Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1990-02-06r� • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD FEBRUARY 6, 1990 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, February 6, 1990, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, Robert Virginia Langhans, William Lesser, Attorney) , Susan C. Beeners (Town (Acting Town Engineer) , George R. Planner), Kenerson, James Baker, John C. Barney (Town Planner) , Erik Whitney Frantz (Assistant Town ALSO PRESENT: Manning Wooley, Constance E. Cook, Heinz Riederer, John Whitcomb, Ellio LeMaro, Arel LeMaro, Ivan LeMaro, Chairperson Grigorov declared the. meeting duly opened at 7:46 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: REVIEW OF PROPOSED INLET VALLEY WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS. Maps were appended to the bulletin board. Ms. Beeners pointed out the Coy Glen area, which is a critical environmental area. Ms. Beeners also pointed out the DEC classified streams, the flood plain areas, the DEC and also other wetlands that have been identified. Ms. Beeners indicated where the open space was located by ownership. Ms. Beeners pointed out the various residential areas, along with the commercial areas on Elmira Road, Acting Town Engineer Erik Whitney stated that the summer of 1989 was spent preparing a corridor strip survey of roughly eight miles. Mr. Whitney stated that, basically, a line is coming from the Elm Street tank which is located in the City of Ithaca, adding, the reason for doing that is that there is a 1.5 million gallon storage tank, and it receives very little turnover right now, and it is fed by gravity off clear wells in the City, so it would require no additional pumping. Mr. Whitney said that the first phase will go up Bostwick Road, serving the Ithaca City School Bus garage, the Tompkins County Highway Department, going up to the intersection of Seven Mile Drive, and proceeding along Seven Mile Drive. Mr. Whitney said that College View Mobile Home Park would be served, as well as the Town of Ithaca Highway Department. Mr. Whitney said that the system would then loop around to Elmira Road, then down Five Mile Drive, Mr. Whitney said that Phase II has been planned to come down Elmira Road, and out Enfield Falls Road. Mr. Whitney said that water only would be going for a short distance down to Turback's, Twin Pond Farm, and Eddydale Farm Stand, Mr. Whitney said that the Town would Planning Board -2- February 6, 1990 • complete their agreement with the City in Phase III, in that the service would come down Elmira Road and West Buttermilk Falls Road. Virginia Langhans Wondered why only water and not sewer /water was being served to Turback's. Mr. Whitney responded that the topo was a problem. Ms. Langhans asked if people would be required to hook up to the water /sewer within a certain number of years. Attorney Barney answered that it is ten years for the sewer, with no requirement for the water. Constance Cook, of 209 Coy stated that she was concerned abc area that do not have pressure, get pressure with the water /sewer would not really affect them very supply. Glen Road, spoke from the floor and >ut some of the areas in the Glenside and was worried that they would not improvements. Ms. Cook said that it much from the point of view of water Heinz Riederer, of 496 Five Mile Drive, addressed the Board and stated that he has a water pressure problem, especially in the second story of his home. Mr. Whitney offered that all three phases, which include the 1.5 million gallon storage tank, Troy Road replacement tank on South Hill, about 2,000 feet of additional watermain on West Hill, about 2,000 feet of additional sewermain on West Hill, Inlet Valley Phase I. Phase • II, and Phase III, which goes up Enfield Falls Road, is in the neighborhood of 3 million dollars. Mr. Whitney said that application was made to the State Comptrollers office on July 11, 1989, and the Town has not, as yet, 'heard anything. Mr. Whitney stated that the Town Board will be looking at a resolution to authorize Stearns and Wheler to proceed with the final engineering design of Phase I. Mr. Whitney offered that the cost is roughly $45.00 a foot for watermain, and $35.00 a foot for sewermain, adding, there are two pump stations included in this. Town Planner Susan Beeners stated that there is only one environmentally sensitive area in the project itself that would be affected directly, and that would require a DEC permit, adding, that is where the line would be going through the flood plain and adjacent to a DEC wetland. Ms. Beeners said that there are some restrictions as far as development and service in any of the flood plain or DEC wetland areas. Ms. Beeners noted that Mr. Eddy, of Eddydale Farm Stand, is farming most of the Brink property. Ms. Beeners said that there is a possibility that maybe in 1992, or earlier, someone could come in and want to develop the Brink property, adding, she would recommend to the Planning Board that they require an additional cluster development plan, along with a conventional plan. Ms. Beeners mentioned the Mancini property, in that there may be a request for rezoning. Ms. Beeners stated that the College View Mobile Home Park . proposes to add about 13 new units, when utilities are available on the northern part of the site, commenting, that has to go as a rezoning modification to the Town Board. Planning Board -3- February 6, 1990 • Ms. Beeners stated that the DOT has some plans, although they will not release them, related to the widening of Elmira Road to four lanes. George Frantz, Assistant Town Planner, offered that the widening would start at Five Mile Drive, north. Ms. Beeners suggested that a Master Plan for Inlet Valley be a priority item. Mr. Lesser, directing his comment to Ms. Beeners, wondered what steps one goes through to do a Master Plan of an area. Ms. Beeners responded that there is the environmental inventory which could lead to getting into a conservation overlay zoning as soon as possible, adding that it could be done independently of getting into the need for land use planning related to commercial development suitability or Light Industrial development suitability. Ms. Beeners said that land use and demographics have to be done on a Townwide basis. There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion. MOTION by Mrs. Virginia Langhans, seconded by Mr. James Baker: WHEREAS: 10 The Planning Board, on May 16, 1989, heard a report from the Town Engineer and Town Planner with respect to the proposed 1989 Water and Sewer Improvements project -- Inlet Valley. • 2. The Town Board, on January 8, 1990, requested that the Planning Board review the project and make recommendations on potential priority planning studies and other action items for the lands within the service area. 3. The Planning Board, on February 6, 1990, has heard a report from the Engineering and Planning Departments on the project and has discussed possible land use implications. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: 10 That the Planning Board recognizes the public health needs for the extension of water and sewer mains to serve properties with inadequate private systems. 2. That the Planning Board recognizes that there are potential growth- inducing aspects of the project on active agricultural lands and prime agricultural soils. 3. That the Planning Board also recognizes the planning implications of the possible widening of Route 13 /Elmira Road. 4. That the Planning future si; • plan for proposed request, Planning Board `.reports to the Town Board that the Board presently intends to request developers of all �bdivisions within the service area to provide an overall the subject parcel if less than the entire parcel is to be subdivided, and further, presently intends to in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations, that Planning Board -4- February 6, 1990 • clustered development alternative plats accompany any applications for conventional subdivision for lands then or recently in active agricultural use. 5. That the Planning Board directs the Town Engineer and Town Planner to request additional information on the proposed Route 13 /Elmira Road improvements planned by the N.Y.S. Department of Transportation. 6. That the Planning Board recommends the development of a land use master plan for the Inlet Valley area within the context of an overall Townwide master plan, and the development of appropriate mechanisms to protect and to regulate development in environmentally sensitive areas within and near the service area, including wetlands, floodplains, and steep slopes over 20 per cent in gradient. 7. That the Planning Board further recommends as a priority the development of appropriate mechanisms and incentives to conserve current agricultural lands within the service area. 80 That the Planning Board further recommends as a priority the development of an overall plan for the proper balance between residential and business /commercial uses in the Route 13 /Elmira Road corridor. Such plan shall include site plan review • guidelines to control the visual impact of new development along said Route 13 /Elmira Road corridor. 90 That, in considering any future rezoning application, the Planning Board will consider the then status of the overall comprehensive planning process in the Town and the impact of such rezoning application upon such process. At this point, Town Board member John Whitcomb stated that the City of Ithaca has some kind of a plan to connect Route 96 with Route 13 via a connecting road across the area being discussed. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz responded that as far as he knew there is a proposal in the West Hill Master Plan to connect Elm Street down to Floral Avenue, then cross the canal to Clinton Street, to Meadow Street. Mr. Frantz offered that another idea is to have it cross the canal very close to the City line on Floral Avenue, then connect to Elmira Road in the vicinity of Zikakis Chevrolet, which would be the southwest part. Mr. Kenerson stated that, presumably, it would take a north /south route. Mr. Whitcomb wondered about the engineer's estimated increase in the number of housing units in the area. Mr. Whitcomb noted that 2500 was mentioned, and Mr. Frantz had estimated 900 -1500 additional dwelling unit potential under the existing zoning. Mr. Whitcomb wondered if the estimated increase was related to the existing R -30 zoning or the R -15 zoning that normally accompanies water /sewer • entering an area. Mr. Frantz responded that it was, essentially, the capacity under the existing zoning; the 1.3 dwelling units per acre is the factor per R -30; it is what could happen under the existing • • Planning Board -5- February 6, 1990 zoning. Mr. Frantz said that he had excluded the already protected areas such as the wetlands and flood plains from those calculations. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if there was anything that could be done to address the water pressure problem on Coy Glen Road, Mr. Whitney answered that the Town could extend the main which comes down West Haven Road, and about 300 feet down Coy Glen Road, adding, to intersect the mains in the Elm Street pressure zone, it will have to be interfaced with a, pressure reducing valve, and that would adequately serve all houses on Coy Glen Road, Mr. Whitney said that the above is not currently included within the scope of the project. Mr. Whitney stated that the Town Board commissioned a study of West Hill last year as far as future water storage and distribution, adding, that was done by Lozier Engineers. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Lesser. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Grigorov proposed Inlet Valley Water p.m. OTHER BUSINESS: declared the matter of the review of the and Sewer Improvements duly closed at 9:15 Mr. Arel LeMaro, of Prodecon, addressed the Board and stated that he is before the Board with a revised submittal to his initial sketch plan that was presented to the Planning Board on November 21, 19890 Mr. Arel LeMaro referred to a letter addressed to Ms. Carolyn Grigorov, from Ellio R. LeMaro, dated February 6, 1990. [Letter and attachments attached hereto as Exhibit 1]. Board member William Lesser stated that, basically, Mr. LeMaro is proposing lots that are smaller than a lot of downtown lots. Assistant Town Planner offered that the minimum street frontage on a City lot is 50 feet. Mr. LeMaro said that there are a total of 287 cluster lots, and in a purely conventional plot there would be 220 lots. Mr. LeMaro noted that the density, according to cluster, provides for a maximum of 3.5 units per acre, and he is proposing three units per acre. Mr. LeMaro stated that the total acreage is ninety -five. Mr. LeMaro offered that the homes would be stick - built. Mr. LeMaro stated that his firm wants to build the homes between $501000.00- $851000.00 on the cluster, and between $901000.00- $120,000.00 on the conventional. Mr. LeMaro stated that time increases the cost of affordable housing; as time goes by, the cost increases. • Ms. Beeners indicated that one option for Prodecon would be for them to go back and look at the Ceracche plan, meet with staff and the Planning Board again to see whether that one could be used as a way to Planning Board -6- February 6, 1990 • equate the number of conventional units, then go with the 220 lots, if, indeed, the Ceracche plan is a good conventional model. Ms. Beeners said that if the LeMaros want to proceed with the two waivers - the right -of -way and also the distance between buildings, the absence of having any mandate made by the Planning Board or made by the Town Board to the Planning Board that there shall be affordable housing, then where arethe unnecessary or practical difficulties that have to be the grounds for a waiver? Ms. Beeners stated that a shorter process of the matter, as far as getting a resolution of this number of units, might be to go to the Town Board and ask for a Special Land Use District rezoning. Ms. Beeners, directing her comments to Mr. LeMaro, stated that Procedon has to figure out how they can deal and comply in all respects with what the cluster subdivision regulations require, or the firm can go to the Town Board and request a waiver of the right -of -way requirement, making sure that they have the ability to do such, given the provisions of State Town Law, and apply for some kind of a rezoning, adding, it could be a Special Land Use District if kept at the proposed size of lot. Ms. Beeners noted that, alternatively, as Mr. Frantz had suggested, if it were raised to an R 7 ,9 size lot with certain modifications and conditions placed on that, then maybe it could fit into R -9. Ms. Beeners stated that she' thought the matter has to go before the Town Board. At this point, Ms. Beeners reported that the Town Board is going to receive a Draft Development Review Fee Schedule, which is in the range of $50.00 - $100.00 per lot for an application and review fee charge, commenting, that would only cover public hearing and review time. Ms. Beeners said that there are also some fees set up for site plans. Ms. Beeners stated that there would be an escrow deposit made by the developer, adding, it is meant to create some incentive on the applicant's part to bring in things that do not need too much review. Mr. Lesser inquired about the applications for the Planning Board vacancy. Ms. Beeners responded that three applications have been received. Ms. Beeners said that the applicants would be interviewed individually in Executive Session on February 27, 1990, commencing at 6:30 p.m. Attorney Barney suggested having the applicants submit a written statement, which then would become part of the record, and made available to the public, as well as the other candidates. The Board agreed with Attorney Barney that the written statement could be put on a voluntary basis, and not a mandatory requirement. Ms. Beeners stated that the regular meeting marathon would start at 7:40 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 MOTION by William Lesser, seconded by Virginia Langhans: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of September 19, 1989, be and hereby are approved as written. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. V C7 Planning Board -7- Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Lesser. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 9, 1990 February 6, 1990 MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Baker: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of January 9, 1990, be and hereby are approved as presented. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Lesser. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Upon Motion, Chairperson Grigorov declared the February 6, 1990, meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:35 p.m. • Respectfully submitted, CJ Mary Bryant, Recording Secretary, Nancy Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 1! r� 1 • • C, PROJECT - DESIGN CONSTRUCTION - TECHNICAL AUDITING - CONSULTING SERVICES �" P.O. BOX 6435 ITI-IACA, NEW Yon 14851 -6435 • (607) 272 -0097 • (607) 273 -4333 February 6, 1990 „r Ms. Carolyn Grigorov Town Planning Board, Chai rperson Town of Ithaca 126 Fast Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 RE: Request Modification of Town Subdivision Regulations For Affordable Housing Project Dear Ms. Grigorov: Our project was conceived around the basic objective of bridging the affordability gap between household incomes and housing costs. We feel affordable home ownership, as evidenced by the recent elections, is a major issue for local government leaders. However, we have experienced a lack of support when trying to present solutions to this issue. Our proposed development *,'lis designed to provide first -time homebuyers in this community with` an efficient, good quality starter home. Our homes are aimed at young professionals and young families. This segment of the market is'as interested in owning a home as any previous generation. Affordable homeownership is a local problem in that young households find it increasingly difficult to stay in the community where they were raised because of escalating home prices. Our project will offer attractive detached single - family homes as a viable alternative to dense townhouse development. We have designed this project in an effort to provide homeownership to a critical and deserving part of our community that has indicated a strong preference for single - family detached housing over townhouse or multifamily housing. Current local zoning and subdivision regulations present formidable barriers to affordable detached housing development. These regulations and policies severely limit and therefore discourage development of affordable single - family' housing. They ,infact, offer no incentive to do affordale housing pr`;ojects. We feel these barriers have more political than technical: substance. In the interest of expediting the approval of our proposed development on the Ceracche proper.'ty we have revised the waivers requested in our Sketch Plan submittal elated November 10, 19890 The revised modifications have been' reduced from the original 10 items to include only 2 items. These two modifications to the current Town Subdivision Regulations are critical and necessary to develop an affordably priced detached single - family project. We respectfully request that the Planning Board considers granting the following modifications to the Subdivision Regulations: 1, Reduction of the minimum 60' right -of -way width (Article IV, Section 23.10) tc� 40' for minor_ roads and 34' for cul-de -saes. The proposed NorthySouth connector. road through the property will have a 60' ROW. EXHIBIT 1 • • • PROJECT - DESIGN CONSTMUCTION - TECHNICAL AUDITING - CONSULTING SERVICE` P.O. BOX 6435 • jlT11ACI\0 NEIw YO [`;F: (/1851 6435 (607) 272 -0097 • (607) 273 -433: February 6, 1990 Ms. Carolyn Grigorov Town Planning Board, Chairperson Page Two The current 60 foot right-of-way width requirement for cul-de-sac and minor streets is much wider than necessary for the expected traffic, and out -'of -scale for a clustered small lot subdivision. This requirements' reflects a past era of lower land values. Wide rights -of -way occupy land which could be used for housing or as open space. The reduction in ROW widths provides significant benefits to the Tgwn because additional land is put on the tax rolls, and also 'it decreases the amount of land for which it has responsibility of :maintenance. The homeowner gains by having more usable lamd and lower home costs. A narrower ROW in the cul-de -sacs and minor streets will create a more pleasant and proportionate streetscape for the project and will significantly reduce road development and utility installation costs. A viable, less costly alternate to accommodating other uses other than roads (e.g.,! placement of utilities) in the ROW would be by using utility easements. An easement would allow placement of lines in the shortest available path, decreasing the overall length of the line; and reducing costs. Haneowners would maintain and use the easement areas, saving the Town money and adding land for the homeowners' enjoyment. .Also, the easement land is taxable. Legal ;rights to the easement land would be assigned to the Town, utilityq� companies, and homeowners. 2. Reduction of the 30' distance separation between structures (Article V, Section 32.6) to 8' minimum between adjacent residential units.: Separations would vary based on configuration of units from an 8' to 16'. There are precedents for reduced spacing between uriits in Ithac -a, e.g., Eastwood Canmons, Downtown Ithaca, Chase Pond. Clustering the .&mes as proposed will reduce environmetal disturbance caused by clearing and grading, and will save on the infrastructure needed to service the units. Our proposed clustered plan allows for greater amounts of common open space and the preservati "on of attractive features of the site, e.g,,, trees, natural drainage systems. The biggest savings will be the lower land and infrastructure improvement costs per unit due to the higher net density achieved by clustering. Our plan would make efficient us4 of community services such as roads, and water and sewer systems. There would not be any wasted capacity costs typical of traditional housing developments. In addition, the clustered cul-de -sac arrangement will increase the sense of ccimnunity among residents within each cluster. Our project will require modification of this regulation in order to proceed with ,the cluster design concept. We have designed six model units specifically for siting on the 36' x 100' lots. To go EXHIBIT 1 .7 C • PROJECT - DESIGN CONSTRUCTION - TECHNICAL AUDITING - CONSULTING SERVICES P.O. BOX 6435 '(THACA, NEW YORK 14851 -6435 (607) 272 -0097 • (607) 273 -433; 4 February 6, 1990 Ms, Carolyn Grigorov Town Planning Board, Page Two Chairperson back and redesigry 'six new units to comply with the 30 feet separation requirement will require an additional 10 weeks at a cost of about $70,000. Also, increasing the spacing between units will diminish the total number of units for the project, and therefore increase the per unit land and improvement costs. Affordability given the conventional circumstances is only feasible by increasing densities. We feel our only other alternative to maintaining affordability would be to design townhouses. This would entirely change the concept we want !ft o create for this site and might not be cm patible with the charater of the surrounding neighborhoods. We respectully request ,that the Planning Board consider the above request for modification to Subdivision Regulations. As it is, the existing regulations impose a significant hardship to the development of affordably priced units and will ultimately drive the unit costs outside the affordability range. Sincerely Ellio R. LeMaro Project Manager al /mel Enca r i t 1 '4 f w: 1 i' u, EXHIBIT 1 s;, _r .I 1. C • Y. h . d'. f J� i W 20� :�..� - - � 111111111111111 O s l — 4:�,7 w 20� ion u lgGO ��- E cTv ►� PzOAV .. ° ,���� ►2ow n� �o .a. T� i } w. 4� EXHIBIT 1 AV f _.F- Lu� E._.Xf I;T °A�ON rA I • [7 36' x 100' ]1715 w / REAR PARKI% SPACE i\.1 is i its J4 r EXHIBIT 1 parking lane parking space large rear yard 8' minimmi building separation 15' front yard 34' road right- of-way iirciil..--MFjAl / o / , moppit" 311 MAR Moll WAS r. op iii r�.11 I�r :IF���� ��� ■ii'I �C�I ,. ,,. ii A �.,. is 0 JIM • C J :F 36' ; x 1.00' IDN w /. OFF -,,MF C PARKING i EXHIBIT 1 large rear yard 8' minimum building separation 20' front yard 34' road right -of -way off- street parking space