deer Run Drive and put the secondary entrance " here " and then you have
300 feet . Mr . Novelli stated that , in his opinion , that is good
design practice - - 300 feet from a road to an intersection - - you have
sight distance both ways .
Noting that even though this was not a Public Hearing , Chairman
May asked if anyone present wished to speak .
Mr . Richard Essen , 153 Northview Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that he guessed , just in terms of the pitch and the tone that
he has heard , he personally , and he knew his neighbors have never had
any problems purchasing a loaf of bread , there are places , a couple of
places , that he could think of on 96B quite accessible for a loaf of
bread , even pizza , things of that nature , so , he was not really quite
sure , at the moment , of that comment . Mr . Essen asked what exactly we
• are trying to put there . Mr . Essen stated that , secondly , he would
like to see , due to the large development that is going on there -
single families and so on - - more concentration put on the grade , the
country , and the wooded area , that basically people move to this area
for . Mr . Essen stated that he liked South Hill , he liked areas that
are , if you will , kind of devoid of areas that we would consider
shopping plazas . Mr . Essen stated that he would suggest that we look
at the commercial area that we already have zoned , that is , 96B ; maybe
look at the Aurora Street entrance to South Hill to improve on that a
little bit , and maybe to improve on some of the commercial area , maybe
contact NCR and see if they , maybe , have some space that we could ,
maybe , open up a shopping plaza , rather than really concentrate on
moving commercial off 96B . Mr . Essen stated that , in his mind , we
really do not have 96B yet really established - - we really have not
tried to improve that commercially - - we should really do that before
moving on .
Mr . Willis Hilker , 277 Burns Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that most of the members of the Board know him - - he has been a
developer in the area in the past and , that corner of 96B and King
Road , he did investigate that particular property himself , and it is
totally undesirable for any kind of a neighorhood shopping center , or
anything of that nature on it . Mr . Hilker stated that the planning
for the Town of Ithaca in its early stages precluded commercial uses
along 96B of any significant nature to allow a good development of
South Hill , and he thought that something the Board should address is
• to get some kind of decent commercial out there . Mr . Hilker stated
that he was not: , necessarily , saying that this is where it should go ,
he was not really addressing this particular location , but what he was
` Planning Board - 31 - September 1 , 1987
• saying is that South Hill does not have any adequate commercial
property and nobody has proposed any for years .
Mr . Kenerson pointed out that West Hill does not have any either .
Mr . Hilker stated that the Town does not have property , that is
adequate to put decent buildings on , set aside for that purpose .
Ms . Joan Essen , 153 Northview Road , spoke from the floor and
stated that she thought another important consideration in all this
development is the traffic flow . Ms . Essen stated that they live on
the corner of Northview and Coddington Roads and there is a large
slope going over that , adding that when the shool bus stops going at
that corner it. cannot be seen and she has worked with the Town and the
County trying to get some kind of warning , and with this increased
traffic flow it is going to worsen the situation for all those people
that reside on Coddington Road because Coddington Road and Troy Road
are going to be major accesses to all these areas that are being
developed , and , until the roads are made safer she thought she would
rather go into the Town or City of Ithaca and buy her loaf of bread
than go into an area that is being developeed without looking at the
roads and the access and the visibility .
Mr . Atkins stated that he was born and raised in Ann Arbor ,
Michigan , about four hundred miles from here and he was well aware of
winter conditions . Mr . Atkins stated that he has been building for
• forty - some years and he knew , if he went down to the police department
and asked for the accident reports on King and Troy Road and
Coddington Road intersections , he was certain it would be very , very
low - - but , one thing he knew , in the wintertime , you drive more
carefully . Mr . Atkins stated that he will inquire and find out what
the grade requirements are here in the area - - is it a 10 % grade
increase - - are those hills greater than that ? Mr . Atkins stated that
another point which should be noted is that , at that intersection ,
whether you have a shopping center or not , there are going to be a lot
of apartments developed out there - - and that is a business . Mr .
Atkins stated that it is not only just walking and buying a loaf of
bread - - that is a convenience - - he would say in this central section
" here " [ indicating his shopping center location ] , you will have less
people travelling because this shopping center is for the immediate
neighborhood .
Ms . Essen spoke from the floor and stated that there is another
consideration , as far as people that will be serviced by this area ,
that we have not even addressed , and that is the student population of
Ithaca College and , because Ithaca College does not have sufficient
housing for their students , they are in the process of moving out
farther on South Hill , and they are a totally different population to
address from the local residents - - their driving habits and buying
habits would be serviced by a local area , their considerations are not
of a local resident , and that concerned her and concerned a lot of the
people that live in the immediate adjacent area .
• Mr . Atkins queried , when they moved Ithaca College from Downtown
to South Hill in the ' 60s , was it taken into consideration that there
Planning Board - 32 - September 1 , 1987
was going to be an increase of population at the school ? Ms . Essen
responded that she did not think they ever considered that it would
grow to this .
Dr . Lesser stated that if , indeed , there is really insufficient
or inadequate commercially zoned land on South Hill at this point , he
would certainly think that that is something that the Planning Board
could address at a future time , however , he really did not think it is
appropriate at this time to go in a random fashion of rezoning areas
around the Town commercial to suit the needs of individual developers
or , perhaps , individual house owners in the region . Dr . Lesser stated
that he thought the Town , indeed , does have a plan , and in terms of
South Hill , it did include and attempt to cluster commercial
development in. areas where the road is indeed best and seemed to serve
the largest population . Dr . Lesser stated that he thought if we are
going to do anything in the future we should really , perhaps , focus on
that area and look at making the necessary adjustments there and not
seriously consider rezoning a small area in a residential region
commercial . Dr . Lesser stated that he thought if we indeed begin
something like that we are in a very difficult position to refuse
doing something like that in other areas of the Town which are in a
similar situation . Dr . Lesser stated that he thought any sort of
planning that has been attempted over the past decades would largely
be sacrificed .
A voice spoke from the floor and stated that he would certainly
be willing , as a resident of South Hill , to assist the Planning Board
in any way possible to search out and look at the commercial property
that is located currently on South Hill ,
Mr . Klein stated that he thought we should , perhaps , identify
building sites on 96B which certainly has a less desirable residential
potential than the sites we are talking about .
Mrs . Langhans suggested that , maybe , we should have some sort of
a comprehensive plan on the whole of South Hill .
Chairman May stated that he thought that one thing that has come
out is two developers who have stated that that Danby Road site on
South Hill is not suitable for development . Chairman May stated that
he did not think there is any use for the Planning Board promoting
that site if :in fact that is true and he thought we should pursue
answering that .
Ms . Beeners stated that there was an overall plan that was
approved for the Urciuoli property that went into some detail and was
hashed over by the Town Board for mixed use development , adding that ,
basically , she has been going on what judgements were made in the past
on the Urciuoli property .
Chairman May stated that he thought it was something that should
• be reviewed again in light of these comments . Ms . Beeners stated that
it will be put in the work plan . Chairman May stated that , aside from
that , he thought there was a great deal of concern about the proposed
Planning Board - 33 - September 1 , 1987
site presented tonight .
Chairman May declared discussion of the proposed Atkins ' shopping
center sketch plan duly closed at 10 : 55 p . m .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 5 , 1986
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . David Klein .
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of August 5 , 1986 , be and hereby are approved as written .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Lesser , Langhans , Baker , Grigorov , Klein , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 7 , 1986
MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of October 7 , 1986 , be and hereby are approved as written .
• There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Lesser , Langhans , Baker , Grigorov , Klein , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the September 1 , 1987 , meeting
of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11 : 00 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .