No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2001-06-05FILE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD DATE TUESDAY, JUNE 57 2001 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, June 5, 2001, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner. EXCUSED: Larry Thayer, Board Member; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering. ALSO PRESENT: Will Burbank, 132 Glenside Road; Richard Baker, 383 Bostwick Road; John M. Murray, 95 Brown Road; Robert Rowe, 1010 Ellis Hollow Road; Jessica Neltz, Ithaca Times; Robert & Tahlya Champion, 94 Abbott Lane; Sara Kabakov, 94 Abbott Lane; Janis Graham, Coddington Road Community Center; Anne Morrisette, Coddington Road Community Center; Bill Goodman, Buffalo NY; David Draheim, 100 West Buffalo St; Bill Seldin, 120 Northview Rd; Lauren Bishop, Ithaca Journal; Martha Armstrong, 766 Elm St Ext; Greg Pitts, 227 S Geneva St #1; Tendei Chitewere, Binghamton NY; Janet Konikow, 108 Rachel Carson Way; Liz Walker, 115 Rachel Carson Way; Sally Wessels, 770 Elm St Ext; James Bosjolic, 207 Linn St; Elisabeth Harrod, 2 Candlewick Park; Lois Levitan, 766 Elm St Ext; Catherine Johnson, 766 Elm St Ext, Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:34 p.m., and accepted for the record the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on May 15, 2001 & May 30, 2001, and May 21, 2001 & May 30, 2001, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on May 21, 2001 & May 30, 2001. (Affidavit of Posting and Publication is hereto attached as Exhibit #1.) Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:34 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:35 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Modification of Condition "2.b" of the Planning Board's Resolution of Site Plan Approval granted December 7, 1999, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47.- 1 -11.3, Residence District R -30. Said condition required that the temporary modular office trailer on the site be removed on or before June 30, 2000. The applicant is requesting the condition be extended to June 5, 2002. Coddington Road Community Center, Owner; Anne Morrissette, Director, Agent. APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JULY 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED AnnE Morrissette, Director of Coddington Road Community Center - My office is the modular trailer in question. It has worked out great. Unfortunately, the timeline for our construction is still in question. We are asking to be able to use the office until our expansion is complete. We expect to hear within the next month regarding a large grant. The grant would anchor the expansion project. Janice Graham, 1150 Ellis Hollow Road - I am the President of the Board of Directors of the Coddington Road Community Center. State Senator James Seward visited our site last fall. He called me in January. He feels we have an excellent of getting the grant. We think we have a good chance of getting the grant. The Snow Foundation would like to pay for the handicap access upgrades. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing At 7:36 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -41- Coddington Road Community Center, Modification of Condition, 920 Coddington Road, Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -11.3. MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration Resolution of Site Plan Approv 47 -1 -11.3, Residence District trailer on the site be removed condition be extended to June Morrissette, Director, Agent. of Modification of Cc al, granted December R -30. Said condition on or before June 30, 5, 2002. Coddington )ndition "2b" of the Planning Board's 71 1999, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. required the temporary modular office 2000. The applicant is requesting the Road Community Center, Owner; Anne 2. The Planning Board, on December 7, 1999, acting as lead agency in environmental review made a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to Site Plan Approval for this project. 3. The Planning Board, in granting Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the Coddington Road Community Center on December 7, 1999, imposed certain conditions of approval, including condition "2b, " which will need to be met prior to the issuance of a building permit. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Modification of Condition of Approval for the proposed temporary office trailer at the Coddington Road Community Center, 920 Coddington Road, subject to the following condition: a. That the temporary modular office trailer on the site be removed on or before June 5, 2002. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: PAGE 2 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -JULY 17, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination, M & T Bank ATM Light, 325 Pine Tree Road. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:38 p.m. John Murray, 95 Brown Road - We presented an application for the Town's consideration and approval. This is the on -going saga of the complaints that were received from the public and the input from the board as it relates to M &T complying with banking law regulations. M &T have installed a top mount light fixture that floods onto the parking lot. It allows them to keep the foot - candle rating required by State law. The owners have received input from numerous individuals. They sought the help of Richardson Brothers, qualified electrician. Richardson Brothers worked with Rudd Engineering and Lighting on the alternative of placing a pole into the parking lot. We originally tried to add onto the existing pole system. The distance was too great. The goal is to revert the glare factor and light from the parking lot side into the Plaza to offset some of the complaints. Board Member Hoffmann - I have a problem with glare as seen from the businesses in the main Plaza building. Mr. Murray - It is a consideration. We have to determine the lesser of how many evils. There is no way to eliminate the glare completely. The underside of the canopy has plenty of illumination with what is in the box lighting. The approved parking lot lighting was never an issue until this law was passed. I do not know if there is a solution. Board Member Hoffmann - The board just gave permanent approval for outdoor seating at the East Side Restaurant. There are two more restaurants where there is seating indoors. The lights would come on early enough in the winter while the restaurants are open. Mr. Murray - There is a setback from the sidewalk. We are trying to keep the pole up high enough so that the restaurants would not be effected. The pole is over 30 feet height. I hope that the angle will offset the impact. Board Member Hoffmann - It would be nice to know that for a fact before we approve the application. The fixtures are angled. It is not pointing directly at the ATM. It is pointing to the east. Mr. Murray - The ATM is located in the middle of the fixtures. They were trying to get an aesthetic balance so that the lights were in the same aisle as the parking lot. Board Member Hoffmann - Could the fixture be turned more towards the ATM so that no as much light spills towards the restaurant? PAGE 3 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JULY 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Murray - The owner wanted to keep the aesthetics the same to match the balance of the light fixture and eliminate the glare. We are trying to keep the bank within the laws and satisfy the concerns of the board and public. Board Member Hoffmann - I do not know if this will be a problem. I am anticipating that this might be a problem. Mr. Murray - I appreciate the concern, but we do not know of an alternative. Board Member Hoffmann - Did the persons preparing the plan know the uses in the area? Mr. Murray - The engineers come to the site. The fixture can be flexible in the drop range of the head. M & T might have the ability to adjust the angle. Board Member Hoffmann - The restaurants are further away so that the angle is different. They are more likely to see the light. I am happy to see an attempt to try to correct the glare, but I do not think this is the best way to do it. Mr. Murray - The concern was brought to our attention during the Burger King application. We took the concerns back to Cornell and the Real Estate Department. It is a catch 22 because if we do not help M & T comply with the law then we become liable as well. All banking institutions had to do an immediate compliance. The Real Estate Department gave me direction to come up with an alternative. Board Member Mitrano - It is a legitimate concern. The board might want to take a wait and see attitude. I am sure if there are problems Mr. Murray will be notified. Board Member Hoffmann - Were the tenants notified of the application? Mr. Murray - We tend not to do that until the Planning Board is satisfied with the application. Board Member Mitrano - It is advertised in the newspaper. Mr. Murray - Our only choices are to leave the old light up or propose an alternative to the Town. I will take the alternative, if approved, to the tenants. Board Member Mitrano - The problem is that it is speculative. . We do not know until the light is mounted. The best efforts have been put forth. Board Member Talty - What is the current wattage of the light that is offensive to persons across the street? Mr. Murray - The light is at least 2- 1,000. Board Member Talty - What is the wattage of the proposed light versus what is currently on site? PAGE 4 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -JULY 17, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Mr. Murray - The proposed is more because the light is farther away. We need to keep the candlepower to a minimum and not be as offensive. Board Member Talty - What is the candle light power of the current parking lot light? Mr. Murray - It is 4- 400's. They are shoebox fixtures. M & T have been cited for not meeting the correct wattage. Chairperson Wilcox - The light is shining more downwards than the current light. Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 42 - SEOR, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval, M &T Bank ATM Light, 325 Pine Tree Road, East Hill Plaza. MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed installation of a new light pole system for the M &T Bank Automatic Teller Machine (ATM), consisting of two 1,000 watt cutoff floodlights mounted on a 30 +/- foot pole to be located in parking area in front of the bank, and which will replace the existing facade light, located at East Hill Plaza, 325 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 62 -2- 1.121, Business District "C," Cornell University Real Estate Department, Owner /Applicant, S.B. Ashley Management Corporation, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on June 5, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part lI prepared by Planning staff, a site drawing entitled, "East Hill Plaza M &T Bank Proposed ATM Lighting" date received 4125101, and additional application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff have recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed. Therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. PAGE 5 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -JULY 17, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe. NAYS: Hoffmann. ASTAIN: Talty. The motion was declared to be carried. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed installation of a new light pole system for the M &T Bank ATM at East Hill Plaza, 325 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62. -2- 1.121, Business District "C ". The proposal includes removing the existing fagade light and replacing it with two lights mounted on a 30 ± foot pole located in the parking area. Cornell University Real Estate Department, Owner /Applicant; S.B. Ashley Management Corporation, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. Attorney Barney - My office represents Richardson Brothers. Chairperson Wilcox - I do want to thank S.B. Ashley Management, Cornell University Real Estate and M &T to resolve this problem. There is no perfect solution. We are caught between a rock and a hard place, but I do think this is a better situation. Board Member Hoffmann - I am voting against the project because I do not think this is a good enough attempt to resolve the situation. This is going to be a problem for different people. RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 43 = Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval, M &T Bank ATM Light, 325 Pine Tree Road, East Hill Plaza. MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS: 1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed installation of a new light pole system for the M &T Bank Automatic Teller Machine (ATM), consisting of two 1,000 watt cutoff floodlights mounted on a 30 +/- foot pole to be located in parking area in front of the bank, and which will replace the existing fagade light, located at East Hill Plaza, 325 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.121, Business District "C," Cornell University Real Estate Department, Owner /Applicant, S.B. Ashley Management Corporation, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on June 5, 2001, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as PAGE 6 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JULY 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, prepared by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, on June 5, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part 11 prepared by Planning staff, a site drawing entitled, "East Hill Plaza M &T Bank Proposed ATM Lighting" date received 4125101, and additional application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and s. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the new light pole and lighting system as proposed for the M &T Bank ATM at East Hill Plaza subject to the following condition: a. obtaining of a height variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe. NAYS: Hoffmann. ABSTAIN: Talty. The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: SEQR, Determination, Burger King, 1010 Ellis Hollow Road. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Bill Seldin, 120 Northview Road - These changes are to fine -tune the site. The island next to the drive - through was drawn on the original site plan because the Burger King Corporation had the island on all of their plans. It does not add or subtract from the traffic flow. Mr. Rowe does not want to include the island on the site. It makes snow plowing difficult. The concrete slab in the original site plan housed plantings that would be imbedded in the concrete. The problem with that is if we go ahead and sink holes in the concrete, it is going to cause the concrete and blacktop to heave. Plan Number 2 is to put in six planters and two long landscape boxes. Experience has dictated the people choose to cut across one of the island. People drive across the island to get to another lane of traffic. Mr. Rowe put up three boulders to stop the traffic from cutting PAGE 7 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JULY 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED across. Mr. Rowe would like to add plantings to this area that are depicted in the revised site plan. It is an aesthetic improvement and practical solution to the cut - through problem. The proposed revisions are of a positive nature. Board Member Mitrano - I am happy with these proposals. The board has had a number of applicants who have not come back before the board with modifications. Board Member Hoffmann - I like the idea of removing the island. It does not serve any purpose. I am concerned about the area south of the restaurant. The planters on the concrete pad are very close to the handicap ramp. The planters on the drawing are coming very close to the walkway. Bob Rowe, Rowe Restaurants - The planters will be to the west of the handicap ramp. Board Member Hoffmann - It looks very tight on the drawing. The distance between the southern most rectangular planter and the closest circular planter is no more than four feet. Is it enough space? Mr. Rowe - Yes. The sidewalk is along the edge of the concrete. We can move the planter's back if they are too close to the sidewalk. Chairperson Wilcox - Would it be an issue if the planters were moved six inches to make for better access? Attorney Barney - No. It would not be an issue. Board Member Hoffmann - It looks as if these plantings will take less space on the concrete area than the earlier proposed plantings. Are you proposing to increase the number of tables and seats? Mr. Rowe - No. Board Member Hoffmann - I was concerned about the three Rhododendrons that are planted on the other side of driveway towards the gas station. They do not look very healthy. Mr. Rowe - The Rhododendrons will be replaced. The site will be refreshed with plants. Board Member Hoffmann - The plants might need different growing conditions. I do not see any problems with the changes. Chairperson Wilcox - I was at the site today. I voted against the original approval. I am very pleased with the site. This board did a good job. Mr. Rowe did a good job by agreeing to some of the conditions. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:10 p.m. RESOLUTION i East Hill Plaza. 2001 -44 - Modifica 1010 W PAGE 8 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -JULY 17, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED- APPROVED MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Kevin Talty. WHEREAS. 1. This action is the consideration of Site Plan Modification to a previously approved site plan for Burger King located in the East Hill Plaza, 1010 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62- 2- 1.122, Business District "C." The proposed modifications include not installing the landscaped peninsula at the north end of the building but moving the landscaping to the adjacent planting bed, placing additional plantings on a raised planting bed along the drive - thru, and placing planters along the outdoor seating area on the south side of the building. Cornell University, Owner, Robert Rowe, Rowe Restaurant Management, Inc., Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Modification Approval, and 4. The Planning Board, on June 5, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part ll prepared by Planning staff, a site plan entitled, 101B-Modified Landscape Plan, Rowe Restaurants, Inc.," dated May 1, 2001, and prepared by T. G. Miller P.C., and additional application materials, and 5. The Town Planning staff have recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Modifications. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed. Therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Site Plan Modifications to a previously approved site plan for Burger King located at 1010 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62. -2 -1.22, Business District "C ". The proposed modifications include not installing the landscaped peninsula at the north end of the building and moving the landscaping to the adjacent planting bed, placing additional plantings on a raised planting bed along the drive thru, and place planters along the outdoor seating area on the south side of the building. Cornell University, Owner; Robert W. Rowe, Rowe Restaurant Management, Inc., Applicant/Agent. PAGE 9 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JULY 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 45 - Burger King, Site Plan Modification, 1010 Ellis Hollow Rd. /East Hill Plaza, Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.122. MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Eva Hoffmann. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Site Plan Modification to a previously approved site plan for Burger King located in the East Hill Plaza, 1010 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.122, Business District "C." The proposed modifications include not installing the landscaped peninsula at the north end of the building but moving the landscaping to the adjacent planting bed, placing additional plantings on a raised planting bed along the drive - thru, and placing planters along the outdoor seating area on the south side of the building. Cornell University, Owner; Robert Rowe, Rowe Restaurant Management, Inc., Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on June 5, 2001, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, prepared by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on June 5, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a site plan entitled "L01B- Modified Landscape Plan, Rowe Restaurants, Inc.," dated May 1, 2001, and prepared by T. G. Miller P. C., and additional application materials. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Modification Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Site Plan Modification Approval for the proposed Burger King landscaping changes as shown on the submitted site plan entitled 101 -B- Modified Landscape Plan, Rowe Restaurants, Inc., "subject to the following condition: a. Submission of an original or mylar copy of the landscaping plan (LO 1 -B) to the Town of Ithaca, and installation of the approved landscaping modifications prior to issuance of a permanent Certificate of Occupancy. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: PAGE 10 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JULY 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of public comments regarding EcoVillage at Ithaca Draft Environmental Impact Statement, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, Part 617, for the proposed Special Land Use District (SLUD) amendment to be applied to the overall EcoVillage property, and the proposed development of a Second Neighborhood Group consisting of 30 ± dwelling units and a common house, located off of Mecklenburg Road at Rachel Carson Way (a private drive), on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28. -1 -26.2 and 28.-1- 26.8, consisting of a total of 176 ± acres. EcoVillage at Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Rod Lambert, Agent. The public hearing will concurrently consider preliminary site plan approval, a recommendation to the Town Board regarding the proposed amendment to the SLUD, and possibly subdivision approval. Chairperson Wilcox - The purpose of tonight is for the Planning Board to consider comments from the public regarding the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Special Land Use District amendment to be applied to the overall EcoVillage property and Second Neighborhood Group. As recommended in the SEOR regulations, the public hearings will concurrently consider Preliminary Site Plan approval, a recommendation to the Town Board regarding the proposed amendment to the SLUD and possible subdivision approval. Attorney Barney - The discussion of subdivision is premature. We discussed it with EcoVillage today and they are in the process of putting together something that will come before the board fairly rapidly. They can show the board the idea. It is a technical issue that needs to occur to enable the process to go forward with those considerations. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. Marie Harkins submitted a letter to the board. See Attachment #1. Bill Goodman, Buffalo NY - I am a member of the Second Neighborhood Group. I have been a member since last August. I am also an attorney and serve on the legal committee of SONG. I met this afternoon with Attorney Barney and Mr. Kanter. I would like to thank them for their time. I decided to move to the Ithaca area. I was excited about joining the SONG. I was impressed with First Residence Group. What I wanted to do was very sympathetic with the goals and visions that they had at EcoVillage. I will be moving from Buffalo once the project is constructed. We are planning to do some amending of the SLUD language. There are some proposed changes to the existing SLUD. We talked about additional changes this afternoon. We will add more detail about setbacks and lot coverage within the residential areas. Sally Wessels, 770 Elm Street Ext - I am one of the founding members of the Longhouse Cooperative. I have lived there since 1975. 1 am very aware that development of the land behind where I live is inevitable. I am familiar with the co- housing movement and house cooperatives. I was glad to learn that a housing cooperative was going to be built in the area. I have always been PAGE 11 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JULY 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED sympathetic towards EcoVillage's activity. I do remember when the land was a cornfield. We never wandered back to the area. It has become a very pleasant place for us to visit since EcoVillage has moved to the area. EcoVillage are very friendly. We visit with them. The new neighborhood will be closer to where I live, but it is the least of evils. It will be a nice addition to the hill. One of the other options would have been a development with separated lots. I welcome EcoVillage. I officially represent my husband and unofficially some of the residents at Long House. Martha Armstrong, 766 Elm Street Ext, submitted and read prepared materials to the board. See Attachment #2 & #36 Robert Champion, 94 Abbott Lane - My family and I left our community and family in Northern California to move to EcoVillage. We thought that moving to EcoVillage was a great choice for our family. We are happy that it exists. I am very happy with the SONG site. I know what went into the decision process. We are looking forward to living at EcoVillage. Greg Pitts, 227 S Geneva St #1 - We recently moved to Ithaca for EcoVill with what we have seen and the kind of process that has happened. community. We work hard to include all opinions and thoughts. There designers involved in the process. It has made it better, not worse. We will neighbor's consideration. I want to make sure we address those concerns. forward. Mr. Pitts submitted a letter to the board. See Attachment # 49 Chairperson Wilcox - Should we close or adjourn the public hearing? Attorney Barney - We need to adjourn the public hearing. 1. age. We are very happy It is a consensus -based have been a number of give the comments of our I want to see the plan go Chairperson Wilcox - I was going to close the public hearing for comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement and adjourn the public hearing for site plan and recommendation to the Town Board, Mr. Kanter - Some of the issues dealing with the modifications of the SLUD relate to the subdivision. Others relate more to specific details of how neighborhoods would be developed. Some of them might relate to environmental issues. We have a good idea of where SONG will be located. The Environmental Impact .Statement is also dealing with the proposed SLUD. We do not have details on how the SLUD will be modified at this point. We need to decide if we should actually close the public hearing on the Environmental Impact Statement at this point. Attorney Barney - The public hearing should be suspended or adjourned until the Town receives a revised SLUD and we have had a chance to look at.it. Chairperson Wilcox - It will also move the ten -day period for public comment. Chairperson Wilcox adjourned the public hearing at 9:11 p.m. until the first meeting after the necessary and appropriate materials relating to the revised SLUD language which will deal with implications of the potential subdivision have been received by the Town. PAGE 12 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JULY 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED The board now has the opportunity to provide comments to the applicant so when they begin preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement they have both public and board comments. I am concerned about fire protection. I am sensitive because of what happened to FROG. The Fire Department will have to review the site plan for access. There needs to be more than one access to SONG. We need to determine if there is sufficient water in the ponds and sufficient pressure available from the facilities. I am concerned about the water pressure and capacity. It is noted in the Environmental Impact Statement that FROG and SONG are anticipated to use 80% of the current capacity of the existing pumping station. It bothers me given the observed low water usage of FROG. I do not want red roofs. There is a picture on page 37 of the Environmental Impact Statement, which shows what the proposed SONG site would look like from a point of view of Coy Glen. It is very apparent that the red roofs might be a problem today, but would certainly be a problem given the location and height of the building. I strongly recommend the EcoVillage look at dark greens, browns and other less attractive colors. There is a comment on page 45 regarding the Planning Board approving the SLUD. It is the Town Board's responsibility to approve the SLUD. Board Member Hoffmann - I agree with Chairperson Wilcox's concerns. I am concerned about the Coy Glen area. The Town has worked for a long time protecting the area. It is an area that needs to be protected. The Conservation Board has worked for years on conserving the area. Board Member Conneman - The applicant needs to address the environmental concerns raised by Ms. Armstrong.. Her.concerns have been written down clearly. They should be addressed. Board Member Mitrano - I share all the general questions. I need to revisit the site. I would be curious to the response of the applicant to Ms. Armstrong's concerns. I need an understanding about the development of this particular choice that the applicant brings forth in light of the presentation by Ms. Armstrong. Board Member Howe - I am concerned about Coy Glen. I would also like to hear more discussion regarding the alternatives. I would find it useful to visit the site as a group. Chairperson Wilcox - I visited the site earlier this week. It would be nice to visit the site in a group. Board Member Mitrano - I would like to make the time for a group visit. Board Member Talty - I would like to compliment Ms. Armstrong on her presentation. It was highly professional. It outlined a great deal of information. I strongly suggest that the applicant look over the alternatives that were presented this evening. Board Member Mitrano - Would we invite the applicant to join us on our site visit? Mr. Kanter - We usually ask the applicant to join us along with any other interested parties. PAGE 13 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JULY 17,.2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox - There is another point of view that if more than four of us get together on official business that it would be a meeting of this board. Therefore it becomes a public meeting. It should be advertised that potentially four or more board members are going on a site visit. The public would be welcome to observe what the board does. Attorney Barney - The Town usually takes the conservative approach that if there is a quorum present that we advertise it as a meeting. It is a gray area of law. Mr. Kanter - A site visit would be an excellent idea. Chairperson Wilcox - Are there concerns that have not been brought up that should be addressed in the final Environmental Impact Statement? Mr. Kanter - I do not think that there are any issues that have not been raised one way or another. Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge and Wolf - I have heard the board request a thorough response to Ms. Armstrong's presentation. Is it something that might happen as a presentation by EcoVillage at the next Planning Board meeting or does it have to happen as part of the Final Environmental Impact Statement? Mr. Kanter - It would be more appropriate to address it in the Final Environmental Impact Statement first. Then the board could discuss the response. We do not want to get into back and forth responses. SEQR prefers to see responses addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Then there can be further discussion. Board Member Mitrano - The applicant comes before the board with a plan. Other persons come before the board well- informed and sincerely intentioned with reasonable alternatives. The board is only voting on the plan presented by the applicant. We cannot vote for a plan that is presented by someone else. Does the applicant make the modification? Attorney Barney - The board can determine that the alternate plan is a reasonable alternate to consider. The determination in the findings can be that the board prefers the alternate. The ultimate vote is on the plan presented by the applicant. It is up to the applicant to choose the alternative plan. The board does not have to vote in favor of the plan presented by the applicant if the alternative is clearly a better plan. The applicant does not have to move forward. Mr. Kanter - The board needs to consider if there is a significant impact from the applicant's proposal. If not the alternatives, although they are required to be evaluated, they are not required to be considered in lieu of the proposal. There are two proposals. One is SONG, a site - specific proposal. The other is amendments to the SLUD. They need to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement for the board to make decisions. The first question is if the proposed location and design of SONG going to have significant environmental impacts. If the answer is no, then it is the board's finding. The board could determine there is a significant impact. Then that is where the board has to look seriously at the alternatives. There needs to be a good discussion of the alternatives to help the board to make the decision. PAGE 14 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JULY 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Mitrano - The applicant does not have an obligation to use the alternatives or research the alternatives. They can still put forward their proposal. The board could decide that because the applicant did not respond that it is not enough to satisfy the board. Chairperson Wilcox - The applicant has a responsibility to respond. Attorney Barney - Technically, the board has to respond under SEQR. Mr. Kanter - We are requesting that the applicant prepare the draft FEIS. It is up to the board to determine if it is adequate. We need to give direction to the applicant as to which comments were substantive. The applicant should not be making subjective conclusive statements. The board can take similar comments and combine them to have one response. Rod Lambert, EcoVillage - I believe a lot of what was discussed during Ms. Armstrong's presentation was answered in the GEIS. It would be more manageable to answer the questions of the board. Mr. Kanter - The applicant should go through the comments made to make sure that all comments are clearly addressed. Attorney Barney - The response should be that this concern is addressed in the Environmental Impact. Statement on a specific page. Mr. Lambert - It seems as if we are going over the same materials several times. The original presentation was declared adequate on a lot of these points. Attorney Barney - It was determined adequate for the purpose of review adequate in the sense of conclusions in the process of review. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES = MAY 15, 2001 RESOLUTION NO. 2001 46 - Approval of Minutes: MaV 15, 2001. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Eva Hoffmann. It is not necessarily RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the May official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as corrections. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty. NA YS: NONE. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. 15, 2001 as the presented with PAGE 15 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JULY 172 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED OTHER BUSINESS: Board Member Conneman - I hope that this board is never as arrogant and insensitive as the Representatives was during their Reapportionment public hearing. They to anyone. They were arrogant and insensitive to the public. They did of the issues raised. The board voted to preserve their districts so that The Town is now party to a lawsuit against the .Town. Tompkins County Board of had no intention of listening not address or discuss any they could all be re- elected. Board Member Hoffmann - I am concerned about the boardroom set up. Do we need to pass a resolution so that the Town Board will look at the issue? Board Member Talty - The applicant could use the overhead to present their maps. It would allow the public to view the maps. No one is comfortable. Board Member Conneman - We could get a portable microphone. The board further discussed possible solutions and passed the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 2001 =47 = Request for Alternative Board Room Set Up. MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Eva Hoffmann. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board respectfully requests that the Town Board investigate the use of some alternative means to permit presentations to be made with such means to include possibly a portable microphone and provision of overhead projection facilities. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT. Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the June 5, 2001 meeting of Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:51 p.m. Respectfully s�ju� mit d: r ee�Nt'i5tmbre, Deputy Town Clerk/Deputy Receiver of Taxes PAGE 16 D FITLO Marie Harkins and Bill King 130 West Haven Rd. Ithaca, NY 14850 607- 272 -9077 June 4, 2001 Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning Town of Ithaca Dear Mr. Kanter, We would like to express our support of the proposed second neighborhood at EcoVillage. The residents of EcoVillage have been conscientious about the effects of their development and have tried to minimize their impact on the surrounding environment. They have been wonderful neighbors and have been willing to allow others to enjoy the scenic beauty of their land. Their commitment to energy efficiency and minimal land use for building are concepts that should be supported by this community as an alternative to the urban sprawl that is usually proposed. As residents of West Haven Road, we welcome the addition of the second neighborhood at EcoVillage. --y r Marie Harkins PillKmg ATTACHMENT # 1 June 5, 2001 Levitan /Armstrong 766 Elm Street Ext. Ithaca., NY 14850 Dear Members of the Planning Board: We are neighbors of the Eco- Village property, residing at 766 Elm Street Extension. While our home is part of Longhouse Cooperative, we submit these comments as individuals, not as representatives of the Cooperative. As neighbors we are personally affected by the proposed development, especially the proposed site for the Second Neighborhood (SoNG). The cluster of thirty residences on this site would be both visible and audible from our home and areas around our house. While we do not intend to elaborate much further on these personal impacts, we do mention them because they are given short shrift in the dGEIS, which indicates that there is no impact on the Longhouse property except from the back field. This is not accurate. The accustomed quiet and rural nature of our home would be irrevocably altered by building the SoNG development on the proposed site. However, beyond stating this, we want to focus on impacts on the environment and the broader community. We are likely more aware and sensitive to these impacts because we are familiar with the site, but the impacts are in fact as significant for the community as a whole, now and for future generations. Thus, as planning professionals and as Town of Ithaca citizens, we feel it is our responsibility to provide comment on this proposed development.' Our key concerns are: • Impact on the Coy Glen Critical Environmental Area • Fragmentation of open space • Emergency access and safety • Impact on the public services including extension of public sewer and the potential extension of public water. • The lack of reasonable alternatives in the dGEIS —as required by SEQR The attached plans and detailed comments provide a more in -depth analysis of these and other points of concern. ' Martha Armstrong is a registered architect and certified planner, and Lois Levitan is an environmental planner with a Ph.D. in Natural Resource Policy, Planning and Management. Comments of Martha Armstrong and Lois L.evitan on the Eco - Village dGE1S at the June 5, 2001 public Hearing Page 1 ATTACHMENT #2 We ask that you visit the site to more fully understand why we are concerned about the proposed development and particularly about potential impacts of the proposed SoNG site on open space and the Coy Glen Critical Environmental Area. A site visit would also provide a better appreciation of the road maintenance issues and the distance of the development ffom existing infrastructure. We also invite you to contact us if you would like a tour from a neighboring perspective. Finally, we want to make it clear that our concerns are with the siting of the development and not with the concept nor the people involved. Sincerely yours, Martha Armstrong, RA, AICP Lois Levitan, Ph.D. Comments of Martha Armstrong and Lois Levitan on the Eco- Village dGEIS at the June 5, 2001 public Hearing Page 2 Comments on the Eco- Village dGEIS 1. Personal concerns about the proposed SoNG site • The proposed SoNG site significantly impacts our house and the Longhouse 10 -acre natural area. Fills the view from the north side of our home (upstairs windows) Significantly impacts the Longhouse natural area (10 acres) and the other 25 +/- acres of the meadow owned by Eco - Village — this area would no longer be an open space retreat Lights of thirty households cause light pollution in the one remaining dark meadow left in the area that includes both Longhouse and Eco- Village property and that is adjacent to the section of Coy Glen owned by Cornell Natural Areas. => Noise from FRoG pond is very noticeable in the summer since it is a gathering place of 30 households. The noise level would increase significantly with 60 to 150 units using the pond. This level of congregation is more like a country club than residential neighborhood. Similarly, noise from large gatherings at the FRoG Common House is an occasional impact. Presumably the SoNG Common House would also occasionally generate this level of noise. 2. Environmental Planning Concerns — especially about the proposed SoNG site • Impacts on the Coy Glen Unique Natural Area (UNA) => While the proposed SoNG site is not on fragile land, it: (1) Significantly increases the number of households very near to the UNA, which is the only state certified Critical Environmental Area in Tompkins County (2) Is at the highest point of a crest so it is visible from the UNA and from conserved land that borders Coy Glen (the proposed SoNG site rises about 20 feet above FROG) => The proposed site has these impacts (1) Lights (2) Noise (3) Increased foot traffic into the UNA (a) The presence of FRoG has increased foot traffic in the paths bordering Coy Glen -- evidenced by erosion on the trail into.the UNA and within the UNA (as reported by naturalists and others who have visited the area.) The proposed SoNG site is even closer to Coy Glen and it could be presumed that foot traffic into the UNA would be at least doubled. Concentration of the entire build -out in the upper area of the site would further increase this pressure. Comments of Martha Armstrong and Lois Levitan on the Eco- Village dGEIS at the June 5, 2001 public Hearing Page 3 (b) The proposed SoNG site imposes on the last piece of meadow that can be appreciated as a retreat from human built environment and cars (i) People who previously found that kind of retreat in the meadow will be likely to increasingly look for it in the UNA (ii) This would multiply the impacts of foot traffic in the UNA " => Eco- Village has mentioned that the Environmental Management Council's report on UNAs lists the Coy Glen UNA as an important teaching site: However, this same report lists several cautions about visiting Coy Glen and UNAs in general. (1) Page 385, about the Coy Glen UNA (see Appendix F of the dGEIS): "The site is especially vulnerable to disturbances by visitors because of steep erodible, sides of the gorge, and very shallow, fragile soils on crests and outcrops.... Threats to this site are from development .... A greater portion of the glen needs protection. The site does not have adequate protective buffer." The introduction to the entire EMC report cautions: " [I]t should be remembered that many of these sites are highly vulnerable. Overuse, even in the form of appreciation, could cause permanent damage." • FRoG is "leapfrog" sprawl, creating a donut of fragmented open space. FRoG has already impacted 75% of the 175 acre parcel with its long road and location high up on the crest. The proposed SoNG site impacts the remainder. All this impact is from just 7 acres of development on the 175 acre site. Because of this, the putative benefits of cluster development are not realized. If SoNG builds in the proposed location, the residents will benefit from Longhouse and Cornell open spaces, but these properties -- and the people who have appreciated them -- will lose value if the SoNG development proceeds as proposed. By protecting this part of the site from development, all Eco - Villagers and neighbors will continue to benefit from it — sharing the benefits of contiguous open space that is greater than any individual property could provide. => There would be significantly lower impact if all future neighborhoods were built on the 150 + /- acres already impacted by the FRoG development and development along West Haven and Route 79 — rather than building on the small part of Eco - Village property that is not yet impacted by development. =* The attached Figures 101 and 102 demonstrate the effects of different planning approaches. Figure 101 shows the disproportionate impact of leapfrog development. Figure 102 shows the lower impact of clustering development next to existing infrastructure. This approach would conserve significant contiguous open space that could support ongoing farming and improved buffer of the Coy Glen UNA. Comments of Martha Armstrong and Lois Levitan on the Eco- Village dGEIS at the June 5, 2001 public Hearing Page 4 3. Town/MunicipalIssues • Length of sanitary sewer line to be deeded to the Town for ongoing maintenance => Alternative site plans could significantly shorten the length of the line, reducing construction costs for Eco- Village and maintenance costs for the Town. For example, reduction of the 1,650 foot sewer line extension to 800 feet, using the attached Alternative A could save $32,000 to $64,000. This would easily off -set redesign expenses. • Length of Road The length of the road was a major concern to the Town Board and Planning Board when FRoG was proposed (1) The SLUD for FROG and the revised SLUD proposed in the dGEIS limit the length of road to 3,000 feet. However, the current road is 3,000 feet long. The extension of the road by any other name (i.e. it is called a "pedestrian way" by SoNG) is still the extension of the road. The road length limitation in the original SLUD reflected a consensus that the road and any possible future development should extend no further than 3,000 feet into the site. The purpose was to limit the length of utilities and emergency access. (2) We are concerned that within the next few decades there will be a perceived need to turn the Pedestrian Way into a permanent road for vehicles. The first occupants of this development may be visionaries who do not mind walking up to 600 feet to their homes carrying groceries and young children. But what of future residents? Or, what of the original residents when they are ill or injured, or become older and need the Gadabout to pick them up at their door? (3) We are concerned that the Town will perceive a need -- or be requested -- to take possession of Rachel Carson Way and pedestrian extensions to it in order to protect the safety and welfare of residents. Various town boards and advisory groups, as well as others, brought up a number of concerns about the road length and quality in reviewing the site plan for FRoG in 1994. The current condition of Rachel Carson Way suggests these concerns were valid. (See below for road condition discussion.) If it is indeed a question of "when" and not "if' the Town will take ownership of the road, then EVI plans for vehicular and pedestrian roadways and ramifications of future Town ownership should be critically evaluated now. If this is not to be the case, then Town residents should be given some guarantee that the Town will not incur these expenses and responsibilities. . Since the Town has had no intent of putting a public road in this area, it should be fully calculated and disclosed what additional Town maintenance expenses would be incurred. Comments of Martha Armstrong and Lois Levitan on the Eco- Village dGEIS at the June 5, 2001 public Hearing Page 5 => There is much lower usage of public transportation than projected by FRoG because of the long walk to Route 79 where the bus stops. Putting the next neighborhood even further away does not make sense. Given the length of the cul -de -sac, TCAT has stated that it will not route a bus into the center of the site. • Fire access and safety => Access Roads: (1) We are concerned that the condition of the primary access road (Rachel Carson Way) is deteriorating quickly with just 30 households using it. The road has a wash -board surface and can be wind -blown with drifts and ice in winter. (2) While a secondary emergency access has been built from West Haven Road, it is not fully maintained. For example, snow had not been removed 5 days after the major March 2001 snow storm. There were reports of cars stuck on the West Haven entrance to the road even when it was plowed. (This entrance serves as a driveway to a non -Eco- Village home.) We are concerned that this indicates inadequate ability to maintain the road and secure emergency access. It is exactly these kind of storm condition that often create emergencies. (3) On a personal level, we want a guarantee that in order to solve these problems, the Town and the fire department will not request access from Elm Street across Longhouse property, as had been suggested by the Town Planner in 1994. =� Fire Protection Plans (1) We strongly suggest there be written approval from the Fire Chief for all the future neighborhoods' fire protection plans before approval of the dGEIS. The dGEIS discusses some options without identifying what is acceptable and without exploring the impacts of each option. For example: (2) The dGEIS indicates the possible requirement of a 110 foot high, 70,000 gallon water tower. (a) This type of public water development would be an inducement to additional growth further out West Hill, contrary to the Town Comprehensive Plan. The Town Comprehensive plan discusses that development of West Hill will happen along the Route 96 corridor. This is supported by the Comprehensive Plan's figure IV2, which indicates the large agricultural areas west of West Haven Road remaining in agriculture. (b) The tower itself would have significant visual impacts. (3) The dGEIS also indicates that additional ponds might be needed to provide fire protection for the future neighborhoods. There is no indication that there is adequate run -off to create these future ponds. Also there is no indication in the plan where these ponds would go and there does not appear to be room for them Comments of Martha Armstrong and Lois Levitan on the Eco- Village dGEIS at the June 5, 2001 public Hearing Page 6 in the proximity of the future neighborhoods, in the sites now proposed. If adequate ponds cannot be created, the tower option seems inevitable. =* Consider an alternative scenario: If SoNG were built on the east side of FRoG, rather than to the west of FRoG, it would (1) Not need a new hydrant from the pond -- resulting in construction cost savings (2) Reduce the extent of new access for emergency vehicles, saving construction and maintenance costs. (3) Reduce the length of sewer line (as mentioned in the first bullet point of item #3). It would also reduce water extension. • Concern that a water tower may be proposed to accommodate the complete build -out of Eco- Village for residential water. Page 22 of the dGEIS suggests that a tank may be required on the upper portion of the site to support full build -out. Elsewhere in the dGEIS it is suggested that an enlarged pump system is expected to support the whole development. It is not clearlhat the current pump system will accommodate 150 units — particularly with future occupants who may not be as philosophically inclined to reduce water use. What if the pump system fails and 150 households are stranded without public water? How will the Town respond to their plea for help? Provision of public water (most likely with a tower) would make public water available to a large area west of Eco - Village and promote growth and sprawl on West Hill. (See above re: visual impacts of a tower.) 4. Reasonable Alternatives as required by SEQR are not presented in the dGEIS • The New York State SEQR Handbook discusses alternatives under the GEIS and regular EIS sections. The Handbook indicates that the GEIS should show reasonable alternatives at a comparable level of detail to the proposed plan so that they can be compared. Portions of these sections are quoted below: =* page B -42: "It is important to discuss the reasonable alternatives to the generic action... Because the Generic EIS usually addresses actions at the conceptual stage, alternatives may be very flexible... The Generic EIS should include a more comprehensive alternative analysis. This opportunity for a more broad -based consideration of alternatives at the conceptual stage permits the Generic EIS to perform its environmental planning function.' page B -35: "Discussion should be sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of the costs, benefits, and environmental risks for each alternative. It is not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative(s) is or is not feasible." Comments of Martha Armstrong and Lois Levitan on the Eco - Village dGEIS at the June 5, 2001 public Hearing Page 7 • This approach of comparing alternatives during the GEIS process is in keeping with the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Page III -4 discusses Managing the Built Environment. Item 6 discusses the importance given to minimizing environmental impacts and says that it is better to develop a lower impact alternative than to mitigate a higher impact. • We would like to emphasize that the dGEIS needs to present reasonable alternatives at a level comparable to the proposed development plan in order to allow real discussion and assessment of the environmental impacts of alternatives. • The dGEIS fails to do this. The proposed Alternatives 1 and 2 are superficial in their exploration of how the site could be developed. The analyses on page 44 through 46 are minimal and in some cases misleading. For example: => Alternative 1 says that disadvantages include a steep slope that could result in run -off and erosion problems. Linderman Creek is built on a site that is about the same slope. An on -site water retention pond manages run -off and -road grades are not a problem. =:> Alternatives 1 and 2 claim that choosing a different site for SoNG would result in substantial cost over -runs and delays. (1) These costs and delays are not delineated and therefore cannot be evaluated against the alternatives. (2) As an architect who has had to redesign and re -site projects, Martha Armstrong concurs that there can be delays and additional costs. However, these need not be more than a few weeks. The design time that has already been spent selecting housing types and developing the concept for the relationships of the units to interior shared space, the common house, and parking is not lost. Sketching several conceptual alternatives could be done in a few days. The concept could be brought up to a fully regraded plan with several days work. The construction details can remain unchanged. This is do -able on a tight time -table and tight - budget. As mentioned above, we would expect the savings in infrastructure cost —such as shortening the road, and water and sewer line extensions —would off- set redesign costs.' =:> Alternative 2 claims the loss of south facing slope for SoNG would cause a loss in solar access. (1) However, Eco- Village does not identify this as a problem for the other 3 future neighborhood locations proposed in the east - sloping field north of FRoG. This z Considering that the dGEIS could have been done any time in the past 8 years that Eco- Village has owned the property, taking a few weeks longer to seriously consider alternatives seems reasonable. This is especially important for such a large development proposal. And, Eco - Village gets a lot of press coverage, so this development plan could set a strong precedent for what is environmentally sensitive development. Comments of Martha Armstrong and Lois Levitan on the Eco - Village dGEIS at the June 5, 2001 public Hearing Page 8 e claim is not true. The sun shines on the entire site. There are no steep north slopes that shade portions of the site. Units can be stepped on east facing slopes in order to maintain their south orientation for solar access. • The proposed alternatives lack flexibility and creativity in their approach and limit the possibility that future Resident Groups may prefer to be nearer to transit and infrastructure. • We submit 4 alternative plans — A, B, C, and D. A and B were submitted during the 1999 scoping session and reflect the expected maximum of 120 units. C and D were prepared in June 2001, and present lower impact alternatives for up to 150 units. => Alternative A is similar to Alternative 2. It improves on Alternative 2 by keeping the revised SONG location west of the berry field and power lines. It also provides much closer access to the housing units for cars and emergency vehicles without intruding into the central pedestrian area. This allows for greater diversity of household types (age, disabilities, family life - cycle) and less expense in extending roads. Alternative A was drawn in 1999 and is at the density of FRoG. Alternative C recognizes the lower density proposed in 2001, and anticipates that the cluster would be reduced to 20 to 24 units to fit in that location. (Note that 132 co- housing communities profiled on the Cohousing Network web page range from 4 to 50 units in size. 15 -30 units seems to be the common range.) Alternative B proposes two village clusters of 60 -70 units each with a Village Center located mid -way between them. This option reduces the number of units in the high visibility area of the site and reduces the impacts on open space and the Coy Glen UNA. It also brings half the development close to transit, public water and sewer, hydrants, and emergency access. Alternative C is a variant on B with an increase to 150 units. It also reflect the lower density of the future neighborhoods and SONG. =* Alternative D is another variant on the two -node site with the centrally located Village Center. This Alternative is recommended because: (1) it allows flexibility for future resident groups to emphasize either the original FRoG approach, or the option to be closer to transit and public services — both of which can result in significant cost savings as well as lower environmental impacts. (2) This two node approach also allows greater flexibility for providing amenities within the housing clusters. The single large clump proposed by Eco- Village seems to force amenities to the periphery and limits the possibility of providing another nearby pond for recreational enjoyment — e.g., another pond or major recreational area would not fit within the proposed cluster of neighborhoods. Comments of Martha Armstrong and Lois Levitan on the Eco - Village dGEIS at the. June 5, 2001 public Hearing Page 9 • Comment on Alternatives: Eco- Village may respond to each of these alternatives with some logic that says each is negative, or wrong, or impossible. My challenge to Eco - Village and their design team is to come up with some reasonable alternatives that meet their needs. This is a large site, and surely it is possible to develop satisfactory alternatives with lower impacts on the environment and public services. As professionals, we can attest to the reality that re- examining a plan with a fresh eye usually results in improvements to the design and often corrects decisions that were made during an earlier incremental design process. Eco - Village has had a string of designers, and a string of potential residents who have come and gone, providing scatter -shots of design input along the way. Re- examination at this critical juncture could lead to significant improvements to the design for the residents and for the environment and the Town. And finally, we reiterate: Providing reasonable alternatives is a requirement of SEQR. 5. Transportation • Several items related to traffic generation have not been addressed: =* The City of Ithaca should be asked to review the impacts of the Linderman Creek and Eco - Village developments on traffic loads for Hector Street, which has been previously identified as stressed. Traffic generated by future occupants of Eco - Village may be much higher than the current first residents who have a philosophical commitment to low car usage. Average traffic loads should.therefore be considered. Since the Eco - Village philosophy encourages home based businesses, the traffic study should consider the prospect of a significant number of businesses on the site and the potential of them having employees and customers who drive to the site. 6. Storm Drainage • The storm drainage plan should describe if there is any impact on the surface drainage that fills the Longhouse Cooperative pond. 7. Community Character: • FRoG and the entire proposed development area is visible from King Road and Sand bank Road west of the Upper Buttermilk Falls Park entrance. This is especially true during the six months of the year without leaves. Comments of Martha Armstrong and Lois Levitan on the Eco - Village dGEIS at the June 5, 2001 public Hearing Page 10 i n N ti N U cd tr > W 0 cd u c N a � O O � CTS� MCI CIS U cz bOQ O O O ,O O W H y tG�O cU3 ^R O wo 0 I .t O b c O 4i a 0 b CS � W) E O o ^o o> 'tS x It o x cz W 0 h U Q� ii 0 =>./� t4 G O cz U O ca H CV U rC a CA b vi c O rA w N cz C N U .0 U O C� Q� W O i W 0 AMR w C0 G 0 .U. c U O N a� b U c� b A al U W 0 b� 'Ln N C � y U U O 0 O_ 3�•i --, C 03 W >L" O M � O � E L m V1 .� rf� H a. V N O [ U a 0 o h U 3 b a� .� CM ATTACHMENT 43 A T T C NI till It ertv� ar ice:. rrw�U.._. -, - i - , e ; g r1 N 5 i O •- a U ! 1 r z rl T t3 9 MCI as ... x 4 v N lJ 3 Z E4 a VV � < Y' IS t•�Sst i � i wty vu •sxx�g — �x r •Ga.�Y�—z r •i •�i' RF > r°l' t w Y1 •.Ai+ n A M V � e ! , V s y i$ A' .ra •• b yy� + a! a9 iv t My a i L t }h,tAil If IF ado^ o a' u. ir • •' i y ' Y.SC w 1!� O 0. N 6 7(}� tows - i F udif �— Y.[nilt� .C.• Wnir •N+e :n TOWN a 1 INIMLD C I[ a ill TERMINI 0 f�l b Q ^O N y N U � C3 O � O O U N U � 1..a Q� ✓ (OU O 0 W b � U X soU C U U b so O O o as 3 � c1 U) c cl +r b o� O un U U b O '1111114 t'+ U O u C O �. .N I c [`J or cm � or TIYV (J V r N r` N fix A �f O x R .x W-41111, RINI ,2 f :f 0 �. x « w j I! i j E'p'. g cUC MC v «x w S{L+ to Yi N •IIIIIIII j - C3 c3 y N C� i , W O w t! 'C 0 � O� O F > Qr •. c3 tiUa O � ��� 3�Tn ., ... O O O I -- -, .C4 O O U to bA CA Tn �; w 'w" 03 .N I c [`J or cm � or TIYV (J V r N r` N fix A �f O x R .x W-41111, RINI ,2 f :f �. x « rl'I1 j I! i j E'p'. g v «x p Y S{L+ Yi j - Y u R C i , Q . t! I3 ! j ,2 f :f ^ 0 « rl'I1 j I! •_ r• g v «x p Y S{L+ Yi j - 7 I w R -YY wR n� a r !F I ITH WA CZ aW1 •� w w CIS N O O Sri O U �>'+ w C 0 a.l C c3 ..r ° r, ,.a U t•.. i.. tF is t, o s. n^ p Ta n n c t. G I � •� y Q W P. °.. nv a 04 U O U bA a C. C O L: 7•a 14 I � O U O �caU4 ..�.< Lo) Qa bor4 a U 'iz) •�' �. b U a A U a O C3 T``` � _. ° ° • e Ems"' U p,, a w . o p e Y V k ! LS c LIP �= OF MR TOYV C+ 1 V ACA ° a l clui° TOY'Y I r• \0 0 o .°c cz .) °' o - U O 7a U ca a 'b E O m W1 a•• ; b cz � a � a v C-3 G 0 � r cx a c 3 C _O c3 U. CiA �y • VIIII4 O ;ix H N � 3 a f rl'I1 j I! •_ r• g p Y S{L+ Yi Y u R C i , Q . O� F •. � ��� ,.,i0 n R O I d , , ea •19 • X! 7 ' M YLi iL.4 i a a ' R •'S ^a LIP �= OF MR TOYV C+ 1 V ACA ° a l clui° TOY'Y I r• \0 0 o .°c cz .) °' o - U O 7a U ca a 'b E O m W1 a•• ; b cz � a � a v C-3 G 0 � r cx a c 3 C _O c3 U. CiA �y • VIIII4 O ;ix H N � 3 a I 7: 3 5 Z X10 �s 3-j �t Qg�I ZZ;ZZe r . €� 3 _s 'c_ �j k ji!ja!1�iJ '}f1;ji 3 �af�ila;i� } X EI, J F °O ail C k tti'!7 LL f1�712 0 V 1� f rl'I1 j I! •_ 1 : g i S{L+ Yi •'� k• C } , Q . O� F I 7: 3 5 Z X10 �s 3-j �t Qg�I ZZ;ZZe r . €� 3 _s 'c_ �j k ji!ja!1�iJ '}f1;ji 3 �af�ila;i� } X EI, J F °O ail C k tti'!7 LL f1�712 0 V 1� q e I I I 7 e d �4a 777 I 11 I .I 1 1 I I I I I I CIO kkkkkkkkk �, ORO.WN ?r /: P1.C.RMSi�hIG 4; 1 I I I 21-99 S j u/ k" -/ / I! f 1 I I I I I I vi maM rrFlxa uao ov i 4.1 / Ilk Ilk � / . Ilk \ L 11 P.P. I v ✓I'% 4 I I II II�. 11 �� i 1 ✓ i 7 2 f r✓\r i l:pi3 �.`:a.`;? �. � \ {li to kkkkkkk Io1S�, "ll, \ kkk.. kkk� �• /� 1 _ Icy to / kC I I 9 ' [ kkkkkkkkk. kkkkkkkk, kkkkkkkk. kkkkkkkkk 1 �� �� 1 7I o' 16 ,: 4 ( i 411' ` � u a / I I yV� . Id /0910 kkkkkkk.. e`�r�O mow\ yw- /w✓�.... ).' 1,y p7 kkkkkPk / Plk' y.. / Im// / ){ Ba ELM `•�R♦;8 -j�. f _ - _gam- AD L 0 n 0 o g 4 0 R04T E� I 11 I I I I I •' I I I I I It �calc r 1 � ® I• I "4d It II �LO.</ILIXaE GIYE t�o•pes Cs.fIr1ATEO rr+oM .i I � } _ I T4, Mlu ER PLI 6u PPUGO Pl♦' TbNjhl OD ITN➢! -P I \ o _U. ._`, .� /./ Jp ��- z is e l It r ;' 3 C wl If u W-ae r11 1' f ' s`s .' r.�s � ♦ \ C � ' ;, o /� e � 1 It .i y� ?�-I- .P.= I._+..t -Fs•. \ d -, a ..�'_G -J / o. - - -- / '. ��� I I � \ ♦ t -�. L `� � 1 '�;,��' j It II I. `1�� \ \I 1\ �/ /� ♦� I I I 1 ♦1 jl -I `' € /I It It o � 1I 1 It It ul IUD- 1 LC I n / 1 ` / `� .'y � � � � `•� I L 0 lb o ° ' .♦ v�% 1011 , \ \� —_ \ ♦ / — —� $ I I I I ' I I ;^ ® !' 0 If It 109 ?,� \ � \ \ \ � `���� � �._lo'lo / � \ ^I,¢�•,� '-. '\ \ij l � � � f I � � I \ ° loaf It It /ova. —� i— �� /� -// dP y�` \ N,c / - m� SLPJ ® ` �.Y.S. ! it �o soft o Eco- Village Site Plan Alternative C Drawn By Martha Armstron g June 1, 2001 cto mom I o1 _ —\i lt� ` f } �if �► ��:� EX TIN t'f�� `--�I �INATERSHEt� ♦� 3 FA M? ' ND == _'�`�'_1, ` • 'D' UPPER ` f ` L I nnnngn .— EXISTING 1S - T �� 7 1 1'. , < l i I NEIGHBORHOODS i'�; b 1 I s j TERSHED WATERSH 'C'' i E XISTI ; I ,r { j EC IL E \POND y ti r / &/ nnpnn nnnn Inn DID �� I ` J� / I` I Finn • / ` y / 1 If ' '" /� to /! II U E/T E _ X10 co All M Y S 79 Eco- Village Site Plan ROUTE \ n ►� 17 r� : ll Alternative D3!� ♦, '`M='� - — /i, 'C0 ' Drawn By Martha Armstrong June 1 20011 WOO J �A' RECOMMENDED ACTION �= - I Approve up to 150 units with up to 110 in the s �, �. 00' center of the site and up to 70 in the northeast I ! VVI A I `- , . corner near Route 79 and West Haven Road.�, AAAA 'f p ,o ,� 7�-�• I Ili RSHE� ... \ EX STIN.�1� .• goo ATE p ? FARMS POND 1 'D' UPPER ♦ At IEP �- A A .. i 4 j EXISTING 1 1S Add NEIGHBORHOOD 1 < ►. I i I WATERSHED 'Q'' , Al TERSHE© 1 ' c 1 ► 1 %E XI STI ► //Q �� /_ 1 EC ILLAGE \POND ' L -v l N Add AID✓ - } _ f.' T' _ / I I Do Laura Beck, Greg (and Ethan) Pitts 227 S. Geneva St. #1 Ithaca, NY 14850 Town of Ithaca Planning Board c/o Jonathan Kanter 215 North Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 June 4, 2001 Re: Support for the GEIS from Ecovillage Dear Ithaca Planning Board: D E 0� 2001 HACA ENNGINEERING We would like to express our support for the proposed development at Ecovillage at Ithaca ( Ecovillage), and your adoption of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS). As members of the Second Neighborhood Group (SoNG) of Ecovillage, we of course have an interest in its going forward. Our interest is not, however, meant to be at the expense of others. A great deal of time and effort has been put into the planning of this next neighborhood. The process has taken into consideration many different viewpoints and reflects the collective wisdom of many people about how to live lightly on the land. The principal intent of Ecovillage is sustainability, both of our environment and our community. Many of us plan to work as much as possible from home, avoiding car trips. We intend to car pool and car share to minimize trips. We have designed homes that are extremely efficient with the least impact possible. Our new neighborhood will occupy only a small portion of land, keeping as much land as open and as natural as possible. This is in stark contrast to the residential development intended for this land before Ecovillage. We have reached out to many people in the planning of Ecovillage and respect and appreciate the inputs of our neighbors and the larger community. It is our intent to live in cooperation with our neighbors and with nature. Sincer( ATTACHMENT 44