Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1988-07-19 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date z/h.0 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 4� Clerk *2m mo JULY 19 , 1988 c The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , July 19 , 1988 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , James Baker , Virginia Langhans , David Klein , Robert Kenerson , William Lesser , Carolyn Grigorov , Robert Miller , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) , Robert R . Flumerfelt ( Town Engineer ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , Andrew S . Frost ( Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ) . ALSO PRESENT : Bonnie Simpson , Ron Simpson , Tom Darling , Leslie Smith - Darling , Patty Porter , Fred T . Wilcox III , two names illegible , Lawrence P . Fabbroni , Virginia Brooks Hochberg , S . Grippi , R , Grippi , Joseph Centini , Susan Centini , James Gerard , Illa Gergely , Marguerite 0 . Mills , Robert Cotts , Mickey Herzing , Aafke Steenhuis , Orlando Iacovelli , Sarah Dodvar - Saadi , F . Aarone , Girard F . Oberrender Jr . , Ken Walker , Herb Brewer , John Whitcomb , Myrtle Whitcomb , Daniel Schaaf , E . Mitchell , Dorothy Buerk , Thomas Mills , Harold D . Mix , Hugh Howarth , Charlotte Bosworth , Edward Bosworth , Mildred Brammer , Dick Matthews , Mary Eldridge , Jean Brockway , Suzanne Fullagar , N . W . Rollins , Slade Kennedy Jr . , Rochelle Alexander , Carol Chaplin , George Hascup , Steve Sommer , Albert L . Wright , William Paleen , Don Vitters , Melissa B . Robinson ( WHCU / WYXL NEWS ) . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on July 11 , 1988 , and July 14 , 1988 , 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 , upon both the Clerk and the Building Commissioner of the City of Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon the applicants and / or agents , as appropriate , on July 12 , 1988 . Chairman May read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled , as required by the New York State Department of State , Office of Fire Prevention and Control . NON-AGENDA ITEM Andrew Frost distributed to each of the members of the Board a copy of his June 1988 Report of Building / Zoning Activities . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A r ' Planning Board - 2 - July 19 , 1988 • PROPOSED FACILITY FOR THE TOMPKINS COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE , VISITORS AND CONVENTION BUREAU , AND TOURIST INFORMATION CENTER , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN A SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT AT 904 - 906 - 910 - 912 EAST SHORE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 18 - 2 - 81 - 91 AND - 10 . TOMPKINS COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE , APPLICANT ; DOWNING - HASCUP ARCHITECTS , DESIGNER . ( ADJOURNED FROM JUNE 21 , 1988 . ) 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 . Mr . George Hascup , and Mr . Steve Sommer of Downing - Hascup Associates , were present . Mr . Sommer appeared before the Board , appended a large map to the bulletin board , and stated that the traffic circulation has been changed , per recommendation of the Planning Board , Mr . Sommer noted that there is an internal loop , with circulation inside the parking area . Mr . Sommer indicated on the map the Recreational Vehicle parking spaces , along with the three handicapped parking spaces . Mr . Sommer , referring to signage , and indicating on the map , remarked that there is one Chamber sign at " this " location , adding that the sign meets the 24 square foot maximum surface required for a permit . Mr . Sommer noted that the sign is two - sided , with ground mounted spotlights , commenting , the sign would not be higher than the 6 - foot maximum , as per the Town signage law . Mr . Sommer noted , per discussions with NYSEG , electric power would come off [ indicating on map ] " this " pole to a new pole set down in " this " area , and then underground from " this " area to the mechanical area of the building proper . Mr . Sommer stated that the project has been discussed with the DOT , and added that the Chamber is in the process of obtaining permits for entry and exit off Route 34 . Mr . Sommer stated that the Chamber had a discussion with the City of Ithaca to make sure the run - off would not affect the swales , which are shared with the City , noting , the City does not see any complications with the site improvements . At this point , Mr . Sommer turned the discussion over to George Hascup , Architect , Mr . Hascup addressed the Board and presented photographs to the Board of the present building housing the Chamber of Commerce . Mr . Hascup noted that the park is primarily identified because of its unique buildings and its pavilions . Mr . Hascup mentioned the Youth Bureau , which is immediately adjacent to the proposed building . Mr . Hascup stated that the Youth Bureau is 37 feet in height , noting , the Chamber building is proposed to be 30 feet in height . Mr . Hascup commented that the Youth Bureau is substantially much , much bigger in scale , and clearly reads in a much different category . Indicating on map , Mr . Hascup noted that the proposed building is almost identical in scale to the houses along " here " . Mr . Hascup stated that in order to achieve a maximal functional use for the Chamber Visitor Center , a very simple rectangular , gabled , residential building volume was selected . Mr . Hascup commented that there is a small porch on the front that gives scale to the building , which leads to a stair element , with a turret , and the porch continues on to become a kind of semi - circular r ' Planning Board - 3 - July 19 , 1988 • veranda - type porch that would help exploit the fact of the great views . Mr . Hascup remarked that there is a conference room above the porch . Mr . Hascup stated that the building would be cedar wood construction , with semi - transparent stain , probably a warm beige / gray stain , noting , it would not be too different from the existing Chamber building . Mr . Hascup stated that the final move was to transform the stair element into a small turret , which has been lowered to match the height of the gable of the Youth Bureau . Mr . Hascup offered that he felt it was very important not to try to equalize the scale of the 6 - :foot square turret with the scale of the Youth Bureau , Mr . Hascup mentioned that the Youth Bureau is a very large building , and their roof gable is 7 feet higher than the Chamber building . Mr . Hascup stated that he felt that the porch , plus the turret and stair element , are very important scale features . Mr . Hascup noted that one element is to give the building a certain signature to say - " I am special ; I represent the Ithaca Chamber Business Center . " Secondly , it is a very important response to landscape as there are a lot of nice trees . Mr . Hascup stated that he felt the small cupola that is 7 feet above the roof itself is a really modest gesture . Mr . Hascup stated that his idea behind the building was to have a memory of a nautical - type yacht club . Mr . Hascup pointed to the model of the Chamber building that was before the Board , and noted that the model reflects quite closely the specimen trees . Mr . Hascup stated that the Chamber does have visibility problems , as the trees are incredibly dense . Mr . Hascup noted that he felt a special element , like a cupola peeking through the trees , would be helpful for • visibility and identification purposes . Mr . Hascup stated that just because the turret is higher does not mean it is tall in scale and that it is giving a negative scale feature . Carolyn Grigorov wondered where the tower was located on the building . Mr . Hascup indicated on a photograph that the building is nestled right " here "' in these trees , noting that the Chamber hopes to preserve some of the trees , but they are hoping to get a gesture of the building through those trees . Mr . Hascup commented that the building is way back from the road , so that one can get a maximum lake view . Mr . Hascup offered that new trees are proposed across the front of the building . Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 56 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion . William Lesser stated that , personally , he had no particular strong objections to what is being proposed , however , there are a number of people in the community who are very offended with the proposal . Mr . Lesser felt that whenever there is strong community opposition , such as in this case , the Planning Board should make every effort to minimize the impact , noting , for that reason the Planning Board should make the subject proposal adhere as closely as possible to what the Zoning Ordinance requires if , indeed , something like this were allowed in R- 15 . Mr . Lesser stated that on the above basis he did not support the notion of a tower which would require a height variance if , indeed , it were in an R- 15 zone . Mr . Hascup interjected that he would like to correct the use of the word " tower " , noting that a tower is a free - standing vertical element , and stating that he felt it was unfair i < ' Planning Board - 4 - July 19 , 1988 • to call the element a tower . Chairman May wondered if so much architectural freedom was being taken away on building that the architectural significance on buildings was going to be destroyed . Chairman May stated that he felt there was a definite need for consideration on both sides , adding , the height restriction if it has any reason to be at all , would be to protect someone ' s site distance . William Lesser responded that that would be the major reason , but there are also people who feel very strongly about hot having something like this near the park , offering , the more visible it is , the more strongly they would feel . Carolyn Grigorov felt it would be a better looking building with the small turret , as there would be variation . Virginia Langhans commented that the building is next to residential on one side , and with the height issue , felt there should be a more gradual letdown toward the residential . Mrs . Langhans stated that , by shortening the turret , the architectural feature of the building would be lost , commenting , there has been so much flack from the public about not sticking to the rules , e . g . , always granting variances and exceptions , etc . Mrs . Langhans commented that there has been discussion about the Board tightening up and sticking to the rules . Mrs . Langhans stated that she is sort of torn from one side to the other , adding , by sticking to the regulations the building is not as attractive . David Klein stated that he felt the height definitions have been grappled with , and have caused a lot of confusion for everyone . Mr . Klein felt that the Town is reasonably unique in trying to establish the heights as the peak of the roof at a gable , adding , most ordinances go to the average height , which allows a lot more variety and less artificial limitations in terms of architectural design . Mr . Klein commented that , if everyone tries to go to the peak of the roof , then buildings would have very unattractive roof slopes , adding , some of that has been seen throughout the Town . Mr . Klein felt that , taken to its extreme it would probably have more of a negative effect . Mr . Klein stated that he felt the proposed changes were still in a state of flux , but felt that the Planning Board has some flexibility to view the issue as to how it blends with the area , how it works as a transition piece , and as a composition , if it is satisfactory . Mr . Klein stated that , in his opinion , this is an acceptable design . Mr . Klein stated that the Youth Bureau presents a lot more bulk of building , and with the Chamber building there is only a small appendage that is really a little bit higher . Mr . Klein felt that there is a positive image here , and he did not have any objection . Chairman May wondered about the height of the immediately adjacent residence . Mr . Hascup responded that it is a standard two - story , with a gable . Mr . Hascup noted that the lake houses have a tremendous variety of scale . William Lesser asked about curbs . Mr . Hascup responded that the front door of the building would be curbed , but the Chamber did not have the funds to curb the road to grass area . Attorney Barney stated that this is a Special Land Use District , and the height limitations are specifically referred to as R- 15 . limitations . Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board does not have authority to approve a site plan with a deviation from the present 30 - foot limitation in an R- 15 or R- 30 zone . Attorney Barney Planning Board - 5 - July 19 , 1988 noted that it appears the entire building is in excess of 30 feet , with Mr . Hascup indicating on the appended map that , " this " side is five feet lower than the front side . Susan Beeners wondered what was underneath the finished floor , with Mr . Hascup answering , it is slab on grade . Attorney Barney wondered if it would be possible to reduce the roof of the rest of the building , so as to keep the building within the limits of the Zoning Ordinance , and still get the separate identifying feature . Mr . Hascup stated that the Chamber tried to balance all the requirements . Mr . Hascup noted that a lower pitch than what is proposed would be visually very unsatisfying , adding that a flat gable is ugly . David Klein commented that if there were a flat roof structure , and the exterior walls were 30 feet high straight up , the building would have a lot more bulk than it does now with a sloped roof , and with the ridge being at thirty - two - and - a - half . Mr . Klein felt this was a rigid interpretation . Attorney Barney responded that he did not think of it as a rigid interpretation . Attorney Barney inquired of Mr . Hascup as to the height dimension limitation . Mr . Hascup responded that one is allowed 30 feet above the finished part of the building , adding that that is exactly the height of the building . Mr . Hascup stated that the City of Ithaca allows one -- third of the roof to be covered :by roof elements , i . e . , cupola , elevator , penthouses , and dormers . David Klein stated that he thought , when the Town Board resolution was read , it seemed to him that the approval , not just the site plan approval , was left in the Planning Board ' s hands . Attorney Barney said that the Local Law states that any use in the district shall be governed by all of the requirements , including parking , side yard , set - back , building coverage , and similar requirements , which he would interpret to include height , relating to an R- 15 residence district . Continuing , Attorney Barney noted that the Local Law continues on to state that the exterior design , specifications , and plans shall be subject to the Planning Board ' s approval . Attorney Barney stated that he did not think that gives the Planning Board authority to deviate from the R- 15 limitations , adding that the Planning Board can approve it conditionally , with either the Zoning Board of Appeals or Town Board granting deviation . Attorney Barney , commenting that the process bothered him a little bit , stated that the Special Land Use District was used , initially , in a very small piece of land , and noted that was really the concept that that was designed for , or intended for , not considerably larger pieces of: land . Attorney Barney noted that that has been modified , somewhat , by the fact that the Chamber has acquired two more pieces of land to enlarge the area . Attorney Barney stated that the Town may have taken some risks , legally , to provide the opportunity for the Chamber to build the facility . Attorney Barney commented , after approval. had been given , and the Town Board viewed a particular plan and layout , which was different from the one presented tonight , the Chamber now wants to go with something different . Attorney Barney stated -that he felt the process was getting a little bit subverted , as to what was intended . David Klein stated that there had been some discussion on the subject of having the island on East Shore Drive curbed , and commented • that from an aesthetic point of view it would set the building off . There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman May asked Planning Board - 6 - July 19 , 1988 if anyone were prepared to make a motion . MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for a proposed facility for the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce , Visitors and Convention Bureau , and Tourist Information Center , proposed to be located at 904 - 912 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 18 - 2 - 8 , 6 - 18 - 2 - 9 , and 6 - 18 - 2 - 10 , in Special Land Use District No . 5 . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , has , at Public Hearing on June 21 , 1988 , made a negative declaration of environmental significance for this action . The New York State Department of Transportation and the City of Ithaca Department of Public Works are potentially involved agencies which have been informed of this action . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on July 19 , 1988 , ( adjourned from June 21 , 1988 ) , has reviewed the following : " Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce - Site Plan " , dated July • 81 1988 , and " - Elevations " , dated July 8 , 1988 , by Downing Hascup Associates , Architects . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final Site Plan Approval to the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce , Visitors and Convention Bureau , and Tourist Information Center facility proposed by the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce , subject to the following conditions : a . The requisite board of the Town approve the height of the stair turret at 37 feet or the stair turret be reduced to a height in full compliance with the height requirements pertaining to Residence Districts R- 15 as is provided in the Local Law establishing the Special Land Use District in which the facility is proposed to be located . b . Approval of site drainage plans by the City of Ithaca Department of Public Works with respect to runoff . c . Installation of all electrical , telephone , and other similar utilities underground . d . Installation of curbing on the island on East Shore Drive . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Ken erson , Lesser . Nay - Miller . ' Planning Board - 7 - July 19 , 1988 The MOTION was declared to be carried . Chairman May declared the matter of Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for a proposed facility for the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce , Visitors and Convention Bureau , and Tourist Information Center duly closed at 8 : 30 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A REVISED PLAT FOR THE PROPOSED " KLONDIKE MANOR " , A 12 - LOT SUBDIVISION PLUS OPEN SPACE , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 53 - 1 - 17 . 1 , - 17 . 2 , AND - 10 , 8 . 23 ACRES TOTAL , ON CODDINGTON ROAD , NORTHWEST OF JUNIPER DRIVE . ORLANDO AND RALPH IACOVELLI , APPLICANTS . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 31 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Orlando Iacovelli was present . along with his Engineer , Mr . Lawrence Fabbroni , Mr . Fabbroni appeared before the Board and appended drawings to the bulletin board . Mr . Fabbroni explained to everyone present why the developer was back before the Board presenting another alternative on the subdivision . Mr . Fabbroni noted that in February 1988 , the Planning Board approved , substantially , the map being viewed . Mr . Fabbroni stated that there was a continued access to Juniper Drive , adding , there was a lenghly discussion about not building on " this " [ indicating on map ] parcel until such time as it might be consolidated , and another structure removed . Mr . Fabbroni stated there were also contingencies of variances on lots , noting that in the end , at the Town Board level , a question arose concerning the location of the road . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the developer went throught a five month maze and wound up back at the Planning Board , Mr . Fabbroni commented that the Town Board did not make a decision on a road location , adding that , since the Town Board did not make a decision , the Zoning Board of Appeals felt they could not review the matter any further concerning the size of the lots . At this point , Mr . Fabbroni presented an alternative plan to the Board . Mr . Fabbroni stated that this plan meets every aspect of the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Regulations . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he would like it to be indicated , for the record , all the past proceedings in this matter , as well as having the Board consider the fact that the plat approved in February 1988 still remains an approved plat until the developer winds up at some other point in the discussion . [ The record of proceedings referred to is as follows : 1 . Planning Board - - November 3 , 1987 2 . Planning Board - - December 1 , 1987 3 . Planning Board - - January 19 , 1988 4 . Planning Board - - February 2 , 1988 5 . Town Board - - March 7 , 1988 • 6 . Zoning Board of Appeals - - March 9 , 1988 7 . Zoning Board of Appeals - - March 23 , 1988 8 . Town Board - - April 11 , 1988 ' Planning Board - 8 - July 19 , 1988 • 9 . Zoning Board of Appeals - - April 13 , 1988 10 . Citizens Advisory Group - - April 26 , 1988 11 . Citizens Advisory Group - - May 2 , 1988 12 . Town Board - - May 9 , 1988 13 . Town Board - - June 13 , 1988 14 . Zoning Board of Appeals - - June 15 , 1988 15 . Planning Board - - July 19 , 19881 Mr . Fabbroni stated that there are some new features in the alternative plat , Mr . Fabbroni noted that , by reducing the number of lots by two , essentially , the developer was able to back lots onto the existing lots on Juniper Drive . Mr . Fabbroni commented that there was a lot of concern from the Planning Board members about the private right - of -way to " this " [ pointing to map ] triangular piece of property , adding that that parcel # 6 - 53 - 1 - 5 has been removed completely from consideration in the subdivision . Mr . Fabbroni noted that all the lot sizes , based on the most recent criteria , are shown on the plat . Mr . Fabbroni said that at least 60 feet is shown on the frontage of each lot , and 100 feet within the set - back . Mr . Fabbroni also stated there are 12 lots shown on the map . Mr . Fabbroni noted. that he did not understand how past Planning Boards have approved numerous subdivisions in the Town that do not meet the present lot size criteria as it is being applied through the review of " Klondike Manor " . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the " Klondike Manor " proposal meets the lot criteria in every regard , on every lot . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , at the request • of Robert Flumerfelt , Town Engineer , the developer has developed a profile of the road in fairly great detail . Mr . Fabbroni remarked that the new road has to be an 8 - 1 / 2 % grade and follow the lay of the land , so that natural landscaping and shrubbery which exists over 85 % of the parcel would not be ruined . Mr . Fabbroni noted that the grade would be 8 - 1 / 2 % , flatten out to 3 - 1 / 2 to 4 % , and then go down , to 10 % . Mr . Fabbroni stated that another reason for that is the crossing through this area where the railroad track is , which is in a cut at the moment . Mr . Fabbroni offered that the developer has gone down into the rock roughly five feet , and the developer is anticipating filling roughly ten feet in " this " [ indicating on map ] area , or re -establishing the natural grade of the land where the railroad track is crossed . Mr . Fabbroni offered that the preliminary discussions with NYSEG indicate their positive reaction to having a right -of-way there , and that they are approaching it in that manner . Mr . Fabbroni again stated that the profile itself , coming from Coddington Road , comes down roughly 8 % , then flattens out and follows the lay of the land , with the existing elevation at the center line being " this " elevation [ .indicating on map ] " here " , which is about a five - foot fill along the center line in " this " top area , where the contours drop off quite rapidly . Mr . Fabbroni noted that there was a lot of concern , initially , that " this " intersection would be 170 feet from the Spruce Way intersection . Mr . Fabbroni stated that Spruce Way has a very steep gradient in about the first 100 feet back from the road , and noted that there are four parcels on Spruce Way , Mr . Fabbroni mentioned the Raponi land , which Spruce Way might connect to , roughly ends 150 feet , or along the back • line of the parcels on Spruce Way . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that Spruce Way really does not play a big role in terms of access to the Raponi land . Mr . Fabbroni added that there is a right - of -way a little Planning Board - 9 - July 19 , 1988 • bit off - set at Juniper Drive that would play a much more major role . Mr . Fabbroni suggested that Spruce Way stay as a four - lot cul de sac , and basically , it should be looked at as a glorified driveway , in terms of serving four residences . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he had looked , along with Robert Flumerfelt , Town Engineer , into the sight distance aspect in designing profiles for the new road . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , with the design elevation with the new road approach any problems with the sight distance have been eliminated on the new road . William Lesser wondered about someone heading out of town on Coddington Road and turning left into the proposed road . Mr . Fabbroni responded that there is not the same problem as someone exiting at zero speed . Mr . Fabbroni , referring to drainage , stated that " this " is the exact location as indicated on the map , noting that it is actually five feet north . Indicating on map , Mr . Fabbroni stated that " this " is an existing drainage way , and is roughly two feet deep , six feet wide , commenting , the developer proposes to put it into more of a trapezoidal shape , which is the most efficient shape for a drainage way . Mr . Fabbroni noted that a culvert would go under the road , and it would continue down Pennsylvania Avenue to Six Mile Creek . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the actual development , in addition to the drainage layout , will be " this " first 375 feet of road , and two building sites . Mr . Fabbroni noted that the building site on Lot # 3 is 205 feet at the set-back , adding that the building site is proposed to be west of that drainage way , and well out of any area that might be influenced by a • drainage way . Mr . Fabbroni [ indicating on map ) stated that the second phase of the drainage scheme involves " these " lots , and any drainage coming off the back of the Juniper Drive lots would carry the water down the right - of-way , through a pipe across " this " fill , and then along the lot lines into an existing ravine that is roughly 100 feet off the subdivided land . Mr . Fabbroni , explaining the drainage across the street , said that the drainage drains down the right - of -way , down another lot line to a ravine along the alignment of the sewer that is proposed . Mr . Fabbroni , pointing to map , commented that there is a substantial hedgerow along the south lot line . Mr . Fabbroni said that the open space is basically along the proposed recreation way , and adjacent to the road . Mr . Fabbroni noted that the remainder of the open space is as it was substantially shown , to becin to develop an open space along " this " ravine , that might be completed as a concept with any consideration of the Sincebaugh lands to the east . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the developer proposes to maintain " this " piece of land under the developer ' s ownership , in some hopes of possibly consolidating other parcels in the future . Mr . Fabbroni stated that this profile would afford the opportunity , if the Town so chooses , to develop the roadway concept through the open space , and connecting Pennsylvania Avenue at a reasonable profile . Mr . Fabbroni noted that for 12 - lots , a potential of as many as a 24 unit subdivision , the traffic just is not overwhelming as a capacity consideration , either for " this " road or as an intersection consideration for Coddington Road . Mr . Fabbroni mentioned that the figures would be under 1000 cars a day , adding , that that sounds like a high number , but , in terms • of traffic engineering , it is minuscule to the capacity of the road . Mr . Fabbroni ' noted that the actual number is substantially less than 1000 , commenting , he was just trying to project a feeling of scale . ' Planning Board - 10 - July 19 , 1988 • Mr . Fabbroni , musing if there is any relevancy to people living for 20 or 25 years in an area , and having , basically , a bona fide right , as a citizen , to express their opinion , stated that the Iacovelli family has lived in the area for almost 60 years , adding that from his own observation over the last fourteen years , the Iacovellis have done a lot with the old Ithaca Land Tract :parcels that were ticky - tacky little 50 - foot lots . Mr . Fabbroni offered that legal procedures have been followed , and the net effect is some very nice buildings , with a lot more open space in that neighborhood , than would ever have existed with individual houses on those lots . Mr . Fabbroni stated that 12 years ago the neighborhood was a trashy neighborhood . Mr . Fabbroni commented that he did not understand why the Iacovelli family chooses to live in that neighborhood , with the first generation still living , if it is such a bad neighborhood . Robert Flumerfelt , Town Engineer , offered that in his review of the latest presentation , and with the developer reworking the profile of the west end of the new road , it does , in his opinion , provide for adequate sight distance up and down Coddington Road . Mr . Flumerfelt noted that he checked Mr . Lesser ' s comment regarding sight distance of a vehicle coming up Coddington Road and turning left , adding that he found it very adequate , noting that it was more than what the minimum sight distance should be in that direction . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that the sight distance was fine , because of the raising of the proposed roadway at the intersection of Coddington Road . Mr . • Flumerfelt felt that one of the main considerations , as he saw it , was the opportunity for making a connection of this proposed roadway into a possible future development of the Sincebaugh lands [ indicating on map ] down in " this " area . Mr . Flumerfelt pointed out the 1000 - foot cul de sac , and noted that it meets the letter of the law in the Town ' s regulations . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that , in his opinion , a provision for a possible extension should be considered now , because when the Sincebaugh lands are developed it would provide a good means of access between " that " area and Coddington Road , and will probably serve to eliminate one or both of the long deadends that presently exist on Pennsylvania Avenue and Kendall Avenue , adding , if Collegeview Lane is extended in the future , the pressure is off having to make a connection between Juniper Drive and Pennsylvania and Kendall Avenues , Mr . Flumerfelt stated that the proposed roadway will have a more favorable grade , and a better intersection with Coddington Road than Juniper Drive , commenting that the upper end of Juniper Drive is about an 11 . 3 % grade , and the visibility is bad . Mr . Flumerfelt commented , let us assume for a moment that Juniper Drive , as shown on the current Highway Master Plan of the Town , does become a connection into the Sincebaugh land . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that a short distance from Juniper Drive there is a possible access point to the Raponi lands along a 66 - foot wide strip , which would be a substandard separation of intersections , should Juniper Drive become a major road connection to Pennsylvania and Kendall Avenues . Mr . Flumerfelt noted that the Master Plan is something that can be changed , and felt that this was a chance to do that , in fact , the whole of the Juniper Drive Subdivision could be left • just as it is , without any connection down through the Sincebaugh lands . Mr . Flumerfelt remarked that the cul de sac was not long , because there is a loop , adding that Spruce Way can be left just the Planning Board - 11 - July 19 , 1988 • way it is , and that it would not have to be a through street into the Raponi lands , commenting that , if it were , then its distance from the proposed road would be substandard . Indicating on map , Mr . Flumerfelt stated that the distance between the 66 - foot Raponi strip and the proposed new Collegeview Lane is 400 + feet , which would be a good separation . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that the grades down along Collegeview Lane would be roughly 10 % , adding that that grade would be better down in this area , rather than up at the intersection of Coddington Road . Mr . Flumerfelt pointed to the map and indicated a provision of a 60 - foot right- of - way into the Sincebaugh lands , and it would still be possible to have not only the five lots , as shown on the present plan , but six lots could be developed there , and the six lots would still meet the requirements of the zoning . Mr . Flumerfelt mentioned that there was a question as to how would access to the easternmost lots be possible off a 1000 - foot cul de sac , and still provide the 60 - foot reservation , commenting , that would entail some sort of exception , perhaps , to the Subdivision Regulations . Mr . Flumerfelt felt it was far more important to provide the flexibility for future extension of Collegeview Lane to Pennsylvania and Kendall Avenues . William Lesser , referring to the potential linking right - of -way shown on the appended map , wondered if that would go along where the sewer right - of - way would be , with Mr . Flumerfelt responding , yes , approximately there . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the developer was asked • to sketch what the possibility was , and it is so noted on the map . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that the 60 - foot strip is depicted through " here " , and there would be room for four lots " here " , two lots " here " . Mr . Flumerfelt commented that the cul de sac did not necessarily have to be a round shape , it could be a " K " or " Y " shape temporary turnaround , noting that the turnaround could still be at approximately the 1000 - foot point . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that there would be enough area in the two lots to have a hammerhead . Mr . Fabbroni stated that all the lots , even with the cul de sac shown , are 17 , 000 + square feet . Town Planner Susan Beeners stated that the Planning Board reviewed the matter with a 16 - lot configuration , and at that time , gave it a negative declaration . Ms . Beeners stated that she felt the idea of having an extension here would be beneficial to the community , and to overall circulation . Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were anyone from the public who had any comments or questions . Ron Simpson of 112 Pine View Terrace spoke from the floor and stated that he has been a resident of South Hill for 15 years , and noted that he is also a member of the Juniper Drive Neighborhood Association . At this point , Mr . Simpson directed his comments to Chairman May . • Mr . Simpson referred to an article in the Ithaca Journal , which reported Chairman May ' s involvement with a development group . Mr . Planning Board - 12 - July 19 , 1988 • Simpson stated that on behalf of the Juniper Drive Neighborhood Association its members ask that he , Chairman May , voluntarily withdraw from the proceedings , and specifically , not to vote or comment on any development project on South Hill , because of an apparent conflict of interest related to the sale of his property to Southwoods Associates , which is an Ithaca development group . Continuing , Mr . Simpson stated that the Association understood that the sale of the property may be contingent on obtaining subdivision approval , adding that Chairman May also owns land adjoining the 50 acres which would be financially affected by any development on the 50 acres . Mr . Simpson stated that the Association felt there was ample justification to ask Chairman May to withdraw from these proceedings , and noted that the Association felt strongly in regard to ethical concerns that it is the duty of a public official engaged in activities where such conflict of interest exists to remove himself from participation , so that the public can be assured that . the integrity of the . proceedings , and forthcoming decisions would be preserved . Chairman May responded that he would not withdraw from the Klondike Subdivision proceedings , adding that , obviously , he would have nothing to do with the other matter that was mentioned . Chairman May stated that he felt this did not present a conflict of interest , and therefore , would not remove himself . Mr . Simpson stated that the Association strongly disagreed with Chairman May ' s judgment . At this time , Mr . Simpson read aloud a letter addressed to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , from the Juniper Drive Neighborhood Association , dated July 19 , 1988 . [ Letter attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . ) Chairman May announced to the public present that the Board would welcome anyone with new information on this matter to speak . Chairman May commented that in the 13 years he has been on the Planning Board , with every major subdivision that has been approved , somebody out there has talked about the reduction in land values . Chairman May stated that he has yet , in 13 years on the Board , had one person come back and report that they had their land reduced in value . Susan Centini of 103 Juniper Drive spoke from the floor and stated that she understood the Planning Board was not approving just cul de sac roads due to fire hazards . Ms . Centini asked that if there were supposed to be two exits and entrances from a main road for emergency vehicles , then which lots have been designated for this purpose . Chairman May said that as long as the cul de sac is large enough , and the Fire Chief approves it , then it is alright . Ms . Centini stated that the Centini family has also lived in this area since May 1925 , which is 63 years . Mickey Herzing of 319 Coddington Road spoke from the floor and stated his concerns directly related to the road . Mr . Herzing noted that one thing not mentioned in the sketch plan was that the road would border the Gray property . Mr . Herzing remarked that it was an earlier recommendation of both the Planning Board and the Town Engineer that • that road align with Spruce Way for safety reasons . Mr . Herzing noted that there would be three intersections within 400 + feet , where three potential cars could be exiting at the same time , and a car could be Planning Board - 13 - July 19 , 1988 • entering from Coddington Road , Mr . Herzing stated he was concerned for safety reasons . Mr . Herzing asked about the vehicles exiting Collegeview Lane , with Mr . Flumerfelt responding that the visibility was adequate , as shown on the new profile . Fred Wilcox of 109 Juniper Drive spoke from the floor and referred to the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by the developer . Mr . Wilcox stated that the Association questions his judgment related to the following items : 1 . Items A- 13 and C- 6 - " Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area ? " Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans ? " Mr . Wilcox remarked that , contrary to the developer ' s claim , the Association contends that the site is presently used for recreation by skiers , hikers , and joggers , along the NYSEG right - of -way , which bisects the subdivision , adding that the Association felt that the proposed development was not consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans . Mr . Wilcox stated that , prior to the developer ' s plans , the Town had designated the right - of-way as a future bikeway . Mr . Wilcox stated that the developer ' s plan , with numerous cars over the right - of -way , would create a safety hazard to the recreation that is in the area . Mr . Wilcox remarked that the Town already has a plan to link Kendall Avenue to Juniper Drive , which would also intersect the right - of -way . Mr . • Wilcox noted that the Association felt that intersections should be kept to an absolute minimum to protect the recreation that is in the area . 2 . Item B - 20 - " Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels ? " Mr . Wilcox stated that , contrary to the developer ' s claim , the Association contends that the project would produce operating noise exceeding the local noise levels . Mr . Wilcox said that the existing student rentals frequently broadcast their music to the neighborhood at high volume , and host parties that draw large crowds , which also creates a considerable noise nuisance . In addition , Mr . Wilcox commented that party participants often strew the neighborhood with trash , and park illegally along the streets . Aafke Steenhuis of 266 Pennsylvania Avenue spoke from the floor and referred to Item A- 14 in the Environmental Assessment Form , which states " Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community ? " Mr . Steenhuis stated that , contrary to the developer ' s claim , the Association does contend that the present site does include scenic views known to be important to the community . Mr . Steenhuis said that many of the stately pine trees on the lower parcel would be removed and the scenic forested lands of South Hill , as viewed from across the valley , would be marred by such a large scale development . Mr . Steenhuis stated that already the Deer Run development on South Hill sticks out like a sore thumb , as viewed from across the valley , and noted that continued subdivision development on • the hill would diminish its visual refreshment , as has been the consequence of similar development on East Hill . Planning Board - 14 - July 19 , 1988 • Robert Cotts of 115 Northview Road approached the Board and read aloud a statement to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , dated July 19 , 1988 . [ Statement attached hereto as Exhibit 2 . ] Mrs . Bonnie Simpson of 112 Pine View Terrace spoke from the floor and commented on the individual accountability for the decisions the Board members make . Mrs . Simpson stated that , beyond the technical aspects , the Association is concerned that a plan can satisfy the letter of the law , but violate its spirit . Mrs . Simpson said that a development of the proposed scale , and assumed use , if approved as revised , would drastically alter the character of the neighborhood and lessen its desirability as a location for families and other permanent residents . Mrs . Simpson remarked that the Association felt the development would not meet a neighborhood need , and noted it was extremely doubtful that it would meet a community need , in view of the College plan to build additional student . housing on campus , which is its preferred location , and the plans of another developer to build a 600 - bed development also near the College . Mrs . Simpson also stated that the appearance of the developer ' s other properties was offensive to the neighborhood , noting that they all look alike . Mrs . Simpson stated that the two most recently built units display laundry rooms clearly visible from the road , and they all detract from the architectural variety and diversity , which characterizes the rest of the neighborhood . Mrs . Simpson offered that if the proposed development conforms to the previous designs , and rental practices , • it would devalue the other properties in the neighborhood , thus causing financial hardship to many homeowners . Mrs . Simpson said that any project that would reduce taxes through devaluation , and increase cost to the residents of the Town , demands serious evaluation . Mrs . Simpson stated that , in conclusion , the Association felt that an approval of this plan , with all its inherent problems , hardships , and inconsistencies , would constitute gross negligence , insensitivity , and the exercise of poor judgment by the Board . Mrs . Simpson stated that , at the very least , the Association would expect the Board to postpone any final action on the subject proposal , until it has had adequate time to consider the entire range of its impact . Mrs . Simpson commented on the concerns and questions raised herein , and the request by the Greater Ithaca Neighborhoods Association for a moratorium on development of this nature , until an evaluation can be made of the need for a revised Comprehensive Land Use Plan , and related zoning requirements . Mrs . Simpson commented that the Board ' s response to the Association ' s request will serve the best interests of the entire neighborhood , and achieve the greater good for the greatest number . At this point , Mr . Fabbroni stated that the developer ' s intention with the lots that are to be subdivided is to comply with zoning , and are either single or two - family lots . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the cross section at NYSEG would come back down gradually from the fill that is required for the road , so that the use of the right- of -way would not be impeded by cross country skiers . Mr . Fabbroni remarked that because of the gradient of the ground , it was proposed to off - set • the road centerline , noting that it would be ten feet up from what would normally be the center of the right -of - way to make the fill section back to the property line . Mr . Fabbroni mentioned that there • Planning Board - 15 - July 19 , 1988 • is a garage on the Gray property that , essentially , blocks the house from the proposed road . Mr . Fabbroni stated that it was the impression of the developer that the Planning Board and Town staff wanted the open space next to the NYSEG right - of - way to begin to protect the ravine on the Sincebaugh property , and also to leave open the possibility of a walkway system . Mr . Orlando Iacovelli , developer , stated that he felt he had taken the views of the neighborhood into account , adding that he has presented lots that do not back on their property . Mr . Iacovelli noted that , in terms of neighborhood use , the proposal presented tonight is much better , and the only possible use of that land . Tom Mills of 108 Pine View Terrace spoke from the floor and wondered about the small loop at the end of Pine View Terrace , noting that , when the snow removal equipment comes in , it cannot make a complete loop to go back out . Robert Flumerfelt , Town Engineer , responded that there are several cul de sacs in the Town , and sometimes are in the shape of a circle , hammerhead , or " K " - shaped turnaround , which generally is a problem to plows , but the plows do the best they can , and still make it around their route . Mr . Flumerfelt offered that there . is no easy solution to maintaining the cul de sacs , especially the plowing of snow . Mickey Herzing of 319 Coddington Road commented on the off - set • intersection . Mr . Herzing stated that King Road and Burns Road intersect onto Coddington Road , noting that that is also an off - set intersection , and remarked on the numerous accidents that take place at that off- set intersection . Mr . Flumerfelt remarked that there are plans for reworking that intersection , so that it will become a cross and the approach will be opposite one another . Mr . Herzing commented that if there is a plan for that , then maybe subject intersection should be lined up with Spruce Way . Mr . Flumerfelt answered that the Board did consider that to be a good solution , but because of the arrangement of lots , the developer came back with a revised proposal , noting that the use of Spruce Way along Coddington Road does not make a good pair of intersections for this plan , but when one looks at the whole picture , it could work okay , if the 66 - foot right - of -way into the Raponi lands eventually were to be used . Susan Beeners stated for the record , in addition to what Mr . Flumerfelt is saying , that it is expected at this time that the road circulation in this area could mean that Spruce Way would be , essentially , a cul de sac , and that the main access into the Raponi property , which is " here " , [ indicating on map ] could be , from down near that water tank road , noting that , additionally , it might be feasible to have arrangements with Ithaca College to come in on a portion of their driveway , so those would really be the main access points . Ms . Beeners stated that it is not considered by staff , at this time , considering access into the Klondike subdivision , to be desirable to use the Spruce Way access . Mrs . Simpson of 112 Pine View Terrace wondered if the ' road in the alternate plan would be an " over - long cul de sac " until Sincebaugh ' Planning Board - 16 - July 19 , 1988 • would choose to develop . Mr . Flumerfelt responded that the Town ' s Subdivision Regulations speak to a 1000 - foot long cul de sac . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that , from a planning standpoint in this case , the important issue is that provisions are made now , to not hem ourselves in , and forever relinquish the opportunity of being able to take a road easterly into the Sincebaugh lands , and someday eliminate the long dead ends that presently exist on Pennsylvania Avenue and Kendall Avenue . Mr . Flumerfelt commented that the opportunity is here now , and felt it should be provided for , adding , the Town should make what concessions are necessary to permit access to the extreme easterly lots in this proposed subdivision . Mr . Flumerfelt noted that , at this point , it could be a reservation , adding that , in other words , the developer could , on his plan , reserve the 60 - foot strip for possible future roadway connection , or the road would not have to be built , but the land dedicated to the Town . Robert Cotts of 115 Northview Road spoke from the floor and wondered about the intersection opposite Spruce Way , Mr . Cotts commented that safety , and long range planning should be paramount . Mr . Flumerfelt responded that , in terms of intersections , the intersection would be better opposite Spruce Way , adding that that was the original plan presented . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that the visibility is acceptable in the plan presented tonight , and in his opinion , felt that the residents of Juniper Drive , Hickory Place , and Pine View Terrace would be pleased at the prospect of not having Juniper Drive become a through street . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that if the new • proposed road were aligned opposite Spruce Way , then the proximity to Juniper Drive would be closer , and the roadway would be near the rear of the Juniper Drive properties . Mr . Fabbroni commented that the objections seem to go in a circular motion , because when the intersection was approved opposite Spruce Way , the same people were objecting to the size of Lot # 8 , where the existing house is located , and the fact that a variance was required . Mr . Simpson disagreed with Mr . Fabbroni ' s opinion that a more level site could not be found on the site for recreation . Mr . Simpson commented on the keeping of the little triangular shape open for a future connector to a greenway along the ravine , adding that , in his opinion , Mr . Fabbroni has already cut that possibility off with the configuration of the lots . Chairman May interjected that Mr . Fabbroni had stated that that was a buffer for the ravine . Mr . Simpson mentioned that there was no buffer between Lots # 8 and # 9 , adding that , the rental people at the existing house are playing ballgames , and they need some space on that site for recreation . Mr . Simpson stated that it should be a prime consideration , noting that it has been a practice with developers over the years to take the leftover space that is undesirable to build on , such as poor drainage areas . Ms . Beeners stated that this was the first time that she recalled that there has been any objection to the concept of the open space that was proposed in this subdivision . Ms . Beeners offered that , the community is aware that there is a proposed trail along the NYSEG right - of -way , and also coming up through the Sincebaugh property , with some possible variations . Ms . Beeners noted • that there was similar open space indicated in the plan that was approved by the Planning Board , Ms . Beeners noted that the greenway Mr . Fabbroni alluded to was the . 3 acre piece that would be able to • Planning Board - 17 - July 19 , 1988 • attach to land on the Sincebaugh property on the west side of the creek . Ms . Beeners commented that , in the park and open space plan of several years ago , there were two playfield sites that were identified on " this " [ pointing to map ] side of Coddington Road , adding that one of them was temporary , but still a somewhat possible site , on the Sincebaugh property near the end of Pennsylvania Avenue and Kendall Avenue . Ms . Beeners stated that , in the longer range , it was considered desirable to have a field such as on the old Smith farm property right " here " . Ms . Beeners stated that , additionally , it has been informally considered that the Raponi land would make a suitable facility . Ms . Beeners again noted that never , as far as she can recall , in the discussion of this project , has there been any major announcement that there should be need of playfield space within the subject site . Mr . Simpson remarked that since there has been no playspace provided on the site , all the students are going to play in the streets , which is already overflowing with bikers and joggers . Ms . Beeners stated that there has been a reduction in the residential density from 15 - 16 lots down to 12 , adding that there has been an attempt to provide lots that would be in conformance , and hypothetically would , in that situation , provide suitable recreation space on the lots . Ron Simpson of 112 Pine View Terrace commented that , in his opinion , the central issue is land use consistent with the character of the neighborhood . Mr . Simpson felt that these issues need serious • attention and study . Mr . Simpson commented on the developer ' s past designs , and past practices , which he felt were totally inconsistent with the bordering properties . Mr . Simpson commented that he felt the Town would have another student ghetto , similar to Collegetown , on South Hill , adding that , development like this is taken piecemeal without consideration of all the proposed developments . Chairman May commented that it was very difficult for him to see a relationship between a 12 - lot subdivision on eight acres compared to Collegetown . There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to speak to this matter , Chairman May closed the Public. Hearing at 10 : 01 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion . Virginia Langhans asked Mr . Fabbroni about raising the road height , and what it would do to the Gray property . Mr . Fabbroni responded that it would be back to grade at the property line , adding , by shifting the road 20 feet to the southeast it would , essentially , add 10 more feet to get back to grade on the north side . William Lesser wondered if , by raising the road , would it be necessary to go more slowly in and out of that road onto Coddington Road ? Mr . Fabbroni answered , no , there would be the same cross section as any other :Down road would have , which would be two 10 - foot lanes , and two 4 - foot shoulders . William Lesser asked Ms . Beeners why the • staff was not giving serious consideration to the extension of Spruce Way . Ms . Beeners responded there is a 50 - foot wide access at the end of Spruce Way that contains a little piece that: is in separate • Planning Board - 18 - July 19 , 1988 • ownership from the Raponi land . Ms . Beeners stated that there might be disruption of what has essentially grown as a 4 - lot cul de sac . Ms . Beeners commented that there were alternatives to accessing the Raponi property , as identified on the map , especially coming through the one near the water tank that is to the south , and adding , there are also some possibilities from Ithaca College , Ms . Beeners stated that the above would be preferred to using Spruce Way , Mr . Lesser stated that his concern was to try and maximize the safety , as Coddington Road is very busy , and will have more traffic in the near future . Robert Flumerfelt stated that when the developer came before the Board with the roadway proposed opposite Spruce Way , in his opinion , that was fine . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that he thought the present proposal was fine , as long as Spruce Way is not extended as an access point to the Raponi land . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that with the present plan , the Board has to look elsewhere for access to the Raponi lands , other than Spruce Way , because Spruce Way and the proposed Collegeview Lane would then be too close and off - set . Mr . Lesser agreed with Mr . Flumerfelt , but wanted to be sure that Spruce Way was not the good way to connect it , and not foreclosing on opportunities of having a lot more entrances into a difficult section of a busy road . Ms . Beeners stated that the grade of Spruce Way is also a factor . Robert Miller commented that , at the last Planning Board meeting , Mr . Flumerfelt said it would be best to have the roadway off Spruce • Way . Mr . Miller wondered why Mr . Flumerfelt was approving tonight ' s plan as being just as good . Mr . Flumerfelt responded that the acceptable alternatives on road intersections are to either have them opposite one another or separated by usually more than 300 feet , adding that , in this case , if Spruce Way is not used as a through street , then the more than 300 - foot separation can be attained by using the 66 - foot strip that exists " here " [ indicating on map ] as a possible access to the Raponi land . Attorney Barney stated that the Town Board did review the alignment of the roads vis a vis Spruce Way , and declined to accept that alignment . Attorney Barney commented that he thought the reason for declining to accept it was not necessarily the fact that it was opposite Spruce Way , but was more based upon the concerns expressed by the various neighbors , as to the configuration of the number of lots located there . Attorney Barney commented that , from an engineering standpoint there is the question of getting that intersection with Spruce Way , but also getting a configuration of lots that are not going to be as much of a problem to the adjoining neighbors . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that there was a concern about the proposed roadway being close to the rear yards of Juniper Drive properties . William Lesser noted that one of his concerns was that it shifts the road away from a number of people on Juniper Drive , but it puts it right next to the Gray _house . Mr . Flumerfelt wondered if this provided some subdivision opportunities for the Grays , noting that the Gray property has some frontage on the proposed roadway . Virginia Langhans wondered how far • the house was from the road . Mr . Fabbroni answered that the road is approximately 60 feet from the house . Mr . Fabbroni remarked that the developer would be amenable to some kind of screening , but one has to ' Planning Board - 19 - July 19 , 1988 • recognize that any screening along the road is a roadside obstacle . William Lesser wondered if the road right - of -way would go right next to the garage , with Mr . Fabbroni answering , yes . Mr . Iacovelli offered that he has had some discussion with Mr . Gray , and there does not seem to be any concern at this time . David Klein noted that he had a slight reaction to the letter that accompanied the submittal . Mr . Klein stated that it seemed to him that what the developer was showing was closer to what he thought was discussed at earlier review sessions . Mr . Klein noted that , at that time , the developer was rather adamant about not crossing the NYSEG right - of -way , adding , it is now being crossed . Mr . Fabbroni responded that there was discussion on turning to the north , and going through the Steenhuis property . Mr . Fabbroni stated that that horizontal transition cannot be made at an acceptable grade in that direction . Mr . Fabbroni remarked that if there were a cut , access would not be able to be developed to Lot # 6 or Lot # 7 . Mr . Klein mentioned that a solution has been found , where the road essentially provides some of the advantages that were viewed earlier , in terms of :Lots backing up to lots . Mr . Klein commented that he was somewhat convinced that the alignment of Collegeview Lane on Coddington Road was preferable , rather than opposite Spruce Way . Mr . Klein stated that impact on the Gray property might be mitigated by buffering , as was done on the Grandview Subdivision . Continuing , Mr . Klein referred to open space , as indicated on the map , and commented on the section that notes " not a • lot , reserved by developer for future use " , adding that he was a little uncomfortable with that , because a lot is being created , but not creating a lot . Mr . Klein felt this was a parcel of something that was not attached , adding , he would rather see it as open :space , or combined with another parcel of land . Mr . Fabbroni stated that T . & L . Gray are not interested , at the present time , in selling that piece of land , and until they are the developer would like to maintain ownership of that plan , adding , if that never becomes the case , the land is unusable , and virtually becomes more open space . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the developer does not consider that piece of land a buildable lot , in terms of the Board ' s deliberations . Mr . Fabbroni commented that there are other oddball parcels that fall between Coddington Road and the railroad right - of -way that could be cleaned up by some future access to the north . Attorney Barney suggested that if the reserved lot for future use were going to be left there , there should be some condition that it either be consolidated with another piece of land within a certain time frame , or that it be conveyed to the Town , as part of the park land . Mr . Fabbroni wondered what would be considered a reasonable amount of time , with Attorney Barney answering , five years . Mr . Fabbroni commented that that was reasonable . Mr . Klein stated that he thought the lot sizes and pattern of development were fairly consistent . Mr . Klein mentioned that , perhaps , a phased development would be in order , to see how the character of the neighborhood is maintained . Carolyn Grigorov commented that that is the real concern of the neighbors , and whether or not the units would be rental is something the Board cannot control . William Lesser wondered about • requesting landscaping . Robert Miller mentioned single family homes , and commented , if someone comes in with a proposal for 12 duplexes , which he felt definitely changes the character of -the neighborhood , • Planning Board - 20 - July 19 , 1988 • then he would vote no . Carolyn Grigorov commented that these are not duplexes . Ms . Beeners commented that the Planning Board was aware that there were efforts in both the Town and the City for the large scale provision of student housing . Ms . Beeners mentioned Valentine Place , which is going to be leased to Ithaca College , and the Sketch Plan for student apartments on Danby Road , Ms . Beeners noted that there is definitely an effort , in the community , to try and reduce the impact of fairly large scale student development in , essentially , single family neighborhoods . Ms . Beeners stated that the occupancy limitations in the Zoning Ordinance are going to control , to a reasonable extent , the occupancy within the units . Ms . Beeners offered that , because of the location of the site , and as close as it is to Ithaca College , Therm , Inc . , and to the City , she did not see why it would :not be appropriate to allow for the development of two units , as is permitted in the Zoning Ordinance , Ms . Beeners also offered that there are occupancy limitations that the developer has to comply with . Ms . Beeners asked that the Board consider whether this is within or outside what the community character is . At this point , Mr . Fabbroni commented that this was not a situation to consider phasing , as there are only 12 lots . William .Lesser commented that he felt the crossing of NYSEG right - of -way was going to be fairly complex , as it seems to involve some cutting , filling , etc . Mr . Lesser wondered if it would be possible at this time , or at least for times in the :future , to request something a little more concrete . Mr . Lesser noted there were some preliminary discussions with NYSEG about using their right - of - way and connecting into Juniper Drive , but apparently that did not work out . At this point , Mr . Iacovelli produced a letter from NYSEG addressed to Mr . Orlando Iacovelli , dated July 14 , 1988 , which Chairman May read aloud . [ Letter attached hereto as Exhibit 3 . 1 Chairman May noted that it appears the first step has been taken care of . Virginia Langhans wondered about Lot V . as to whether or not it was legal . Mrs . Langhans stated that the lot has the 100 feet at the set- back , but inquired about the 47 feet on the road . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he felt the criteria was met , but pointed out that if there were some desire to have 13 more feet there , then there is plenty of room in Lot # 3 to shift things up 13 feet in Lots # 4 ,, 5 , 6 , and 7 . Mrs . Langhans inquired about lot sizes on cul de sacs . Ms . Beeners noted that the recommendation is a minimum of 60 feet on the road frontage , and minimum 100 feet at the maximum front yard set -back , which would be 50 feet back . Attorney Barney referred to the current Zoning Ordinance , Article IV , Residence District R - 15 , Section 16 , which states : " Size of lot . Lot sizes in Residence District R - 15 shall meet the following depths and widths at the front yard set - back . 1 . Minimum width of lots shall be 100 feet and the minimum depth 150 • feet . " Attorney Barney offered that the interpretation is that the width is at the set-back line , not at the road front line . Attorney Barney stated that , as of now , this would be a legal :Lot . Planning Board - 21 - July 19 , 1988 There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the Board , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion . MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . James Baker . WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of Subdivision Approval for proposed " Klondike Manor " , a proposed 12 - lot subdivision plus open space , proposed to be located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 53 - 1 - 17 . 1 , - 17 . 2 , and - 10 , 8 . 23 acres total , on Coddington Road , northwest of Juniper Drive . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review . 3 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance , subject to certain requirements of further project approval . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the environmental review of this Unlisted action , make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Ken erson , Lesser . Nay - Miller . The MOTION was declared to be carried . MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of Subdivision Approval for proposed " Klondike Manor " , a proposed 12 - lot subdivision plus open space , proposed to be located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 53 - 1 - 17 . 1 , - 17 . 2 , and - 10 , 8 . 23 acres total , on Coddington Road , northwest of Juniper Drive . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , has , on July 19 , 1988 , made a negative determination of environmental significance . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on July 19 , 1988 , has reviewed the following material : • " Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Klondike Manor " , dated June 21 , 1988 , revised July 6 , 1988 , by L . Fabbroni , P . E . , Planning Board - 22 - July 19 , 1988 • L . S . Long Environmental Assessment Form , dated June 20 , 1988 . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED , That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as herein proposed , with the following conditions . a . Approval by the Town Board of the proposed road location , public open space , and other public facilities which shall be conveyed to the Town . b . Construction of a minimum 8 - foot wide paved or oil and stone path / driveway to the 0 . 3 acre park site . c . Provision of a written statement from NYSEG consenting to the crossing of the NYSEG easement for road purposes . d . Modification of the subdivision plat extending the road to a point adjacent to the easterly property line to permit a right of way connection to the Sincebaugh property to the east . e . If the lot reserved by the developer for future use is not consolidated within five years with another parcel so as to make the consolidated lot a legal - sized R- 15 lot , said lot shall be conveyed to the Town of Ithaca and added to the area reserved for park and playground purposes . f . Provision of a landscape buffer between the roadway and the Gray property . g . Modification of the subdivision plat so as to permit Lot 7 to have 60 feet of frontage along the road right of way . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - Miller . The MOTION was declared to be carried . Chairman May declared the matter of the Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for a revised plat for the proposed " Klondike Manor " duly closed at 11 : 09 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF A REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL APPROVAL , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 4 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE PROPOSED GRADUATE STUDENT HOUSING AT THE CORNELL QUARTERS SITE , BETWEEN MAPLE AVENUE AND MITCHELL STREET , PROPOSED TO • CONSIST OF 90 FAMILY STUDENT UNITS AND 80 SINGLE STUDENT UNITS , AND PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON 17 ACRES ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS N0 . 6 - 63 - 2 - 1 , - 2 , - 3 , - 141 AND - 10 . 2 , A PORTION OF SAID PARCEL - 10 . 2 BEING Planning Board - 23 - July 19 , 1988 • LOCATED IN THE CITY OF ITHACA , WITH PORTIONS OF 8 TO 9 DWELLING UNITS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON SUCH LAND LOCATED IN THE CITY OF ITHACA . CORNELL UNIVERSITY , OWNER , SASAKI ASSOCIATES , INC . , SITE DESIGNERS ; ALBERT L . WRIGHT , CORNELL UNIVERSITY ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES , AGENT , Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 11 : 10 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Albert Wright addressed the Board and stated that the University is proposing 170 dwelling units for graduate students on , basically , what is known as the Cornell Quarters site , which is presently 12 acres , adding that an additional 40 % would be added to the 12 acres . Mr . Wright stated that the additional would be property used by Cornell as storage yards , and a warehouse for the Campus Store . Mr . Wright offered that the total acreage would be 17 acres , and commented that 241 parking spaces would be provided . Mr . William Paleen , Director of the Department of Residence Life at Cornell , approached the Board and stated that the proposed project would be part of the University administration , and would function as part of the residence system . Mr . Paleen commented that the project responds to obvious needs , in terms of priorities for additional housing for single graduate students , and student families . Mr . Paleen stated that the need for this housing not only reflects on- campus • priorities , but also it is an effective response to a beginning to help mitigate the housing situation in the County area . Mr . Paleen offered that the site had been carefully selected as the best site for the proposed housing and also honoring the relationship that the type of housing that is proposed will have to the surrounding community . Mr . Paleen stated that the project does afford an excellent location , in terms of providing persons who will reside there , easy access to the campus , either through the University bus service , or on foot . Mr . Paleen also offered that it would be easy access to shopping , schools , and other community amenities . At this time , Don Vitters , an Associate from Sasaki Associates , Inc . , approached the Board and appended maps to the bulletin board showing the exact location of the project . Mr . Vitters noted that the project is basically broken down into two components , adding that there will be ninety clustered family units primarily along the western edge of the site , and there are 77 single family units , which are comprised of four - bedrooms , two baths , one living room , and one kitchen per unit , and which are located along the eastern edge of the site . Mr . Vitters noted that access to the site , and through the site is from Maple Avenue , ading that from Mitchell Street there is a road which goes through the center of the site , with some parking along it . Mr . Vitters said that the existing road has been realigned for several reasons , noting that one of the reasons was to introduce some curves to slow down the flow of traffic through the site . Mr . Vitters pointed out that all of the units shown on the map are modular units , and the • family units are 24 ' X 24 ' , with the single units being 24 ' X 36 ' . Mr . Vitters noted that eight of the family units have been clustered together to form an " H " shape configuration , noting that the roof lines Planning Board - 24 - July 19 , 1988 • will vary in pitch . Mr . Vitters stated that the single family units have been clustered in groupings of six , and those have been paired to create some small courtyard spaces . Mr . Vitters stated that fairly extensive landscaping has been proposed on the site , noting that an effort has been made to maintain the existing rows of trees . Mr . Vitters commented that the entire site slopes from east to west . Mr . Vitters offered that , in terms of pedestrian circulation , each one of the courtyards opens out onto a walkway , which connects all the way through the site , and which also connects to the bikeway . Mr . Vitters remarked that the roadway can be used that goes through the center of the site because there is a sidewalk on both sides . Mr . Vitters offered that a larger play area is proposed . Mr . Vitters stated that a sidewalk would be added along the entire length of Mitchell Street , from the entrance of the parking lot , down to the bikeway location . Mr . Vitters stated that it was important to note that the 241 parking spaces provided exceeds the zoning requirement , adding that there is additional overflow parking , if it were necessary , located on the opposite side of Mitchell Street . Mr . Vitters stated that the drainage has been designed to meet a 25 - year storm , and added that street lighting has been provided along the center road , lighting along the bikeway , and graphics and signage which will introduce one to each of the courtyards . Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were anyone present who had any questions or comments . • Mrs . Bonnie Simpson of 112 Pine View Terrace spoke from the floor and stated that she felt the proposed Graduate Student Housing was not objectionable , and she could almost live next door to it , in contrast to the prior Iacovelli project . Mrs . Myrtle Whitcomb of 233 Troy Road spoke from the floor and stated that the project looks very nice , but remarked that , given the critical problem with student housing in the area , wondered if there were a possibility that Cornell could work to increase the density of the student population that could be served in this particular area . There appearing to be no further questions or comments , Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 11 : 33 p . m . , and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion . Mr . Lesser commented that it seemed to him that the bikeway path was a very important component in the project . Mr . Lesser inquired as to where the bikeway would be located , and if Cornell , indeed , does come across with its fair share , who is going to build it , and who is going to pay for the rest of it . At this point , Ms . Beeners stated that there has not been any discussion with the various agencies that might become involved in this . Ms . Bee ners noted that this would not be a very densely populated area of existing Town residences , and there would be about a 300 % increase in possible pedestrian traffic , as a result of this . • At this time , Mr . Frantz stated that what is being looked at is a sidewalk that extends from the Town / City line up to the Cornell • Planning Board - 25 - July 19 , 1988 • Quarters property , and then from the eastern edge of Cornell Quarters along the cemetery , to the existing rear entrance to the Ide ' s complex . Mr . Frantz stated that the estimated cost is in the vicinity of $ 16 . 00 per linear foot , which would include the sidewalk , plus some grading . Mr . Frantz offered that the total price would be in the vicinity of $ 22 , 500 . 00 . Mr . Frantz stated that , as far as sharing the cost it is still very much up in the air . Mr . Frantz commented that one idea would be to set up a special benefit type of district , where perhaps the cost of the sidewalk would be split , explaining that half would be paid for by the commercial development in the East Hill Plaza area , and one -half paid for by the existing residential development area at the western end . Mr . Frantz stated that , in the commercial areas , the Town would assess a per square foot assessment , which would be . 07 � to . 08 � per square foot , per gross area , noting that perhaps the residential area would be assessed on a per dwelling unit basis . David Klein commented on the parking lots , where the laundry facilities are , noting that that is where the road has a curve to break the traffic . Mr . Klein stated that that was a good idea , but as he viewed it , he thought it looked awkward . Mr . Klein stated that he could see cross traffic not bending properly , and all those intersections with the bollards being wonderful sites for accidents on a perpetual basis , particularly because the ground plane does not change , as they are marked with concrete bollards . Mr . Klein stated that he felt there did not seem to be enough definition , and wondered if the curve could be straightened out a little bit . Mr . Vitters responded that it could be straightened out a little bit , and adding that the ground plane does change , as it slopes up . Carolyn Grigorov wondered if she were correct in assuming that fire protection depends on doing something to the bikeway . Mr . Vitters answered that the bikeway is part of the project ' s fire exit , adding that it would have to be widened . Mr . Lesser asked if it would be plowed on a regular basis . Mr . Wright responded that it was his understanding that the Town keeps it clear during the week , and the University would keep it clear on the weekend . Ms . Beeners offered that the bikeway is currently plowed to the full 8 - foot width , on as frequent a basis as is possible . Ms . Beeners stated that the bikeway agreement should be reviewed to make sure that the language within it is consistent , if there was going to be an arrangement such as noted above . Mr . Lesser remarked that it sounded like another level of commitment in keeping the road open , occasionally for pedestrians , and if it has to be available for fire truck access . Mr . Wright stated that a fire truck could get through the middle roadway . Mr . Frantz wondered if it was intended to widen the pavement of the existing bikeway , or simply reinforce the shoulders . Mr . Wright responded that it was not necessary that it be paved , if it was adequate to support a fire engine , but it would have to be kept cleared in the winter . Virginia Langhans commented that , in her opinion , the project was • very dense . Mrs . Langhans remarked that two - story structures would have been nice , as it would have opened up more space . Mr . Wright responded that it is a fact that there is no modular manufacturer making a two - story student residence . Mr . Wright offered that there Planning Board - 26 - July 19 , 1988 . are some modular units for single family residences that are two - story . Attorney Barney wondered what the difference was between student housing as opposed to single family housing . Mr . Wright responded that in this particular case the single student units are two full baths for each four students , and a kitchen , which is shared . Mr . Wright stated that it really is the difference between taking a single family home and trying to convert it for the use of dormitories . Ms . Beeners wondered about the sight adequacy for the north parking lot . Mr . Vitters responded that the safe distances have been looked at , which would be required , as one exits both left and right on Maple Avenue , Mr . Vitters noted that at a speed of 30 mph , 260 feet would be required in either direction for safe visibility . Mr . Vitters noted that the sight distance had been checked at the main entrance and exit , and it was determined that the actual sight distance was 687 feet , which is 427 in excess of what would be required . Mr . Vitters stated that he does not have a calculation of the actual sight distance from the parking lot , although it appears to be about 260 feet , but would be able to submit that information before the Zoning Board of Appeals looks at it as the Lead Agency . 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 Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : • WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of a Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect . to a request for Special Approval , pursuant to Article III , Section 41 Paragraph 4 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the proposed Graduate Student Housing at the Cornell Quarters site , proposed to consist of 90 family student units and 80 single student units , and proposed to be located on 17 acres on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 63 - 2 - 1 , - 2 , - 31 - 14 , and - 10 . 2 , a portion of said parcel - 10 . 2 being located in the City of Ithaca with portions of 8 to 9 dwelling units proposed to be located on such land in the City of Ithaca . 2 . This is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in coordinated review . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board , the City of Ithaca Office of the Building Commissioner , the City of Ithaca Engineering Deparment , the Tompkins County Planning Department , and the Tompkins County Health Department are involved agencies in coordinated review . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on July 19 , 1988 , has reviewed the proposed site plan , environmental assessment form and review , and other submissions related to this proposal . • 4 . The Town* Planning Department has recommended that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action , subject to certain mitigation measures . Planning Board - 27 - July 19 , 1988 • THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning ' Board of Appeals that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action , subject to the mitigating measures proposed by the applicant , and further subject to the following conditions . a . Submission of further information on drainage design . b . Submission of further information on sight adequacy at the proposed intersections with Maple Avenue . c . Provision of additional landscaping adequate to screen buildings along the bikeway and Mitchell Street . d . The contribution by Cornell of a fair share of the cost of constructing a sidewalk between the project site and East Hill Plaza , 2 . That the Planning Board , in making its recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals , determine and hereby does determine 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 report and hereby does report to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the request for Special Approval for the proposed Graduate Student Housing at the Cornell Quarters site be approved , subject to the following conditions . a . Approval of the drainage plan by the Town Engineer and the City of Ithaca Engineer . b . Approval of the proposed intersections at Maple Avenue by the Town Engineer . c . Provision of additional landscaping adequate to screen buildings along the bikeway and Mitchell Street . d . The contribution by Cornell of a fair share of the cost of constructing a sidewalk between the project site and East Hill Plaza . • e . Compliance with all requirements of the City of Ithaca with respect to proposed development on the portion of the site • ' Planning Board - 28 - July 19 , 1988 • which is within the City . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of the proposed Graduate Student Housing at the Cornell Quarters site duly closed at 11 : 59 p . m . SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : PROPOSED " SOUTHWOODS " DEVELOPMENT , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST KING ROAD BETWEEN TROY ROAD AND CODDINGTON ROAD , ON A 51 . 75 ± ACRE PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 46 - 1 - 15 . 21 122 . 9 ACRES TOTAL , CONSISTING OF 43 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . N . & J . DESCH AND M . & E . MAY , OWNERS ; SOUTHWOODS ASSOCIATES , APPLICANT ; THOMAS NIEDERKORN , AGENT . At this point , Chairman Montgomery May submitted a Memo to the Planning Board regarding the " Southwoods " development , which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 . [ Secretary ' s Note : Chairman Montgomery May removed himself from his seat at the Board table during the entire discussion on the • proposed " Sout.hwoods " development through the end of the Meeting . ] Vice -Chairman Grigorov opened the discussion on the above - noted matter at 12 : 01 a . m . and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above . Mr . Niederkorn approached the Board and appended four large maps to the bulletin board . Mr . Neiderkorn pointed out . Troy Road , Coddington Road , East King Road , and the Ithaca Reservoir . Mr . Neiderkorn stated that the project area [ indicating on map ) is down East King Road between Troy Road and Coddington Road , Mr . Niederkorn pointed out the power substation and the NYSEG right of way across " this " direction , and. another right of way across " this " direction . Mr . Niederkorn offered that there was a uniform slope going down to the Six Mile Creek valley toward the east , and is very densely treed with evergreens and deciduous trees , with the exception of the power line right of way . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the Nature Conservancy land is in the portion to the south and to the west . Mr . Niederkorn commented that there are , basically , four soil types in this area , adding that they consist of Erie Channery , which is the largest portion and is located in the southwest portion and the extreme south portion , two smaller areas of Langford Channery , Bath Channery , and a Bath Valois soil on the very steep gorge on the east . Mr . Niederkorn pointed out the areas on the site that have 10 % or greater slope , adding that the southwest corner was -the steepest area . Mr . Niederkorn commented that bedrock is in all of the soils , at least • four , and usually greater than four feet beneath the surface . Mr . Niederkorn said that the Bath Channery area has no real problem with surface water , but in the Erie Channery and Langford Channery areas , Planning Board. - 29 - July 19 , 1988 • the surface water is seasonally high . Mr . Niederkorn noted that a survey of the flora on the site was completed , which would identify any particularly significant types of species , commenting that there was not anything there on the endangered list in New York State , Mr . Niederkorn noted that there was a deciduous dominated old field forest " here " , a conifer dominated old field forest " here " , and some mature Oak , Beech , Hickory , and Pine forest on " these " upper slopes , adding that there is some Hemlock , Beech , and Birch along the stream . Mr . Niederkorn stated that there are some Oak and Beech along the upper parts of the stream , noting , there are herbs and shrubs along the power lines . Mr . Niederkorn stated that two areas of fairly important trees were found , but not on the scarce or endangered list , noting that the trees were Black Gum and Bluets , which are on the extreme southwest corner . Continuing , Mr . Niederkorn offered that there are some Poke Milkweed down in " this " area . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the people who did the survey indicated that while these are nice trees , they are not by any means scarce or endangered species . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the project design is such that it is able to accommodate all the trees without much difficulty . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the site is zoned R - 30 , and the minimum lot size is 30 , 000 square feet and the minimum frontage is 150 feet , noting that the developers have tried to accommodate the requirements in the proposed design , but the difficulty is that there is a long , fairly relatively narrow finger of land that sticks down to the south • and west , commenting that there was a choice of multiple curb cuts off East King Road , and penetrating this area " this " way from East King Road , or trying to eliminate , as much as possible , the driveways on East King Road , and have some internal access to these parcels , noting that the latter was chosen because the developer felt it was a much better way to subdivide the site . Mr . Niederkorn offered that the objective was to preserve as much of the natural tree growth as possible , commenting that , while the roads tend to curve considerably to get to all parts of the site , the developers have tried to • select areas , e . g . , the location of " this " entrance road , where there are a number of very nice large mature Pine trees . Mr . Niederkorn [ indicating on map ) stated that " this " is simply an expanded cul de sac on " this " end to offer larger frontages for " these " four lots , and then it follows the power lines right of way , but rather than take it in a straight line , it was decided to have a curvilinear pattern , and stay pretty much with the slope coming down at " this " point , at which time it would come back into a " T " intersection " here " . Mr . Niederkorn stated that there would be 43 lots , and approximately 4000 feet of lineal roadway , and noted that there is an easement for water " here " , to enable water to be extended at some time in the future into the land farther to the south . Mr . Niederkorn stated that there is an easement to bring water in at " this " point , from the Troy Road area , so that there would be a loop system " here " and noting that there is an easement " here " across these two lots to, get sewage disposal down to a pumping station , which would be located • in " this " corner . Mr . Niederkorn noted that sewage would be gathered " here " and then pumped back up East King Road into the system on Troy Road . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the utility easement is 225 feet in Planning Board - 30 - July 19 , 1988 • width , and occupies almost nine acres of the site . Mr . Niederkorn offered that the minimum lot size is 30 , 000 square feet , and the maximum lot size is 84 , 000 square feet , which is about two acres . William Lesser wondered if there were going to be any provisions made for possibly linking the road system to the further development of the adjacent parcel . Mr . Niederkorn responded with , the developer thought of that , but the problem is that it probably would require a bridge , or a couple of major culverts . Mr . Lesser asked about the plans for a buffer between the proposed development and the wilderness area . Mr . Niederkorn answered that the intent was to develop some covenants , and the idea would be to limit areas where trees could be cut , and also the size of trees , noting that , undoubtedly , there would be site plan approval for each lot . Mrs . Grigorov wondered about open space . Mr . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , responded that one of the staff concerns was the fact that the project is not allowing for the required 10 % dedication open space to the Town . Mr . Frantz stated the concern was discussed , and that staff was interested in seeing a connection with the adjacent property , due to the fact that the other access points to it may not be sufficient , if that property were developed . Mr . Niederkorn , referring to the Subdivision Regulations , offered that the loo may be required , but it is not a mandatory item . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the developers felt , in addition to the utility right of way , which is already in place , that part of it could possibly be dedicated for public use . Ms . Beeners noted that in reviewing the plan , and also in recognizing that a larger subdivision is being dealt with from the parent parcel as well , commented that it is acknowledged this is not a place where a ballfield could go , but perhaps there would be some public benefit associated with a conservation easement along the DEC protected stream , as it comes down through the joint land , adding that it could go to the frontage of the main parcel on Burns Road , Mr . Frantz stated that the total tract is approximately 122 acres , and the 10 % would be about 12 . 2 acres . Mr . Frantz commented that the idea would be to create a corridor along the DEC protected stream , which would connect the Eldridge Wilderness with Burns Road , noting that there is approximately 400 feet of frontage , and it would be a triangular piece , and perhaps some of the back areas of [ indicating on map ] " these " lots along " this " end of the proposed development would be along the corridor , but most of the land would come out of the parent tract . Mr . Frantz noted that the dedication would occur upon the subdivision of the entire 122 acres , commenting that the idea is not to have this as public recreation land , but simply as a :natural area . Mr . Frantz offered that , instead of the Town owning it , perhaps it could be deeded over to the Nature Conservancy , which owns the Eldridge Wilderness . Mr . Frantz noted that there is some benefit in deeding it over , because it provides access to the Wilderness from the Burns Road area . Mr . Niederkorn wondered if it would follow the stream all the way , with Mr . Frantz answering , no , the stream leaves the scene at " this " point , and it follows the back lines of " these " lots . Planning Board - 31 - July 19 , 1988 • Attorney Barney wondered if there were enough room to site houses , without getting under the utility easement , on the lots along the north side . Mr . Niederkorn answered , yes . Mrs . Grigorov wondered about phasing , with Mr . Niederkorn answering , phasing has not been discussed , but [ indicating on map ] stated that " this " part would be done first . Mrs . Grigorov wondered if the developers would be building the houses , with Mr . Niederkorn responding , no , the lots would be sold . Vice - Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any other comments . There being none , Vice - Chairman Grigorov declared -the matter of the " Southwoods " Development Sketch Plan Review duly closed at 12 : 20 a . m . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 18 , 1980 MOTION by Mr . James Baker , seconded by Mr . Robert Miller : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of November 18 , 1980 , be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Vice -Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Langhans , Miller , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . • Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 15 , 1987 MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Dr . William Lesser : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of December 15 , 1987 , be and hereby are approved with the following correction : 1 . That , on Page 9 , the vote recorded with respect to the Commonland Service Road be changed to indicate that Dr . Lesser voted aye , not nay , and that the Motion be shown to be carried unanimously . There being no further discussion , the Vice -Chair called for a vote , Aye - Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . ADJOURNMENT • Upon Motion , Vice - Chairman Grigorov declared the July 19 , 1988 , meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 12 : 30 a . m . • ' Planning Board - 32 - July 19 , 1988 • Respectfully submitted , Mary Bryant , Recording Secretary , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . r + • To : Town of Ithaca Planning Board From : Juniper Drive Neighborhood Association Subject : Klondike Manor Subdivision Date : 19 July 1988 Because of the significant impact that the proposed Klondike Manor ( KM ) subdivision would have on the surrounding neighborhood , we strongly request that no final action be taken relative to this development until such time as the Town has given consideration to the concerns expressed herein and to a previous request made by the Greater Ithaca Neighborhoods Association for a moratorium on subdivision development of this scale pending an evaluation of the need for an updated comprehensive land - use plan and related zoning regulations . In this regard it is noteworthy that the city of Ithaca is wrestling with similiar land - use issues and is considering a moratorium on the development of " a subdivision of 10 or more units , " which , if exercised in this instance , would place a hold on KM and its likes . At the July 11th meeting the Town Board scheduled a public hearing to be held before August 8th concerning the feasibility • of a moratorium and the need for a revised comprehensive plan . Until the public is heard on these issues any final decision on this project would be premature and demonstrate a lack of good faith on the part of the public servants comprising this Board . We would like to remind the Board of the concerns which we have expressed in our previous communications to you and raise some new ones in relation to the revised plan . Although the developer has a right to develop , he also has a legal and moral obligation to design his developments to conform to the existing land use and character of the neighborhood . His revised plan respects neither of these conditions and seriously threatens our financial investment as individual homeowners . It also erodes the quality of life in our neighborhood , which the Town has a responsibility to protect . " The subdivision regulations are adopted to guide , promote and protect the community ' s physical , social and aesthetic development in order to preserve the character of the Town as a beautiful place to live . " ( Art . 1 , Sec . 2 ) " In their interpretation and application , the provisions of these regulations shall be held to be minimum requirements , adopted for the promotion of public health , safety and general welfare . " ( Art . 1 , Sec . 5 ) Therefore any plan , such as KM , that does not preserve the character and aesthetics of the surrounding neighborhood and promote its safety and general welfare should be rejected outright by the Board applying the regulations in the • spirit of which they are intended . From a technical perspective the revised plan continues to raise serious concerns and questions including : EXHIBIT 1 • 1 . The parcels of land reserved for park purposes are not desireable for recreational use due to their triangular shape , steep slope , poor drainage , and inadequate size . The two proposed areas should be consolidated into one large area and conform with Town specifications that parkland should be level . Widely accepted standards recommend that land for active sports and games should not exceed 4 % slope . The proposed . 5 acre parcel has drainage problems and the . 3 acre parcel borders on a deep ravine which renders it unusable and unsafe as a play area . The provision of adequate recreation space in a high density , rental development should receive high priority . This past year students living in the developer ' s existing property on the site regularly played ball games in their small yard which spilled over onto the road causing hazards to all . Thus the Town should exercise its right to claim 10 % of land better suited to recreational use than the poorly suited and leftover parcels designated by the developer . 2 . The revised road siting does not articulate with Spruce Way which was a strong recommendation made earlier by the town authorities to enhance safety . In addition the road borders on Clifford Gray ' s property and does not appear to provide adequate buffers or offsets . • 3 . In relation to the environmental assessment prepared by the developer we question his judgement related to the following items : A . ( items A - 13 & C - 6 ) Contrary to the developer ' s claim , we contend that the site is presently used for recreation by hikers and joggers along the NYSEG right - of - way which bisects the subdivision , and that the proposed development is not consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land - use plans . Prior to the developer ' s plan the Town had designated the right - of - way as a future bikeway . The developer ' s plan would route numerous cars over the right - of - way creating a safety hazard to the recreationists . The Town already has a plan to link Kendall Ave . to Juniper Drive which would also intersect the right - of - way and intersections should be kept to an absolute minimum to protect recreationists . B . ( item B - 20 ) Contrary to the developer ' s claim , we contend that the project will produce operating noise exceeding the local noise levels . Existing student rentals , including the developers , frequently broadcast their music to the neighborhood at high volume and host parties that draw large crowds which also creates a considerable noise nuisance . In addition party participants often litter the neighborhood with trash and park illegally along the streets . • C . ( item A - 14 ) Contrary to the developer ' s , claim , we contend that the present site does include scenic views known to be important to the community . Many of the stately pine trees on EXHIBIT 1 • the lower parcel would be removed and the scenic forested landscape of South Hill as viewed from across the valley would be marred by such a large scale development . Already the Deer Run development on South Hill sticks out like a sore thumb as viewed from across the valley , and continued subdivision development on the hill will diminish its visual refreshment as has been the consequence of similiar development on East Hill . D . ( item C - 13 ) We agree with the developer ' s assessment that his plan would result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels , but we disagree with his claim that the existing road network is adequate to handle the additional traffic . Numerous accidents have occured in the vicinity due to the topography which makes drivers traveling north on Coddington Road relatively unaware of intersections which lie close to the crest of the hill . Adding a third intersection in close proximity to the crest would create a very dangerous and complex traffic pattern . In addition Coddington Road is used heavily by students for biking and jogging and increased traffic will be a hazard to them . E . ( item C - 8 ) Contrary to the developer ' s claim , we contend that the proposed development is not compatible with adjoining .Land uses within 1 / 4 mile . Traditionally the land use in this area has been owner - occupied , single - family dwellings . • The notable exception to this has been the developer ' s design to saturate the neighborhood with student rental housing , which he has advertised with unattractive signs in the front of his properties . This practice is not only insensitive to the aesthetics of the neighborhood , it is also discriminatory against non - students who may wish to live in the area . The developer has shown no interest in accommodating or promoting existing neighborhood values or conforming to its design patterns . Further encroachment into the neighborhood of rental housing stock designed and advertised for students must be halted before it irreversibly transforms the neighborhood into a segmented student housing project which is totally incompatible to present land use . Beyond the technical aspects we are concerned that a plan can satisfy the letter of the law , but violate its spirit . A development of the proposed scale and assumed use , if approved as revised , would drastically alter the character of the neighborhood and lessen its desireability as a location for families and other permanent residents to live . Certainly the development would not meet a neighborhood need and it is extremely doubtful that it would meet a community need in view of the College ' s plan to build additional student housing on campus , which is its preferred location , and the plans of another developer to build a 600 bed development also near the College . • Also offensive to the neighborhood is the appearance of the developer ' s other properties which all look - alike . The two most recently built units display laundry rooms clearly visible from EXHIBIT 1 • the road , and they all detract from the architectual variety and diversity which characterizes the rest of the neighborhood . If the proposed development conforms to the developer ' s previous designs and rental practices it would devalue the other properties in the neighborhood , thus causing financial hardship to many homeowners . Any project that would reduce taxes through devaluation and increase costs to the residents of the Town demands serious evaluation . In conclusion , we feel that an approval of this plan with all its inherent problems , hardships and inconsistencies would constitute gross negligence , insensitivity , and the exercise of poor judgement by the Board . At the very least we would expect the Board to postpone any final action on this proposal until it has had adequate time to consider the entire range of its impact , the concerns and questions raised herein , and the request by the Greater Ithaca Neighborhoods Association for a moratorium on development of this nature until an evaluation can be made of the need for a revised comprehensive land - use plan and related zoning requirements . We hope that your response to our request will serve the best interests of our entire neighborhood and achieve the greatest good for the greatest number . • • EXHIBIT 1 Statement to Town of Ithaca Planning Board - Expression of Opposition to Klondike Manor July 19 , 1988 _ Subdivision Robert M . Cotts , 115 Northview Road member Greater Ithaca Neighborhood Association Northview Road Civic Association We agree with the developer ' s assessment that his plan would result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels , but we disagree with his claim that the existing road network is adequate to handle the additional traffic . Numerous accidents have occured in the vicinity due to the topography which makes drivers traveling north on Coddington Road relatively unaware of intersections which lie close to the crest of the hill . Adding a third intersection in close pro,%=* ity to the crest would create a very dangerous and complex traffic pattern . In addition Coddington Road is used heavily by students for biking and . jogging and increased traffic will be a hazard to them. Basically the problem is that Coddington Road has very narrow shoulders . Tenants ' cars barely fit on the shoulder . Joggers and bikers , mostly students , have to pass parked cars on the roadside in the traffic lane thus endangering themselves and others . Additional traffic hastens the day that additional serious and expensive widening of Coddington Road will be needed . Such is the hidden cost of development hastily done . Contrary to the developer ' s claim , we contend that the proposed development is . not compatible with adjoining land uses within 1/4 mile . Traditionally the land use in this area has been overwhelmingly owner-occupied , single-family dwellings . The notable exception to this has been this developer ' s design to saturate the neighborhood with student rental housing . He has admitted in a previous meeting that student housing is what he plans to build . This practice is not only insensitive to the aesthetics of the neighborhood, it is also illegally discriminatory against non-students who may wish to live in the area . If this development is allowed to proceed and this developer builds and advertises for student tenants , he will have to face litigation if he discriminates against non-students looking for housing . The developer who proposes this subdivision has a record of violating the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance in his rental of the house showing on Lot #1 when he rented this house to four unrelated persons during the Ithaca College academic year 1987 -88 . His disrespect for the zoning ordinance might only have been matched by the frustration of neighboring residents in trying to get the law enforced . The developer has shown little interest in accommodating or promoting existing neighborhood values or conforming to its design patterns . Further encroachment into the neighborhood of rental housing stock- designed with every building the same and advertised for students must be halted before it irreversibly transforms the neighbor- hood into a segmented student housing project which is totally incompatible to present land use . ?Many residents in the Town of Ithaca believe that the residental R-15 zone means homes for town residents , not mass housing for transients . That is the expression • of our frustration with our zoning law and that is one of the reasons we ask that you put this on hold . EXHIBIT 2 MOM July 14 , 1988 Mr . Orlando Iacovelli 270 Pennsylvania Avenue Ithaca , New York 14850 • Dear Mr . Iacovelli : This is in response to your inquiry regarding NYSEG owned former D L & W railroad property in the Town of Ithaca . I spoke with Fran DiTommaso , Area Operating Superintendent , yester - day and he indicated that our local office has no opposition to the sale of or granting an easement for the property in . question . However , this must be approved by our Corporate Real Estate , Transmission , Planning and Engineering Departments . ' If you have any further questions , feel free to contact me at 347 - 4131 , extension 6108 . Very truly yours , &V0 \o BONNIE M . MC LAUD Real Estate Representative Ithaca Area BMM : amm i EXMUBIT 3 New York State Electric & Gas Corporation P. O. Box 287, Ithaca, New York 14851 (607) 347- 4131 MEMO T0 : Ithaca Planning Board cc : Ithaca Town Board FROM : Montgomery May DATE : June 21 , 1988 RE : Conflict of Interest = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - My wife and I as joint owners with another couple have a signed purchase offer for the sale of 50 acres of land on E . King Rd . on South Hill to a group . of local developers . The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you of this fact and . to affirm that at no time have we had any conversation with Town staff about any condition , or requirements for this development . I have not , nor will I influence the determination that may be made by the Town Planning Board or the Town bodies having jurisdic- tion over this matter . The subdivision as we are told is expected to be a quality subdiv- ision similar to Shannon Park in the Village of Lansing . I will of course excuse myself from any discussion of the develop- ment at Planning Board meetings . I request that you consider this matter in the same way you would any other project . disregarding that I am one of the owners . Thank you . r EXHIBIT 4 i . . - - _. , a. , . . �p. .._„r;^rt'r."P.`rvY- .. • •Y N^.. ., . - -n..,.. ...-..p ten• . um --•.-i"'aaey}c^-u t'T. ' 1 AFFIDAVIT Com' PURUCAT10N TOWN OF ITHACA I HE ITHACA JOURNAL PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, TUESDAY , JULY 19, n" ' i B direction of the Choir man ; of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that Public Hearings will be held by the q�; Planning Board of the Town of � t8i1vf tfDt"r�l, �,LI�� LIZL �y fir . - Ithaca on Tuesday, July 19, 1988, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, NY; at .. .. . ... . . .. . . �-x-1 � 1. JLv► C. . .. . . . . . . . being duly sNvor1 , deposes the following times and on the following matters: 7 : 30 P. M. Consideration of' Fi:=r and sam that he reside-5 in Ithaca, ounty and state aforesaid and nal Site Plan Approval for County proposed facility for the d38t . .... . .. .... . ... . . . Tompkins County Chamber of � k Commerce, Visitors and Con'' " —" vention Bureau , and TouriI Information Center, propoand 's of T� ed. Itxwc� Joc ;a,>; tit a public newspaper printed and published to be located in a Special LUse District of 904-906-910-912 ;I East Shore Drive, Town of Itha- ca ca Tax Parcels No. 6- 18-2-8, J in Ithaca aforesaid, and that a notice , of which the annexed is a true 9, and - 10. Tompkins County ; Chamber of Commerce, ' .Ap- plicont ; Downing-Hoscup Ar- 1I copy, was published in said gapes .. . . chitects, Designer. (Adjourned from June 21 , 1988). ' 7 : 45 P. M. Consideration of ' Preliminary Subdivision . Ap- ..._..... .I . . . .. . .o. . ... . . . ..... . . .. . .. . proval for a revised plat for, the proposed "Klondike Man- or", a 12 lot subdivision plus, . .. . .... . .. . . .. . . .. .... .. ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . .� — . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. I . .. . . . . . . . open space, proposed to Dull located on Town of Ithaca Tax ' Parcels No. 6-53- 1 - 17. 1 , - 17.2, and that the first publiea �. On Of Sald notice u'as OD the . . ... . . and - 10, 8. 23 acres total , on ' ' .. .. . ... Coddington Road, northwest _ of Juniper Drive. Orlando and , day of . .. _ . ... . . . . ..__ . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . I9. 8 Ralph P . M.lacC l , Applicants. c't " j •• " ' • • • • • - - • •• • • • 8: 15 . M. Consideration of a _ J Report to the Zoning Board of ' \ . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... ... .. . . . .. ........ Appeals with respect to a re-,� . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . V . . . . .. .. ... quest for Special Approval, - pursuant to Article III , Section '! 41 Paragroph 4, of the Town of, $ubseri and sworn to before me, this Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for; -• -- - • •. .. .. .... ... . .. .. . . .. ........ . . . clay the proposed Graduate Stu dent dent Housing at the Cornell-, Of ya*,y1 •_ . _ 1Q Quarters site, between Maple_: . . . . . . . . ..' Avenue and Mitchell Street,-, proposed to consist of 90 fami=:{ ly student units and 80 single j — • ' • . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. student units, and proposeto . .. ..... d ;' y . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . N��.., I be located on 17 acres on, . v ~' 7 Public . Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. JEAN FORD 6-63-2- 1 , -2, -31 - 14 and - 10. 2, , a portion of said parcel - 10. 2 , being located in the City of IN{otary Public, State cf iJ eW York Ithaca, with portions of 8 to 9 dwelling units proposed to be ! No. 465441 located on such land located j in the City of Ithaca. Cornell Qualified in Tompk , : County University, Owner; Sasaki As- sociates, Inc. , Site Designers; - Commission expires May 31 , 19 . Albert L. Wright, Cornell Uni- I versity Architectural Services, , Agent. Said Planning Board will at ; said times and said place hear all persons in support of such ' matters or objections thereto:] gentoPersons may appear by agent - or r in person . Jean H . Swartwood; Town Clerk 273- 1721 ; July 14, 1988 I •