Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2001-08-07TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD FILE DATE TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 2001 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, August 7, 2001, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner. EXCUSED: George Conneman, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Christine Lehman, Planner. ALSO PRESENT: Lauren Bishop, Ithaca Journal; Alan J. Cohen, Mayor City of Ithaca; Jessica Keltz, Ithaca Times; John Powers, West Buttermilk Falls Road; Tim Logan, City of Ithaca Planning Department; Martha Armstrong, 766 Elm Street Ext.; Bill Seldin, 120 Northview Road; Bill Goodman, Ecovillage; Liz Walker, 115 Rachel Carson Way; Larry Fabbroni, 127 Warren Road; Ivar Jonson, 934 E. Shore Drive; Margy Rumsey, 110 East Buttermilk Falls Rd; Laura Beck, Address Unknown; Greg Pitts, Address Unknown, Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:39 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 July 31, 2001, and August 1, 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 August 1, 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 7:39 p.m. Martha Armstrong, 766 Elm Street Extension - I wanted to point out in the draft Findings Statement an element of fact. It states on Page 8 that the Second Neighborhood will not be visible from the developed portion of Longhouse Cooperative. This is not true for the six months of the year without leaves. I have brought photographs to show this. From 766 Elm St. Ext., it is visible from units 1 and 2. Attachment #1. John Powers, 106 West Buttermilk Falls Road - I would like to enter a letter to this board. Attachment #2. The letter is intended for Supervisor Valentino and Town Board Members. I am requesting consideration from both the Planning Board, the Town Board and the government of the Town of Ithaca in general, to express concern to the Planning Department of the City of Ithaca for the necessity to conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement in regards to the Wide Waters APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 21, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Development. This borders Town of Ithaca property and it is going to have significant impacts on the residents. We have not heard from the Town of Ithaca in any way, shape or form. I am making a formal request to all parties within Town government to consider our needs in regards to this. It is going to have a lot of impact to traffic, flooding and the quality of life within the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Kanter - Who did you mean when you made the statement, "We did not hear anything from the Town of Ithaca "? Mr. Powers - I am a resident of the neighborhood. I believe that I also speak for John Kadar and Margy Rumsey. Mr. Kanter - The Town of Ithaca did submit comments on the earlier plans and did have comments regarding storm water management, traffic and other things. Mr. Powers - It is a whole new ballgame now. Mr. Kanter - There is also a lengthy comment period remaining. Mr. Powers - Does the commentary mean that they will not be commenting again in regards to the Environmental Impact Statement? Mr. Kanter - I am unable to tell you at this point. Mr. Powers - We have not come to the Town before. We are coming to you now for further consideration of this. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:44 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination, Pedestrian Bridge, NYS Route 13. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:44 p.m. Tim Logan, City of Ithaca Planning Department - The project is to put a prefabricated steel truss bridge across Route 13 at the City/Town line. It would connect existing abutments. This is the old railroad right -of -way. This would be spur off the Black Diamond Trail. It would spur off across the highway and potentially connect to Buttermilk Falls State Park and into a trail network leading to South Hill neighborhoods. There is a second project related to a gap in between two abutments. We will come back before the Town on that matter at a later date. We are not prepared to deal with the fill project at this point. We originally included materials on the fill project. Creig Hebdon told us that they were not adequate. We did not have enough information on those. We would like to work on the bridge project for now. We will provide more information on the fill project at a later date. Alan J. Cohen, Mayor City of Ithaca - The City was offered an opportunity to apply for State Multi - modal monies in 1996. We were given an award of $250,000 specifically siting this bridge at this location. This would be part of a spur off the Black Diamond Trail. It is not something that State Parks would be involved in constructing. It is what we hope will eventually be a connection between 2 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 21, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED the Black Diamond Trail and the South Hill Recreation Way and other trails leading into the Town of Ithaca. There are some future issues that we know we need to deal with. I will be speaking with Supervisor Valentino about the formation of a joint study group to talk about the development of the trail itself. The right -of -way we are looking at using is also partly in the Town of Ithaca. It follows the City/Town border. We are hoping the construction of the bridge will generate enthusiasm for the development of the rest of the trail. We are not talking about any issues of what the trail will look like or landscaping. State Parks and State Department of Transportation (DOT) have weighed in regarding issues about how the bridge looks. State DOT has added specific requirements. State Parks had concerns about the approaches to the bridge. I believe the trail would be a wonderful community asset. We are backing away on the gap issue. There were questions raised that we are not ready to answer. Mr. Powers raised an issue I was unaware of. There are many different ways that this gap could be bridged. It was suggested to us that the filling in might be the easiest way to accommodate a manhole access that is there for the Town of Ithaca. We are coming up against a wall of having to start drawing down of monies from the State. It has now been five years since the award was made. Chairperson Wilcox - Are there any environmental impacts? Mr. Logan - There was a concerned raised with the seeding of Owl Creek. I am not sure if we know of other environmental impacts related to the bridge. Chairperson Wilcox - Is the creek affected by the bridge? Mr. Logan - No. Chairperson Wilcox - There will be a small amount of traffic congestion during the construction of the bridge. Mr. Logan - It was discussed to assemble the bridge and putting it on the side of the road. Then putting the bridge on the abutments at night with a crane. There would not be as much traffic problems. Chairperson Wilcox - The bridge will also block the sidewalk for a short period of time. Board Member Hoffmann -Will the bridge be available for use? Mr. Cohen - The bridge technically could be used. The trail itself will not have been developed. It is not easy to traverse it. It is overgrown with a lot scrub brush and vegetation. It is not pedestrian friendly in its present form. I am sure when we put the bridge up, we will be subject to initial ridicule because it will be a bridge without connections to it. We have the State monies available and need to draw down on them. We are hoping that this bridge will encourage the development of the trail spur itself. Board Member Thayer - Will the ends be blocked off to prevent people from crossing the bridge? K APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 21, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Cohen - We could do it if the board would like. The bridge is designed so that if someone went on the bridge there are safety features that do not allow you to climb out or throw things off the bridge. Board Member Talty - Who will be responsible for the maintenance of the bridge? Mr. Cohen - Maintenance of the bridge is being fully accepted by the City of Ithaca at this point. We initiated this project without talking to the Town. When I made this application I did not realize that we were half in the City and half in the Town. My clear intent is that at some point when we talk about the joint development of the trail itself, the bridge will be part of the discussions. Board Member Mitrano - Is there a timeline for the trail spur? Mr. Cohen - It will be a joint decision of the Town and the City. There will be funding questions for both municipalities. A capital project would need to be established. I want to get discussions started so that we can move forward. I would love to see us do it sooner than later. Chairperson Wilcox - Do we have any issues with segmentation by separating the fill and landscaping from the construction of the bridge? Attorney Barney - No. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:56 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -62 - SEOR, City of Ithaca - Gateway Pedestrian Bridge over Route 13, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 31 -2 -3.1 and 38 -3 -20 and City of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 131 -1 -3 and 103 4-7.2, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Recommendation for Special Approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Kevin Talty. WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the installation of a pre- fabricated steel bridge on the two existing bridge abutments on either sides of Route 13, located along the City and Town of Ithaca municipal boundary. The bridge will provide a future connection between the proposed Black Diamond Trail to Buttermilk Falls State Park. The project is located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 31 -2 -3.1 and 38 -3 -20, Residential District R -30, and City of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 131 -1 -3 and 103- 4 -7.2, New York State (Department of Transportation and State Parks), Owners; City of Ithaca, Applicant/Agent. 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 August 7, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate for the purpose of approval on the placement of the bridge a Short Environmental Assessment Form 0 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 21, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and drawings prepared by City of Ithaca Department of Public Works entitled "Gateway Pedestrian Bridge" sheets "C -1 " Q -1 " "M &PT -1 " through "M &PT -3" dated NYSDOT Revisions 10 130100, M &PT -4 dated NYSDOT Revisions 10126100, "S -1" through "S -4" dated Revisions 5/14/01, and "S -5" NYSDOT Revisions 10130100; additional drawings entitled "Gateway Bicycle Bridge Over Route 13" prepared by State of New York Department of Transportation, date stamp Received 716101, including "Plan 8 Elevation" "Profiles 8 Section" "Estimate of Quantities and Notes ", "Boring Location Plan and General Subsurface Profile for Gateway Bicycle Path Over Route 13", "Earthwork ", "West Abutment" "West Abutment Reinforcement ", "East Abutment Plan 8 Elevation ", "East Abutment Reinforcement Plans 8 Sections" and supplemental information provided by the applicant. 4. The Town Planning staff has 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 environmental significance in accordance with the New York for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, not be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. makes a negative determination of State Environmental Quality Review Act an Environmental Impact Statement will PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposal to install a pre- fabricated steel bridge on the two existing bridge abutments on either sides of Route 13, and to fill the area on the east side of Route 13 between the old bridge abutments of the abandoned Route 13 corridor, located along the City and Town of Ithaca municipal boundary. The bridge and fill work will provide a future connection between the proposed Black Diamond Trail to Buttermilk Falls State Park. City of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 131. =1 -3 and 103. 44.2 and Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 31. -2 -3.1 and 38. -3 -20, Residence District R -30, new York State (DOT and State Parks), Owners; City of Ithaca, Applicant/Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. John Powers, 106 West Buttermilk Falls Road - We are concerned about the filling of the existing old - time abutments directly to the east of the abutments where the bridge is going. There is now going to be the consideration of drainage due to the overflow of Owl Creek. I am submitting a letter stating our concerns. Attachment #3. Margy Rumsey, 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road - I own the property where the flow goes through the underpath that was a railroad embankment. The embankment has still been there. It has flooded 5 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 21, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED three times while I have lived there. I have lived at the property since 1948. 1 have experienced that. I know that must not be filled. When Route 13 was increased to four lanes, they were told to fill it and I told them they may not. The man who was in charged of filling used his instruments to see that is how it is. It is extremely important that not be filled because of the nature of the flow of flooding which comes primarily through Owl Creek. Mr. Powers - Owl Creek is located on the west side of the Buttermilk Falls State Park parking lot. Ice builds up in the winter. It precludes the entrance to the small tunnel. It channels back up and overflows the wall. Board Member Hoffmann - Has recent construction caused the flooding? Mr. Powers - It has always flooded that way and flooded out some of Mrs. Rumsey's buildings. Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Mr. Cohen - We could put another bridge over the area. A culvert could be developed that accommodated the high flows. It is something that needs further study. It is one of the reasons we backed off on the fill. We do not have the information necessary. Board Member Talty - Where are we if the project does not move further beyond the bridge? Mr. Cohen - The additional expense came in with a very simple concept know about Owl Creek until this ev( last minute item to add in. It is not sure that when we come back to the is not an issue that would stop the development of the trail. We of putting the fill in and raising the manhole cover. We did not ming. It is a matter of doing our homework. The gap fill was a something that we can do at the same time. We want to make board we have all our information. Board Member Talty - I do not want to put up a bridge to nowhere. Mr. Cohen - A culvert could add $10,000 to the project at most. It is not going to break the development of this project, which is going to be considerably more than that to develop the entire spur. The funding is available for the bridge itself. Board Member Hoffmann - Was the funding intended to cover more than the bridge? Mr. Cohen - No. We are attributing additional monies to the bridge. The bridge is costing about $365,000 and we received $250,000 from the State. It is an clear demonstration of our commitment. Board Member Hoffmann - I am concerned about the bridge being a hazard. Board Member Thayer - I do not know how easy it will be to climb up on the bridge. Board Member Hoffmann - It might be a challenge for people. Board Member Thayer - A fence could be constructed to prevent that from occurring. R APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -AUGUST 21, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Board Member Mitrano - I cannot imagine that the legal department for the City did not look at the situation. Board Member Thayer - It is not a danger once they get up to the bridge. Board Member Mitrano - How would it be less of a problem than a functional bridge? Board Member Thayer - It is a functional bridge. You are able to walk across. Board Member Hoffmann - It is not a bridge that would be used all the time where if something were to happen it would be discovered. Attorney Barney - The risk is there now. I do not know if the bridge is going to add to the risk. It is being designed in a way that you are unable to do anything on the bridge that would injure yourself. Mr. Walker - Is there anything indicating that development of a trail should be pursued by the City at a reasonable pace? Chairperson Wilcox - It is this board's intent that the municipalities and agencies involved will develop a trail. Mr. Walker - The Town should be involved in the planning process early on. Mr. Kanter - The Mayor has indicated that he will be asking Supervisor Valentino to form a committee to look at the project. Attorney Barney - There could be general language in the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -63 - City of Ithaca - Gateway Pedestrian Bridge over Route 13, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 31 -2 -3.1 and 38 -3 -20 and City of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 131 -1 -3 and 103- 4-7.2, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Recommendation for Special Approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS. 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the installation of a pre- fabricated steel bridge on the two existing bridge abutments on either sides of Route 13, located along the City and Town of Ithaca municipal boundary. The bridge will provide a future connection between the proposed Black Diamond Trail to Buttermilk Falls State Park. The project is located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 31 -2 -3.1 and 38 -3 -20, Residential District R -30, and City of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 131 -1 -3 and 103- 4 -7.2, New York State (Department of Transportation and State Parks), Owners; City of Ithaca, Applicant/Agent. 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review has accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form, 7 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 21, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part Il, prepared by the Town Planning Department, and has on August 7, 2001, made a negative determination of environmental significance, 3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing held on August 7, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, for purpose of considering installation of the bridge only, the application materials presented by the applicant, including drawings prepared by City of Ithaca Department of Public Works entitled "Gateway Pedestrian Bridge" sheets "C-1", 0-1", "M &PT -1 " through "M &PT -3" dated NYSDOT Revisions 10 130100, M &PT4 dated NYSDOT Revisions 10126100, "S4" through "S -4" dated Revisions 5114101, and "S -5" NYSDOT Revisions 10130100; additional drawings entitled "Gateway Bicycle Bridge Over Route 13" prepared by State of New York Department of Transportation, date stamp Received 716101, including "Plan 8 Elevation ", "Profiles 8 Section" "Estimate of Quantities and Notes ", "Boring Location Plan and General Subsurface Profile for Gateway Bicycle Path Over Route 13 ", "Earthwork ", "West Abutment ", "West Abutment Reinforcement" "East Abutment Plan 8 Elevation ", "East Abutment Reinforcement Plans 8 Sections" and supplemental information provided by the applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. 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 waivers 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 Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the installation of a pre- fabricated steel bridge on the two existing bridge abutments on either sides of Route 13, located along the City and Town of Ithaca municipal boundary as shown on drawings prepared by City of Ithaca Department of Public Works entitled "Gateway Pedestrian Bridge" sheets "C -1 ", Q -1 If "M &PT -1 "through "M &PT -3" dated NYSDOT Revisions 10 130100, M& PT-4 dated NYSDOT Revisions 10126100, "S -1" through "S -4" dated Revisions 5/14/01, and "S -5" NYSDOT Revisions 10130100; additional drawings entitled "Gateway Bicycle Bridge Over Route 13" prepared by State of New York Department of Transportation, date stamp Received 716101, including "Plan 8 Elevation ", "Profiles 8 Section ", "Estimate of Quantities and Notes ", "Boring Location Plan and General Subsurface Profile for Gateway Bicycle Path Over Route 13 , "Earthwork" "West Abutment ", "West Abutment Reinforcement ", "East Abutment Plan 8 Elevation ", "East Abutment Reinforcement Plans 8 Sections" and supplemental information provided by the applicant, subject to the following conditions, all prior to issuance of any building permits: a. the granting of Special Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and b, submission of details /style and color of the bridge signage that spells out "Ithaca", and C, submission of final construction materials, style, and color of the bridge, and d, submission of evidence of approvals from the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation and NYS Department of Transportation, and APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 21, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED e. until the trailway is fully installed, the bridge is to be blockaded at each end to preclude trespassing. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. 1. That the Planning Board in making a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals determines the following: a. there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, as demonstrated by the applicant; b, the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected as a result of the proposed project; ce the proposed use as a result of the proposed project is not in conflict with a comprehensive plan of development for the Town of Ithaca. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination, Summerhill Apartments Phase II Modifications, Summerhill Lane. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Larry Fabbroni, 127 Warren Road - We are before the board to ask for modification of the townhouse concept to the last four buildings of the Summerhill project. The footprint for this change is smaller than the footprint approved for the garden apartments. The lengths of the building are identical to that of the garden apartments. I think my letter to Mr. Kanter summarizes the reductions. The remaining buildings were roughly 30,800 square feet. The new buildings would be 23,000 plus square feet. We are going from 46 units to 35 units. We are adding 14 garages. They are largely in the area that would have been a parking lot. The number of parking spaces is slightly reduced because of the garages. There are many areas where there are fewer walks. The revised plan allows 15 feet from the patio area to the wetland area. The lawn has been increased in front of the building. We would like to stagger the buildings to break up the face of the buildings. It would stagger the buildings by up to four feet. There would be more relief in terms of the solid building face. The additional parking will allow us to add five three - bedroom apartments to this phase, other than what we have shown. The end units are shown as three - bedroom. The current site has ten three - bedroom apartments. This would be a total of fifteen apartments with three bedrooms. The project total would be thirty -one three bedrooms rather than twenty -six. We would like the board to entertain that. M APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 21, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Mitrano - What's not to like? Mr. Fabbroni - It is up to the board to decide. I have tried to, in the course of the change, listen to what the board has said in the past and address those points. The landscaping is exactly the same. There is no reduction in plantings whatsoever. We have added six different species to the list that we had before. There is not a proposed change in character or consistency. Chairperson Wilcox - What is the setback of this proposal from the wetland compared to the current setback? Mr. Fabbroni - The prior plan located the walkway ten feet away from the wetland. The new proposal has an isolated patio fifteen feet back from the wetland. We have increased the setback and the tendency for there to be a lot of traffic in that area. Attorney Barney - The plans that were submitted and advertised for were twenty -six three - bedrooms and forty -seven two - bedroom apartments. Mr. Fabbroni - Those numbers are the total for the whole project. Attorney Barney - I just heard you say that you would like up to thirty -one three - bedroom apartments. You want something different than what was submitted and advertised for. Mr. Fabbroni - It would be the same number of total units. There would be a difference in the breakout between the number of three - bedroom and two - bedroom apartments. Attorney Barney - Would it change the footprint? Mr. Fabbroni - No. Board Member Hoffmann - It would change the footprint. The buildings would be staggering four feet instead of two feet. Attorney Barney - Does the additional number of units create the change in the footprint? Mr. Fabbroni - No. The square footage of the footprint does not change with the stagger. The stagger does change where exactly the middle unit would lie. Chairperson Wilcox - Does a three - bedroom unit and two - bedroom units occupy the same volume of space? Mr. Fabbroni - No. The third bedroom would be slightly smaller. Board Member Hoffmann - If you are increasing the staggering by two feet, would it be done on both sides of the building or just one side? Mr. Fabbroni - It would be the front side. It would break the front face. 10 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 21, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann - It seems to me that doing that would make the total width of the building smaller. Mr. Fabbroni - The back would go back two feet. Attorney Barney - The back of the entire building would be fagade. Mr. Fabbroni - The back of the building is facing the hedgerows. Board Member Hoffmann - I am not sure if I can approve what you are suggesting. Mr. Fabbroni - I was only asking that you consider it. Board Member Hoffmann - I do not like getting were to consider preliminary and final approval. not have a chance to review. I do not like it. Board Member Talty - I agree. last minute changes. This is a meeting where we We have received last minute changes that we did Board Member Mitrano - The applicant has always come back before the board and has been willing to work with the board. I appreciate Board Member Hoffmann's view as well. Board Member Hoffmann - I do not feel it is appropriate to do preliminary and final approval together. We need more than verbal presentations. Board Member Thayer - Mr. Jonson is a good customer of Thayer Appliance. I am an employee of Thayer Appliance. I feel that I should not vote on the issue. Board Member Talty - I would prefer to have the changes more set before we carry on. Chairperson Wilcox - Board Member Hoffmann, Board Member Mitrano, Board Member Talty and myself had a site visit this afternoon from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. We recognized the problem with the three garages and the issue of adding sidewalks in front of buildings four and five. The board did not draw any conclusions. We brought up the two items as things that needed to be changed. Suddenly we get to the meeting and there are more changes. They want to move the buildings and change the number of bedrooms. It is frustrating. The applicant made the changes sometime between 6:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. today. We have no materials on them. The question is if the board can even make a proper SEQR Determination given the materials that we have. Is Mr. Jonson interested in being able to move the buildings and change the mix of two and three bedrooms? Mr. Fabbroni - Yes. Chairperson Wilcox - I am not sure the board has the appropriate materials for SEAR Determination. Attorney Barney - It is the board's call. The modifications are not earthshaking, but I can understand the desire to see the appropriate materials. 11 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 21, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Kanter - I do not see the benefit in going ahead with preliminary approval only to have to come back with final approval. The details the board needs could be submitted and the board could approve it as preliminary and final. It would be a different story if it needed to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for another approval. Chairperson Wilcox - Either way, we would need to have another meeting. Mr. Fabbroni - How would the SEQR Determination change? Attorney Barney - Normally, the board does the SEQR at the same meeting that they proceed with preliminary and final. Mr. Fabbroni - Would we need to resubmit the materials to the County? Mr. Kanter - Yes. Mr. Fabbroni - Part of the reason we are here on a rush timetable is that Mr. Jonson is at ground zero. The moratorium on the sewer has left Mr. Jonson to be able to build one house where he could have built seven houses. He is willing to forego the changes that we have asked for so that the board can proceed in the review. We would like to withdraw the request for the additional five three - bedrooms and withdraw the request to be able to stagger any differently than shown. Board Member Talty - It changes the situation. Board Member Hoffmann - We do not have the details for the sidewalks. Mr. Fabbroni - I have a current site plan for the board that shows the sidewalks. Board Member Hoffmann - Do the changes take care of the concern with the steep slope by the garages? Mr. Smith - Originally the way it was drawn the steep slope went through the middle of the buildings. The retaining wall holding up the ends should solve the problem. Board Member Hoffmann - Is the steep slope too close to the wetland or the buffer area? Mr. Smith - No. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:47 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -64 - SEOR Site Plan Modifications, Summerhill Apartments Phase 2, Summerhill Lane, Tax Parcel No. 62-2- 1.127. MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Fred Wilcox. WHEREAS: 12 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 21, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to the Summerhill Apartments Phase 11, located on Summerhill Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.127, Multiple Residence District. Said modifications include reducing the number of total units from 84 to 73 units, with 35 of the units being townhouse apartments instead of the previously approved garden apartments. Other modifications for the townhouses include building patios instead of stair towers and decks, and replacing some parking with detached garages. Ivar Jonson, Owner; Lawrence Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Applicant/Agent. 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 August 7, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, plans entitled "Summerhill Phase 2 — Landscaping & Drainage," revised 6- 20 -01, "Summerhill Apartment Phase 2 Site Plan With Townhouses" revised 6 -2001, "Summerhill Apartments Typical Townhouse Front & Rear Elevations," dated July 20, 2001, "Summerhill Apartments End Elevations," dated July 20, 2001, " Summerhill Apartment Typical Second Floor Plan," dated July 20, 2001, and "Summerhill Apartment Typical First Floor Plan," dated July 20, 2001, prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S. and other application material, and 4. The Town Planning staff has 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, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Tally. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Thayer. The motion was declared to be carried. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to the Summerhill Apartments Phase II, located on Summerhill Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62. -2- 1.127, Multiple Residence District. Said modifications include reducing the number of total units from 84 to 73 units, with 35 of the units being townhouse apartments instead of the previously approved garden apartments. Other modifications for the townhouses include building patios instead of stair towers and decks, and replacing some 13 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 21, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED parking with detached garages. Ivar Jonson, Owner; Lawrence Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Applicant/Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox - My sense of the board is that the plan with the modifications as shown is reasonable. Board Member Hoffmann - Where will the handicap accessible parking spaces be located? They are not labeled. Mr. Fabbroni - Three handicap accessible parking spaces are required. These units will not be accessible or adaptable units because they are two -story in nature. The accessible and adaptable units are the ground floor units in the first phase. It is logical to have more handicap accessible spaces for those units. The four end spaces would probably be handicap accessible. Board Member Hoffmann - The elevations and floor plans need to show the type of siding and colors. Mr. Fabbroni - It will be vinyl siding. Ivar Jonson, 934 East Shore Drive - The color will be an earth tone to match the first phase. Board Member Hoffmann - There was a comment about the planting of trees from Tompkins County. Some of the proposed plantings are listed on their invasive species list. Mr. Fabbroni - The plantings proposed are consistent with the current plantings. The landscaping plan is virtually identical to the last one. It is identical in terms of species. Board Member Hoffmann - I do not see what harm would come out of replacing the Norway maples with some native maples. The same could be done with the Spruce. Mr. Fabbroni - We added Pink princess to the variety of the Burning bush for a variety of colors. They bloom at different times of the year. Attorney Barney - What is the definition of an invasive species? How are they invasive? Board Member Hoffmann - The County is trying to eliminate trees that do not do well in this climate. Mr. Kanter - I think we need to put the County's invasive species list in a context. I think it is inappropriate to blindly follow the County's invasive species list without thinking about what it means. Many of the landscape materials are very valuable and commonly used landscaping elements for developments like this. I think it is ludicrous to suggest that they should not be used in these kinds of settings. It is my personal opinion. The County should do something to change the way they profligate their opinions regarding their invasive species list. 14 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -AUGUST 21, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox - We had species from the County's invasive species list in the Cornell B- Parking Lot. We received the same 239 review from the County. Someone gave us a reason why it was okay to leave the species intact. Mr. Smith - It might have been that those types of species go by roots. The planting will not get very far by roots as it would upon the edge of a UNA. The situation depends upon the species. Board Member Hoffmann -The City had to remove several maples because of problems. Mr. Fabbroni - The City had to remove Sugar maples and Silver maples. Mr. Kanter - The Silver maples became brittle when the get older. The limbs were cracking off. Mr. Fabbroni - The trunks also become hollow. They would snap in half during windstorms. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -65 - Site Plan Modification, Summerhill Apartments Phase 2, Summerhill Lane, Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.127. MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Kevin Tally. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to the Summerhill Apartments Phase Il, located on Summerhill Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62- 2- 1.127, Multiple Residence District. Said modifications include reducing the number of total units from 84 to 73 units, with 35 of the units being townhouse apartments instead of the previously approved garden apartments. Other modifications for the townhouses include building patios instead of stair towers and decks, and replacing some parking with detached garages. Ivar Jonson, Owner; Lawrence Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Applicant/Agent. 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 August 7, 2001, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part ll prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on August 7, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans entitled "Summerhill Phase 2 — Landscaping & Drainage," revised 6- 20 -01, "Summerhill Apartment Phase 2 Site Plan With Townhouses" revised 6 -2001, "Summerhill Apartments Typical Townhouse Front & Rear Elevations," dated July 20, 2001, "Summerhill Apartments End Elevations," dated July 20, 2001, " Summerhill Apartment Typical Second Floor Plan," dated July 20, 2001, and "Summerhill Apartment Typical First Floor Plan," dated July 20, 2001, prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S. and other application material; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 15 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 21, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED 1. 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 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed site modifications to Summerhill Apartments Phase2 located on Summerhill Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62- 2- 1.127, as shown on plans entitled "Summerhill Phase 2 — Landscaping & Drainage," revised 6- 20 -01, "Summerhill Apartment Phase 2 Site Plan With Townhouses" revised 6 -2001, "Summerhill Apartments Typical Townhouse Front & Rear Elevations," dated July 20, 2001, "Summerhill Apartments End Elevations," dated July 20, 2001, " Summerhill Apartment Typical Second Floor Plan," dated July 20, 2001, and "Summerhill Apartment Typical First Floor Plan," dated July 20, 2001, prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S. and other application material, subject to the following conditions, prior to building permit: a. submission of an original or mylar copy of the final site plan, revised to show the altered location of the garages, the addition of the sidewalks, and labeling of handicap parking spaces, as discussed at the meeting and to be approved by the Chair of the Planning Board and the Director of Planning or his delegate, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, and b, submission of revised elevations and floor plans to include materials, colors, and labeling, including revised location and elevations of the proposed garage buildings as discussed at the meeting and to be approved by the Chair of the Planning Board and the Director of Planning or his delegate. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Tally. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Thayer. The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Approval of Statement of Findings regarding the proposed EcoVillage at Ithaca development, 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. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 9:05 p.m. 16 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -AUGUST 21, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox - The board has before it this evening a cover letter from Mr. Kanter, a proposed findings statement, a letter dated July 31, 2001 from Martha Armstrong, a comment from Martha Armstrong at the beginning of this evening and colored pictures. Our purpose this evening is to adopt a Findings Statement which will then guide the board to preliminary and final site plan approval. Are there any comments on the Findings Statement? I have small changes. The first change is for the second line on page 2. It refers to the Second Neighborhood. I would add the word "Group ". The top of page 4, minor delay should be "minor delays ". Then five lines down, eliminate the word "only" in reference to the traffic counts. Page 8, first paragraph, seventh line, states the Second Neighborhood would not be visible from the developed portion of Longhouse Cooperative. Can you recall what information caused this statement to be included? Mr. Kanter - There was a statement in the Environmental Impact Statement that reflected that information. Board Member Thayer - There was only one spot from EcoVillage that we could see Longhouse. Chairperson Wilcox - I am not sure what can be seen from Longhouse. Board Member Thayer - It seems that it would be the same both ways. I do not remember any kind of clear view. Ms. Armstrong - These photographs were taken before the leaves came out. There is a thin row of trees. Mr. Kanter - The sentence can be changed to, "The Second Neighborhood will be seasonably visible from some of the developed portion of Longhouse Cooperative ", Chairperson Wilcox - Does anyone have any comments in regard to Ms. Armstrong's letter of July 31, 2001? Board Member Hoffmann - The length of the road will be longer. Chairperson Wilcox - I do not want the Town to have to decide what is a road, a spur road, or a driveway off a road. I am concerned that the language may not be precise enough. The applicant has stated that the road has not changed. We spent a lot of time on the road for the First Residence Group. We wanted to make sure it was properly built to handle fire trucks and other emergency vehicles. Attorney Barney - The Planning Board can make a recommendation. The Town Board will decide if they will accept that long of a road. Chairperson Wilcox - It would modify the current SLUD. I want to make sure that the recommendation is consistent with the proposed Findings Statement. Mr. Kanter - I do not think there is any language in the SLUD to address the road. 17 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 21, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED EcoVillage Lawyer - The section limiting the road to 3,000 feet has been removed. The provisions in brackets of the SLUD will be removed. Mr. Kanter - We tried to focus on if the main road has served its functions and if it is holding up. We looked at if it was able to provide adequate fire service for the Second Neighborhood and future neighborhoods. The question of the length of the roadway is no longer as relevant as it was for the first neighborhood. Chairperson Wilcox - This board may determine that the distance from Mecklenburg Road to the Second Neighborhood might be inappropriate. Mr. Kanter - There is another provision for the secondary emergency access road that kicked in with the completion of the road providing a distance of no greater than 1200 feet from the point of where the emergency access road intersects. It is the case with the Second Neighborhood, which would have the farthest house of any neighborhood from that point. Chairperson Wilcox - There have been a lot of discussions about alternatives as proposed. We have visited the site with EcoVillage, Town Staff, and Ms. Armstrong. The board is satisfied that the alternatives supplied are sufficient for us to form an opinion. Everyone has an idea of what would be the best plan. I could not live in this setting. It is not for me to judge how other people want to live. It is not for me to judge that they refer to up to five neighborhood groups with up to thirty units each. They are relatively close together. I love the fact that a tremendous amount of the land will not be developed. I am comfortable with the alternatives and the plan. Board Member Thayer - I agree. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -66 - Adoption of Findings Statement, EcoVillage at Ithaca Special Land Use District And Second Neighborhood, 200 Rachel Carson Way (off Mecklenburg Road). MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. WHEREAS, EcoVillage at Ithaca has requested Site Plan Approval and Subdivision Approval from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for 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) and has proposed the amendment of a Special Land Use District (SLUD) to be applied to the overall EcoVillage property. (with the exception of the R -15 Residence portion) 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; Liz Walker and Rod Lambert, Agents, and WHEREAS, this is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has established itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review with respect to this matter, and WHEREAS, EcoVillage at Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board at the February 2, 1999 meeting have mutually agreed to conduct the environmental review of the above - referenced actions by means of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate potential specific impacts APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 21, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED of the proposed Second Neighborhood Group and cumulative impacts related to the amendment of the Special Land Use District and potential future development, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public scoping session on April 6, 1999 to hear comments from the public regarding the scope and content of the EIS and approved a Final Scope for the Environmental Impact Statement, as revised at the April 6, 1999 meeting, to identify relevant environmental impacts to be addressed in the EIS, and WHEREAS, EcoVillage at Ithaca has prepared and submitted to the Planning Board on April 3, 2001, a Draft EIS which has examined possible environmental impacts of the proposal, and based on a request from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Town Board and Town staff, has provided additional information regarding possible environmental impacts in an addendum to the Draft EIS, entitled "Errata and Additions Submitted May 7, 2001'; and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as Lead Agency, has with the assistance of Town Staff, reviewed the Draft EIS at their regular public meeting held on April 17, 2001, and has reviewed the "Errata and Additions Submitted May 7, 2001" at their regular public meeting held on May 15, 2001, and has found the Draft EIS to be satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy for the purpose of public review, and has therefore, determined the Draft EIS to be complete, and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has held a public hearing at the June 5, 2001 meeting, which was continued at the June 19, 2001 meeting, to hear comments from the public regarding the Draft EIS, and the period to receive written comments from the public was extended until June 29, 2001, and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on July 3, 2001, which includes by reference the Draft EIS, dated April 3, 2001, and the Errata and Additions, dated May 7, 2001, and also includes a copy of all comments received regarding the Draft EIS and responses to all substantive comments, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca, as Lead Agency, on July 17, 2001, accepted the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the EcoVillage Second Neighborhood Group and Amendment of Special Land Use District No. 8 for filing, having duly considered the potential adverse environmental impacts and proposed mitigating measures as required under 6 NYCRR Part 617 (the SEQR regulations), and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca has filed a Notice of Completion of Final EIS, issued the FEIS, and distributed the FEIS to involved and interested agencies and the public, as required by 6 NYCRR Parts 617.9 through 617.12, and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on August 7, 2001, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed and discussed the Findings Statement for the EcoVillage Second Neighborhood and Amendment of Special Land Use District (Draft July 30, 2001); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca, as Lead Agency, on August 7, 2001, does hereby adopt the Findings Statement for the Environmental 19 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 21, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Impact Statement for the proposed EcoVillage Second Neighborhood and Amendment of Special Land Use District, AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that having considered the Draft and Final EIS and the relevant documents incorporated therein, and having considered the written facts and conclusions in the Findings Statement relied upon to meet the requirements of Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Parts 617.9 through 617.12, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board does hereby certify that: 1. The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been met, 2. Consistent with the social, economic, and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives thereto, the action to be approved is one which minimizes or avoids adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable, including the effects disclosed in the environmental impact statement; and 3. Consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental impact statement process will be minimized or avoided by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures which were identified as practicable. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Continuance from Recommendation to the Town Board red amendment to be applied to the overall at Rachel Carson Way (a private drive), 1 -26.8, consisting of a total of 176 ± Lambert, Agent. the June 19, 2001 3arding the proposed EcoVillage property, on Town of Ithaca T4 acres. EcoVillage meeting for consideration of a Special Land Use District (SLUD) located off of Mecklenburg Road ix Parcel No.'s 28. -1 -26.2 and 28.- at Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Rod Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 9:28 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 9:30 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox - We had a lengthy discussion regarding the road during the first approval of EcoVillage. The road turned out to be near maximum possible length. It meanders along the property. We have an ordinance regarding the maximum length of a cul -de -sac. Mr. Walker - It is part of the subdivision regulations. The maximum is 1,000 feet for a cul -de -sac. Emergency access is the primary consideration. One of the mitigating factors built into the project was the fact the main entry road was built as wide as it is. Instead of having a 24 foot wide travel path, it is about 40 feet wide with shoulders. During the fire in the First Residence Group, fire trucks 20 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 21, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED were able to get to the site even though there were cars parked on both sides of the road. The other mitigating factor is the secondary access road and emergency access off West Haven Road. The secondary road is being maintained year round. It is a 20 foot wide roadway. It joins the main roadway before the main parking areas. It provides a loop so there are two ways into that point. The fire department has been looking at it for access purposes. The other issue of access for Second Residence Group is with the way the parking lots are being laid out and the roadways are being designed, there is another way to access the furthest buildings. Their plan shows for the future residence groups a stabilized access roadway along the western boundary of the open field. It will provide another access. It will be large circle. When the other residence groups come in, there will be several pathways to get to any given point in the development. The Fire Department has been up to the site to look at the paths. They have provided additional ways down to the pond for fire truck access. The Second Residence Group is spread out more. Their walkway can be used by vehicles. It won't be as close together as the First Residence Group. It gives two levels of safety. One if the buildings are further apart, there is not such a threat to other buildings is there is a fire. There is also more space to get into the site. Chairperson Wilcox - Are you concerned about the length of the primary access road? Mr. Walker - No. There is secondary access and alternative paths being proposed. We have more history with the second project. We did not know several years ago how well this would be maintained. The residents of EcoVillage have shown that they can take care of their roadways. They have been maintaining the access. I have not heard of any problems. Chairperson Wilcox - Is the quality of service of the secondary access road similar to the primary access way? Mr. Walker - Yes. It is the same quality. It is not as wide or as heavy as the main road. The road does not receive the same amount 'of traffic. The site was brand new when the fire occurred. The Fire Department was planning a training session and then a real fire happened. They did find some limitations. One of the concerns is the water supply. There is not a good high volume of water supply. It required that multiple tankers be brought in. The City Fire Department does not have tankers. It required bringing in half a dozen or more companies from around the area. They had no idea where they were going when they went into the area. The Fire Department has been more involved with the layout of the Second Residence Group. They are putting in a dry fire system. One hydrant will run into the pond. TheY can set their pumper between the two fire hydrants and pressurize the water lines to several different points in the facility without laying a lot of hose. Ms. Armstrong - My June .5, 2001 letter states that the secondary road was not plowed on one occasion this winter during the big snow storm. My tenants who live at 141 West Haven Road said at two occasions this winter they saw cars stuck on that road. The maintenance is questionable. Mr. Walker - We have had occasions when we have had major snow storms where there are Town roads that have been closed. The road is such that if we had to get in there we could bring in the extra equipment. During a major storm Hopkins Road was not accessible for two or three days. Someone had a baby up there during that time. 21 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 21, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -67- Recommendation to Town Board Regarding Amendment to Special Land Use District No. 8 and Rezoning EcoVillage at Ithaca, 200 Rachel Carson Way (off Mecklenburg Road). MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Fred Wilcox. WHEREAS. 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering Site Plan Approval and Subdivision Approval for the proposed development of a Second Neighborhood Group at EcoVillage at Ithaca, consisting of 30 +/- dwelling units and a common house, located off of Mecklenburg Road at Rachel Carson Way (a private drive), and the Town Board is considering the amendment of Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 8 to be applied to the overall EcoVillage property (with the exception of the R -15 Residence portion) on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 284-26.2 and 28 -1 -26.8, consisting of a total of 176 +/- acres. Ecovillage at Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Liz Walker and Rod Lambert, Agents, and 2. The Town of Ithaca Town Board, in a resolution dated December 7, 1998, has referred the proposal to amend Special Land Use District No. 8 and to rezone the above - referenced parcel to the amended SLUD to the Planning Board for a recommendation, and 3. The above - referenced actions are Type I actions for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has established itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review with respect to this matter, and 4. EcoVillage at Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board at the February 2, 1999 meeting have mutually agreed to conduct the environmental review of the above - referenced actions by means of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate potential specific impacts of the proposed Second Neighborhood Group and cumulative impacts related to the amendment of the Special Land Use District and potential future development, and 5. EcoVillage at Ithaca has prepared and submitted to the Planning Board on April 3, 2001, a Draft EIS which has examined possible environmental impacts of the proposal, and based on a request from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Town Board and staff, has provided additional information regarding possible environmental impacts in an addendum to the DEIS, entitled "Errata and Additions Submitted May 7, 2001'; and 6. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as Lead Agency, has with the assistance of Town Staff, reviewed the Draft EIS at their regular public meeting held on April 17, 2001, and has reviewed the "Errata and Additions Submitted May 7, 2001 " at their regular public meeting held on May 15, 2001, and has found the Draft EIS to be satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy for the purpose of public review, and has therefore, determined the Draft EIS to be complete, and 7. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has held a public hearing at the June 5, 2001 meeting, which was continued at the June 19, 2001 meeting, to hear comments from the public 22 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -AUGUST 21, 2001 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED regarding the Draft EIS and the proposed actions, and the period to receive written comments from the public was extended until June 29, 2001, and 8. The applicant has submitted a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on July 3, 2001, which includes by reference the Draft EIS, dated April 3, 2001, and the Errata and Additions, dated May 7, 2001, and also includes a copy of all comments received regarding the Draft EIS and responses to all substantive comments, and the Planning Board accepted the FEIS as complete as per the requirements of 6NYCRR Part 617.9 at their July 17, 2001 meeting, and 9. The Planning Board, at a meeting held on August 7, 2001, has reviewed and adopted a Findings Statement for the EcoVillage at Ithaca proposal, demonstrating that the Planning Board, as Lead Agency, has complied with all of the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617, and 10. The Planning Board, at a continuance of a Public Hearing held on August 7, 2001, has reviewed the proposed Local Law to Amend the Zoning Ordinance to Provide a Special Land Use District (Limited Mixed Use) for EcoVillage (received June 14, 2001), which includes amendment of Special Land Use District No. 8 and rezoning of the overall R -30 portion of the EcoVillage property (excluding the R -15 portion along West Haven Road) to the amended Special Land Use District, along with the relevant supporting materials in the EIS. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 78 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, hereby finds that: a. There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, and b. The existing and probable future character of the Town will not be adversely affected by the proposed zoning amendment, rezoning and project development; and C, The proposed amendment to Special Land Use District No. 8 and rezoning to the amended Special Land Use District (SLUD) is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town, as documented in the Findings Statement; and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board enact the proposed Local Law to Amend the Zoning Ordinance to Provide a Special Land Use District (Limited Mixed Use) for EcoVillage (received June 14, 2001), which includes amendment of Special Land Use District No. 8 and rezoning of the overall R -30 portion of the EcoVillage property (excluding the R -15 portion along West Haven Road) to the amended Special Land Use District. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann,. Mitrano, Thayer, Talty. NA YS: The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. 23 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 21, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Kanter - The Town Board has tentatively scheduled a public hearing on the zoning change for September 10, 2001 at 6:30 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 179 2001 RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -68 - Approval of Minutes - July 17, 20010 MOTION by Larry Thayer, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the July 17, 2001 as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with corrections. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Tally. NAYS: NONE. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS. Chairperson Wilcox - We will possibly have a sketch plan review for the Steeples Glen proposal. Mr. Kanter - We are still waiting to receive the plans. We need to know who would like to attend the NYS Planning Federation Conference. The sign -up deadline is coming up soon. Chairperson Wilcox - Will we receive a broad opinion on the communication towers lawsuit? Attorney Barney - The suit that we brought includes the Bostwick Road project. Courts generally try to decide cases on the narrowest ground. Our hope is that out of this comes a determination of the rights of the county and local municipalities on all land use issues. A SEQR was not done for the Bostwick Road project. The County determined it was a Type II project. Chairperson Wilcox - The County Elected Officials determined the project was n'ot subjected to SEQR, even though it is located right next to the Coy Glen Unique Natural Area, Mr. Kanter - It did not fit any element of a Type II action. Chairperson Wilcox - The County Planning Department was never asked to do a SEQR review. We will have a full agenda for our next meeting. I have to decide whether I am going to let the public speak for sketch plan review. If I do, they will be limited to no more than 3 minutes. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: 24 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - AUGUST 21, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the August 7, 2001 meeting of Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carrie hitmore, Deputy Town Clerk/Deputy Receiver of Taxes 25 F-CA:-, - Lf I' I ocC , 4-CNN -v -) S, ATTEST ITH A OWN CLERK- 67 VI e�,,Q "F E� � o - L "' ( I A-�t —7 (, & f I /Y► St (-, F-) FRn G Fro Pose � N 64 Catherine Valentino, Supervisor and Fiscal Officer, Town of Ithaca and Members of the Town Board. Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga St. Ithaca. New York 14850 7 August 2001 Dear Supervisor Valentino and Board Members, As members of the community you are all aware of the issues and concerns as expressed by responsible persons and groups regarding the Widewaters development in a parcel of land located at the southern boundary of the City and town of Ithaca. As a life -long Town of Ithaca resident and as a property owner in intimate proximity to the development, I am asking the Board to support my concerns about the possible planned development in the city to the City of Ithaca Planning Board, the Common Council, and Mayor Cohen. The development as presented by the Widewaters Corporation demonstrates no concern to the existence of a residential neighborhood bordering the development and presents a foundation for valid concerns regarding changes to the historical flooding patterns in the adjacent Town of Ithaca and how changes to the traffic pattern will affect travel to and from the Town of Ithaca and the safety problems this traffic problem will create for the local Town of Ithaca residents. As leaders of my local government, I am asking you to please take a stand on these practical and important concerns and contact the Planning Board and the Common Council of the City of Ithaca and Encourage them to Require a full Environmental Impact Statement before any consideration is given to the approval of the project. Thank you. 9�-- ohn D. Powers 106 West Buttermilk Falls Rd. Ithaca, New York 14850 %ATTEST Catherine Valentino, Supervisor and Fiscal Officer, Town of Ithaca and Members of the Town Board. Town of Ithaca ;NC 01 215 North Tioga St. Ithaca. New York 14850 7 August, 2001 L RK Dear Supervisor Valentino and Board Members, During the course of this evenings Board Meeting of 7 August, 2001, there will be a consideration for recommending the granting of a Special Approval for a proposal to install a pedestrian bridge over Rt.13 and to place fill between two abandoned abutments a very short distance east of Rt.13, as part of the D.L. &W. ROW and now State Park land known as the "Black Diamond Trail ". I wish to address the specific part of the plan that would place fill between two of the original abutments that are located approximately 30 yards to the east of the new abutments as constructed during the four -lane conversion of Rt.13. To the best of my knowledge, none involved in the engineering or design of this project ever attempted to contact the residents of the area whose property boarders the site to determine if there exists any historic information that would influence the engineering or design of the project. If this was done, the significance of the opening between the abutments to the east of the Rt. 13 corridor would have become apparent as this opening functions as a flood relief channel during the times when Owl Creek floods over the containment walls located adjacent to the Buttermilk Falls State Park parking lot. During the flooding, the water aggressively flows to an area of lower elevation. Historically, this point is the intersection of the lines between the Rt. 13 roadway and the centerline of the Black Diamond trail. When the storm drain system for the highway can no longer accommodate the water, this area will fill and overflow into the fields currently owned by the Widewaters Corporation. During the process of flooding, the water will flow through and collect on property owned by Margie Rumsey of 110 East Buttermilk Falls Rd. There is an accessory building housing a garage area and part of her business that will experience at least a foot of water covering the foundation. If fill is placed between the identified abutments, there will be no relief route for the floodwaters from Owl Creek and the effects of a decision to obscure the current relief channel will directly cause severe damage to Mrs. Rumsey's property and cause an unnecessary hardship for her. I request the Board to be cautious in approving any plan that in any way reduces the flow between these abutments and to acquire data from several qualified sources before making any decision regarding a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals. (John D. Powers 106 West Buttermilk Falls Rd. Ithaca, New York 14850 -8743