Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2002-04-16TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD FILE DATE TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on :Tuesday, March 19, 2002, 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; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Randy Marcus, Attorney; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Christine Balestra- Lehman, Planner, EXCUSED: Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner, ALSO PRESENT: Lauren Bishop, Ithaca Journal; Paulette Manos, .City of Ithaca Common Council; Stacy Crawford, Better Housing; David Harding, Carl Jahn & Associates; Bruce Jahn, Better Housing; John Fennessey, Conifer Realty; Eric Mulvihill, WHCU; Tye Wolfe, Ithaca Times; Ed Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning; Paul Jacobs, 181 Seven Mile Dr; Margo Brinn, 602 Hector St; Mark Sawyer, Tompkins County Planning, Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:32 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 April 8, 2002, and April 12, 2002, 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 April 12, 2002. (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: Discussion of County/Town Planning efforts with Edward C. Marx, Commissioner of Planning, Tompkins County Planning Department. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:33 p.m. Ed Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning - I think, as you. all know, I started about the first of the year. I have had a chance to meet the planning staff here in the Town and some of your other Town Officials. I was anxious to get a chance to come and meet with the Planning Board in particular. I'm not going to say a whole lot. I mostly want to hear from you. I would like to introduce myself and extend a hand of cooperation to the Town Planning Board and to the Town as I have with other people. Just by way of background, some of you may know I was in Oswego County for 14 years. For 11 years I was the Direct of Planning and Community Development, directly prior to the time I came PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 71 2002 - APPROVED here....__L.._s�ent_ some time upon the hill. I got my undergraduate degree at Cornell and my Master's Degree from the University of Colorado in Planning. I have experience as well in Oswego County as a private sector consultant in the western United States for several years doing a variety of planning. I think I bring a pretty broad background. I have quite a bit of experience working with municipalities obviously. In Oswego County we had about double everything you've got here: 22 towns, 10 villages and 2 cities. I have extensive experience and know the importance of working with local municipal government particularly when it comes to planning and when it comes to land use since you have the authority under New York State Law to regulate that. I have found and I think _we can all agree I hope that we can do more than we can do individually together. That is kind of a theme if anything that I would like to try to leave you with tonight is that we want to work with you in whatever way that we can whether it be with the staff, Planning Board or whoever else within the town level to try to make the community a better place. We have certain responsibilities at the county level that county planning agencies are given under New York State Law. You have responsibilities that you have been given under New York State Law and your town government. We have to exercise those responsibilities. I think we can in a cooperative basis in doing so. I can't say that l think: the structure that New York State has created for planning is always perfect. I know sometimes local municipalities don't necessarily fully appreciate all the recommendations they get from .the county from time to time. On the other hand, we hope that they are of some use. We don't want to do an exercise just because that's what the law says. We would like that effort that we put forth to be of some value to you. If there are ways that we can make those valuable we would certainly work on it. There maybe areas of cooperation that we haven't attempted in the past. We are certainly willing to consider those. As you have all read in the paper, we are constrained at the County level by a little bit of a budget problem at the moment, but we are hoping to successfully deal with that with respect to at least the planning efforts and be in a position to offer any help that we can. Now, we know you have an excellent staff. So the nature of what our cooperative effort would be with the Town of Ithaca will be very different than it might be with another town in the county. We appreciate the fact that you have such an excellent staff. It helps relieve some of the pressure on our technical assistance effort. We do think there are some things that we can do together. We hope that we can find those opportunities to work together. Here with me tonight is the newest addition to the County planning staff, Mark Sawyer who is the senior planner. He will be the point person for local assistance. I thought it was important for him to come and be introduced to you'as well. We want to get to know you all. We don't want to be names on a piece of paper. We would rather be people that you would know and could work with. We hope to make the general municipal law review process better. We would like to explore with municipalities the options provided under state law to define by agreement the nature of that relationship between the county and the municipalities in Tompkins County. There is authority to do things a little bit differently than the normal way if we want to. There are probably better ways to do jobs in a more meaningful manner. The* law allows us the option of excluding certain things if we choose to do so. Defining what must be submitted to the County as part of a review. I think all of these things at this point are open for discussion with all the municipalities in the county. We,-in fact, intend to later this spring to have a planning forum where we are going to invite you all as well as your colleagues on other boards throughout the county to come and have a dialog about how we can all work together in 2 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 712002 - APPROVED the most effective way. That will be certainly one of the topics that we expect to be discussed at that point. The only other thing that I would like to say before we might have a dialog is that it is my intent as commissioner to pursue development of a County Comprehensive Plan in the near future. We certainly want to discuss that with the municipalities with other interest in the community in order to structure that effort in a way that makes for a meaningful end product that is useful to everybody. I think a County Comprehensive Plan is particularly useful in two areas and addressing those issues to clearly extend beyond municipal boundaries by which a County Comprehensive Plan maybe coordinate what is happening at the local level to some degree. Also to help set a direction for the efforts that the County undertakes that maybe related to a comprehensive planning topic whether it be transportation, economic development, housing, any of those things... environmental protections. All of those things are things that the County is involved in. Our County Comprehensive Plan would hopefully set direction, policy and objectives for the County's efforts in those areas, as well as layout framework for cooperation. With that, I would really like to hear from you about what your thoughts are, if you have any questions from me I would certainly be happy to try to respond to them. I know that Fred has at least a couple. If there is any comments or things that we should be thinking about we would like to hear those as well. Chairperson Wilcox - Comments from the board? Eva? Board Member Hoffmann - I understand that probably most of the cooperation would happen between staff of the County and staff of the Town. It makes a lot of sense. I often feel that I would like to know more .about what happens at the County level. I feel that I am not aware of what is going on at the County level. I know of the EMC and its work because it seems to come up during our environmental reviews fairly often. There are probably other things that I am not aware of. I was wondering if you had any ideas of how we as individual board members could get more involved and learn more about what is available for us to use from the County and how we can get more knowledge of what is there that... Mr. Marx - I think communication is clearly a key issue. There can never be too much of it. Its got to be accessible in a way that you can get it when you want it, but not be merged with it when you don't. One of the things we are looking into is trying to develop a website geared towards the local planning community within the County's planning website that exists today so that we could put up information of particular interest to local planners on a regular basis. Whether it be something we're doing at the County level or some opportunity that we are aware of for training or grants or whatever it might be and have that available in a very timely way by being in some place where someone could check into whenever they felt they wanted to. I don't know if everybody has access to the web. Most people do or have someone within their organization, board or staff that could this sort of thing. That is one idea we definitely have in mind. We certainly are open to other ideas about how to open communication. We intend to be present a little bit more. Our hope is to come to a meeting once in a while even if there is no agenda items for us just to come and see what's happening, how things are going and be available if people do have questions about what is going on in the County planning. We want to get out in the community. We hope to get organized to the point where we can do that at least a couple times a year or quarterly, whatever we can muster with the staff resources that we have. So that you will see not just my face or Mark's, but some of the other staff occasionally that could share with you 3 their program areas you have questions on open to those. PLANNING BOARD APRIL 169 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED There might be better other ideas and we are certainly Chairperson Wilcox - You mentioned how the quality of the Town of Ithaca planning staff makes your life easier. It makes our life easier, too. A couple specific questions. One, we have had a couple recent 239 reviews having to do with large amounts of fill being trucked over County roads. The issue has come up that we have talked about and debated is the recommendation that the applicant in some way pay for the proportional damage to the road that ensues. We don't understand how you could do that. I'm not asking you to solve it tonight. Mr. Marx - Sure. Chairperson Wilcox - But to go back and say if we want to make this recommendation when making a 239 review, how do you implement it? How do you make that determination when the side of the road cracks and crumbles away, how do you apportion that to the applicant with all the other trucks that pass by for how many years since it was repaved? Mr. Marx - I believe the intent there was that our County Highway Officials would go out and inspect the roads before the haul period began. If the applicant wanted to be there just to be with them when they do it so they could verify the condition. Then do the same thing at the end of the period. Hopefully there wouldn't be any significant damage. If there was damage beyond normal wear on the road for that period of time that there'd be a hope that there would be a willingness to help compensate for some of the work that needed to be done to repair that. The specifics to that we really left to our Highway Department to work out when people would be getting haul permits if they needed them for a County road. Specifics beyond what I just described to you I am not in a position to respond to. Chairperson Wilcox - There is another argument that says those roads were designed to carry those weights anyway. So any wear and tear that those trucks put on the road is expected. A purpose of a road is to carry traffic including trucks that are hauling heavy road. To go after specific... Mr. Marx - Many county roads are built to a different standard than State highways, which are designed to take large volumes of heavy trucks. I think there is a distinction to be made potentially depending on the road in question, the length of the haul and the time and all those other factors that come into it. I understand from our Highway Officials that generally when it comes to the overweight issue, they are not going to issue an overweight permit most of the time unless it is for a very limited used. For huge numbers of trucks, like some of these projects you have been talking about, chances are they will not issue an over weight permit for those even though we said they would have to apply for one. They probably won't get it. Randy Marcus, Attorney - Ed, I'm just curious. By no means do I want to put you on the spot. I'm just curious whether the County Attorney has actually looked into that possibility. Mr. Marx - Of the damage issue? Mr. Marcus - Yes. ld PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED Mr. Marx - Again, that came from our consultation with our highway people, not with our attorneys. Chairperson Wilcox - Now I have one tough question. Hypothetically, let's suppose the County was going to undertake some capital improvement project and for whatever reasons the County Board of Reps did not do an environmental review. Would you as the Commissioner go to the County Board of Reps and say look this is wrong, you need to do an environmental review, how do you think you can't do one or as the County Commissioner you sit there and say, ya know they never asked me to do an environmental review so... Mr. Marx - Actually, we do have a policy that says we will do an environmental review. So if I became aware that weren't following the policy, yes, I would absolutely bring that to the attention of those necessary officials. We also have a procedure by which through our departments work with the EMC they get referred to our Environmental Management Council for their input. That would have to happen. There are several things by County administrative policy should occur in a case of a project of that nature. That wasn't as hard as I thought. Chairperson Wilcox - I think you understand where my question is coming from though. Mr. Marx - Well, sort of. But yes, I think the planning commissioner's job we have responsibilities within that area of our department. It is our responsibility to make sure that our responsibilities are carried out. If we see something that is not being done that should be, we would certainly bring it to the attention of those in charge. Chairperson Wilcox - I appreciate it. I'm all set. Anybody else? Mr. Kanter - I'm going to bring up the subject kind of local endorsement of that. I know that i been doing since you started, Ed. What would whatever reasons the County Board of Reps some way affect your work plans for pursuing order to move into a Comprehensive Plan? of the Vital Communities Initiative and consider some s kind of key to some of the ground work that you have happen by some ... again, hypothetically, supposing for did not want to adopt those principals, would that in a County Comprehensive Plan? Is that a key step in Mr. Marx - Well, if the County Board didn't ask about the proof of principles, I think there would be a small or at least a half step back in that process instead of a step forward. We are hoping...) think the board will. Obviously, if they get support from the municipalities that would make it more likely that they will. I think it provides the framework for moving forward with a Comprehensive Plan. It also provides the framework for the dialog with all of those municipalities in the County, an ongoing dialog about what kind of a future do we want. How do we make it happen, which is the bigger question in many ways? Principles are only a first step. Agreeing what we want and how you get there is the hard part. If we didn't have some agreement within the community on that, on those principles to move forward from, it would complicate life a little bit and make it a little bit less certain in what we are doing next. It wouldn't stop us going forward with the County Comprehensive Plan. Chairperson Wilcox - All set? Thank you very much. 5 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 71 2002 - APPROVED Mr. Marx - Thank you very much. I'm sure you'll be hearing from Mark in the near future about some of the other things that I had mentioned before. Feel free to call our office, any of you, at any time. know that Jonathan knows that he can. Chairperson Wilcox - I call frequently. Mr. Marx - That's good. Thank you very much for having us. We look forward to seeing you more in the future. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:51 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: Continuation of consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 136 Seven Mile Drive and 182 Calkins Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33.- 2 -1.2, Residence Districts R -5 and R -30. The proposal is to create a 5.36 ± acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 31-2- 1.21), which contains a residence off of Calkins Road, and a 15.34 ± acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 31-2- 1.22), which contains the mobile home park on Seven Mile Drive, out of the 21 ± acre parcel. This subdivision follows existing parcel boundaries that did not receive Town subdivision approval. Paul A. and Linda S. Jacobs and Roland W. Fellows, Owners; Paul A. Jacobs, Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:51 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox - Paul, are you going to speak or do you have somebody to speak for you? Paul Jacobs, 181 Seven Mile Drive - I came hear to answer questions. Chairperson Wilcox - In the materials we received, there was a letter from Andy Frost to you. Andy stated in his letter, "Originally, you maintained that you did not need Town approval in order to subdivide ". If you said that, I want to know why you said it because either I want to make sure it doesn't happen again or if your attorney advised you that, I want to make sure that we get in touch with your attorney and make sure that they know that any subdivision in the Town of Ithaca has to come before the board. We don't have a minor subdivision. Mr. Jacobs - We surveyed that off several years ago. I sold it a year and a half ago. My attorney happened to Rod Fellows attorney. It went through him. If I sell land 30 times a year, lawyers take care of it. I have no idea. I told Andy that I thought it had been subdivided back when it was surveyed. I had no idea. The thought never crossed my mind. Chairperson Wilcox - The attorneys didn't catch it. The County didn't catch it either. The County shouldn't have accepted the platt without my signature. I have no more questions. Anybody else? For the record, the environmental review was done April 2, 2002 and the public hearing was also held on April 2, 2002. Would someone like to move the motion for subdivision? So moved by Kevin Talty. Seconded? Seconded by Larry Thayer. Any other comments? Ms. Balestra- Lehman - Yes. I need to change the dates on the resolution to the 16th instead of the 2nd 9 Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you very much. Ms. Balestra- Lehman - That is probably in 3 places. It then in Whereas number 2 and then Whereas number 3. Chairperson Wilcox . - Are those changes acceptable? aye"? PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 712002 - APPROVED is written right at the top in the heading and All those in favor please signal by saying Board - Aye. Chairperson Wilcox - All those opposed? There are no abstentions. The motion is passed. Thank you, Paul. We need to get copies of the platt. The resolution requires that we get one mylar and 3 dark line prints. Then I have to sign one, which then gets across the street to the County. RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -035 - Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Jacob's Two -Lot Subdivision, 136 Seven Mile Dr1182 Calkins Rd, Tax Parcel No. 33- 24.2. MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 136 Seven Mile Drive and 182 Calkins Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33- 2 -1.2, Residence Districts R -5 and R -30. The proposal is to create from a 21 +/- acre parcel, a 5.36 + /- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 33 -2- 1.21), which contains a residence off of Calkins Road, and a 15.34 + 1- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 33- 2- 1.22), which contains a mobile home park on Seven Mile Drive. This subdivision follows existing parcel boundaries that did not receive Town subdivision approval. Paul A. and Linda S. Jacobs and Roland W. Fellows, Owners; Paul A. Jacobs, 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 Subdivision Approval, has on April 2, 2002, 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 Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 2, 2002, and after further discussion on April 16, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Map of Survey Parcel of Land Owned by Paul A. and Linda S. Jacobs, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State, prepared by Robert S. Russler Jr., Licensed Land Surveyor, dated September 30, 1988, and resurveyed on August 30, 2000, and other application materials, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, 7 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 -APPROVED having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two lot subdivision at 136 Seven Mile Drive and 182 Calkins Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33- 2 -1.2, as shown on a survey map entitled " Map of Survey Parcel of Land Owned by Paul A. and Linda S. Jacobs, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State," prepared by Robert S. Russler Jr., Licensed Land Surveyor, dated September 30, 1988, and resurveyed on August 30, 2000, subject to the following condition: a. Submission of one mylar and three dark line prints of the subdivision plat, all signed and sealed by the licensed surveyor who prepared the survey, for signing by the Planning Board Chair. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS: Chairperson Wilcox - We have a couple of minute here. The public hearing was advertised to start at 8:00 p.m. I want to make sure everyone has had the chance to read the letter that was in front of you. Board Member Talty - I have a question up tonight? Ms. Whitmore - We can fax it for you. This document that was also sent in the mail, I could sign- Board Member Talty - Is it basically a training seminar? Is it a question answer? Do I come with questions? Chairperson Wilcox - When there used to be a County Planning Federation that sponsored these, the Planning Federation is defunct at this point so it is nice to see that the County itself is taking over. Generally what they do is they bring in one or two speakers. We talk about general zoning and planning board issues, SEOR review and those sorts of things. Then they leave time at the end for questions and answers. I don't know how these specific presenters will do. I am not even sure who they are. We've had people from the State and we've had local people do it. Board Member Talty - It says, " Land Use Training Specialist, AICP ". E:1 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox - An AICP is the public help of certified planners. Board Member Hoffmann - If you haven't been to one of these before, I think it is very useful to go. I have found that I learned a lot by going. Board Member Talty - I know I missed the one in the fall. Mr. Kanter - This would be a good interim one. Chairperson Wilcox - Okay, ladies and gentlemen, it is 8:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III development located on Conifer Drive (a private drive), just off Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 27.-1 -13.12 and 27. -1- 13.16, Residence District R -15. The proposal includes 96 apartment units (72 units to be built initially in Phase 11, 24 unites to be constructed in Phase III) in twelve buildings on 14 ± acres of a 45 ± acre parcel. The proposal also includes a community building, access drives, parking, sidewalks, landscaping, and a recreation area including a pavilion and play structures. A bus stop and bus turnaround area is proposed for the northern end of Conifer Drive. The proposed development would consist of affordable housing units with 36 unites being handicapped accessible or handicapped adaptable. The applicant is also requesting to subdivide Tax Parcel No. 27. -1 -13.12 into three lots and Tax Parcel No. 27. -1 -13.16 into additional lots for ownership purposes. Approximately 57 acres will remain undeveloped initially, but will be retained by Conifer Realty for possible future residential expansion. Estate of Anthony Cerrache, Owner (Tax Parcel No. 37. -1- 13.12), and Home Properties of New York, Owner (Tax Parcel No. 37. -1- 13.16); Conifer Realty, LLC, Applicants John Fennessey, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox - John, I heard you were in Ithaca last night, so welcome back to Ithaca again. John Fennessey, Conifer Realty - I am here this evening along with our local partner, Better Housing for Tompkins County, Stacy Crawford and Bruce John, our consultant from Carl Jahn & Associates, David Harding. I am going to let David begin and just go through what we have done since our preliminary hearing, preliminary plan review a few weeks ago and have him indicate the changes that have been since then. David Harding, Carl Jahn & Associates - The comments that we addressed in the final plan, which is not the plan that you see illustrated here before you. This is still the preliminary plan. We are getting as much mileage out of it as possible. One of the principle issues that came out during the preliminary plan review was to add some more landscaping and beef up the size of the trees to get a more effective visual screen of the view from the highway out to the site. If you refer to the reduced size plans that were submitted for the final, you will see how we have added quite a few more plants along the front portion of the westerly boundary, as well as adding additional plants in along the frontage. You also see that we added to the plant list upsized plants that are focused on those two areas to help establish a more quickly, effective visual barrier. To be honest, I can't remember what other primary issues there were from the result of the preliminary plan hearing, but I am prepared some of the issues that have been discussed over the course of the last several days, namely 9 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 71 2002 -APPROVED lighting. We have had some discussions with Susan Ritter. I understand that Susan and Jonathan had gone out to the Phase I development to take a look at those lights. I had made a comment during the preliminary plan review phase that the lights that are being proposed for Phase II are the same ones that were used on Phase I. There was some confusion because the plans show a different light fixture. However, during construction an "or equal" was substituted for it. It is essentially the same fixture. The opinion that was expressed by Susan and Jonathan after seeing how those lights performed in the Phase I area, as well as wall packs that are mounted on the building were that they are quite bright. They do spill a lot of light. So we have been scrambling here over yesterday and today to figure out what we can do about that. Conifer is prepared to revise the plans to show a shoebox type fixture as Susan had researched off the Internet, which has a cut -off shield on it that will direct the light more vertically down and keep the spill to a minimum. We are proposing to utilize those both along the Conifer Drive approach route and anticipate that that same light fixture would be utilized as the property develops off in the future. We would also utilize them within the loop road area itself. It will have a little bit different aesthetic appearance than the Phase I. I personally don't particularly like shoe box fixture aesthetically, but if your priority is control of light spill, then by all means we are willing to cooperate on that. The other issue that they brought up was concerning the wall packs and that they were quite bright. The current plans indicate the same type of lighting and the same extent of lighting on the Phase II development as there was on Phase III. That is that there are three wall packs on each side of each unit. What John Fennessey and I had been discussing was that it maybe a little bit of over kill. One easy solution is to eliminate the one wall pack that is mounted up on the second floor levels of the units so that there will just be the two lower ones. In addition to that, there is a wall pack fixture available that also has a shielding system on it that will help control the side spill of the light. Conifer would revise the plans to include those types of fixtures as well. Another topic that has been discussed was... Board Member Hoffmann - Excuse me, while you're at that, could you describe a little bit more what those wall packs look like? Is there a drawing? I don't remember seeing the drawing. Mr. Harding - I do not believe that there is a detailed drawing of it. They are essentially a rectangular box. Normally about 18 inches by 10 or 12 inches in height. It has a frosted type of globe cover to it. Board Member Hoffmann - It has a frosted glass so you don't see the glare from the bulb. Mr. Harding - Typically, yeah. , I'm not sure if you happened to notice when you were out there yesterday what was on the Phase I area. Ms. Ritter - I didn't seem like frosted. Mr. Harding -It maybe that just the upper portion is frosted so that there is a little bit of light containment with a clear lens down below. Mr. Kanter - I couldn't notice the bulb itself, but the overall intensity of the light going out... 10 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002-APPROVED Mr. Harding - There was an interest expressed that possibly could something be done about the lights in the Phase I area. John will have to speak to that in a little more detail. That is not owned by Conifer Realty. We will certainly speak to them to see what Home Properties could do to remedy the situation. One solution that I suggested was an immediate, in expensive fix it to deactivate that upper story light. That will work to diminish the overall levels there quite a bit. It may be possible at some point to get them to switch out. Conifer really doesn't have control over that given the current ownership. Chairperson Wilcox - Does Conifer have influence? Okay. Mr. Harding - Another topic of discussion centered around the TCAT bus shelter and the accessibility to it. A desire was expressed in a letter from TCAT for that to be a handicap accessible route. The final plans do show a walkway coming down from the intersection separated from the drive by an 8- foot strip of lawn. However, it is not accessible by federal accessibility definition. One of the reasons that it is not is that it is paralleling the slope of the road, which slopes down at about 10 percent. In order for that walk to be accessible, it would either have to be a ramp complete with handrails and landings at 30 -foot intervals. The length of the ramp would be about 180 feet long, which is as long as the walk that is coming down there. It would have to jig jag back and forth to get down. The logic of having the ramp is questioned because only these three units would have an accessible route over to that walk because of the steep grades between the units going up the hill here and up here. There is not an accessible route from all points in the development down to... The alternative would be to try to put a meandering walk through there that would be below the ramp slope at 5 percent grade. That would have to be 260 feet long. It would make it even more cumbersome and not likely to be used. As Susan pointed out, you would probably have people walking down the road to get there anyway, which is what you were trying to avoid. She had made the suggestion that perhaps sticking a landing in at mid point would be appropriate. It would give people a place to rest from the slope. That is a good idea. We are willing to incorporate that into the final plan. TCAT had also raised the issue of whether there was adequate light at the bus shelter. You will notice in the final plan that one of the light poles is located approximately 30 feet away on the north side of the entrance drive and will provide adequate light even with the shield. don't know if there were any other issues that you would like me to address. Board Member Thayer - Did we talk about the school bus before? Does that come up into Phase I now? Mr. Harding - Currently, the school bus comes right into the Phase I loop. Board Member Thayer - So it will do that with this Phase also then. Mr. Harding - That is the assumption, yes. I encourage TCAT to come into the loop, too be the only way to provide true handicap accessible service would be for them to drive and pick people up out at the curbside. That would into the loop 11 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 72 2002 - APPROVED Board Member Thayer - Initially, the kids were walking down Conifer Drive to the main road as I recall. Mr. Harding - I believe that is true. Board Member Thayer - We were worried about a sidewalk there that was never put in and so on. As long as the bus does come up there, then we don't have to worry about that. Board Member Hoffmann - I am curious about the slopes that you were talking about. How much of a slope can there be for it to be acceptable by the federal standards? Mr. Harding - By acceptable, do you be accessible by federal standards? Board Member Hoffmann - Yes. Mr. Harding - The accessibility standards are that a slope cannot exceed 5 percent with out it being a ramp. The 5 percent means one foot drop over a 20 -foot long distance. It is not really that steep. If it exceeds the 5 percent, it can be as steep as an 8 and a third percent. That equates to one foot every 12 feet. You may be aware that you have a handicap ramp right outside of your side entrance there, you can see how many vertical feet that is negotiating, maybe 4 or 5 feet at most from the top of the stair down to the bottom. You can see how long that ramp had to be in order to meet that code. Once you get into that, anything greater than 5 or less than 8 and a third has to have handrails on both sides. It has to have landings at 30 -foot maximum intervals. It is a requirement that is not possible to achieve on a site that has the natural terrain and sloping down as it does. I believe that the natural terrain on this sight is on the order of 10 percent. Board Member Hoffmann - Is that what the finished slope is going to be on the sidewalks typically, 10 percent? Mr. Harding - Yes. Where we do have sidewalks connecting between parking areas, paralleling those steep section of the road, they are as steep as 10 percent. Therefore, it would not be considered handicap accessible. The design does provide accessibility from the unit to the parking spot and from the unit from the mailbox and from the unit to the trash, recyclables. Other than that, someone living up in one of these units who might want to visit the community building, if they didn't want to attempt to negotiate the steep slope would have to drive and park in the handicap parking spaces we have provided there. A fellow from TCAT made a good observation and that was that they currently pick up a handicap resident from the Phase I area out at the highway. He is not sure what unit that person lives in, but it is a very similar situation in Phase I. This fellow may actually live in one of the back apartments. Just because a walk is not handicap accessible by definition, doesn't mean it's accessible to a handicap person. You may have a motorized wheelchair that addresses that situation. Board Member Hoffmann - That was actually the reason why I wanted to ask what the federal standards are and what the actual slopes so that I would know if there was a big difference. For instance, what is the slope on that bit of sidewalk that TCAT proposed that you add going to the bus stop? 12 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 712002 -APPROVED Mr. Harding - That sidewalk is sloped at 10 percent, parallel to the road. Board Member Hoffmann - I see. Mr. Harding - Susan, did you get an opportunity to take a look at that slope coming up out of the... Ms. Ritter - Yeah. It is not a severe 10 percent, but if you were in a wheelchair and didn't have a mechanical one and had to do it by hand, then it would be kind of tough to go up the hill. Board Member Hoffmann - Right. Chairperson Wilcox - Hence, the landing in the middle where they have a place to rest. Ms. Ritter - I guess with the landing I was thinking more just with people ... I wasn't thinking so much wheelchairs as just people who have mobility problems. It might be helpful for them to have. I think with wheelchairs, if they aren't in a mechanical wheelchair, they might have trouble if they lived in Phase II getting to the bus stop. I think TCAT was really concerned that people would think that because there is a bus shelter there that they could easily get to the bus via the sidewalk. I think that Dwight was a little concerned about that and didn't want people to get the wrong impression if they were in a wheelchair that they could easily get to the bus safely. Mr. Harding - Is there anything else that you would like me to address? Chairperson Wilcox - Not for right now, I guess. Are we all set for right now? Okay. All set? Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a public hearing this evening, if anybody in the audience would like to address the Planning Board, we ask you to please step forward to the microphone, give us your name and address and we will be very interested to hear what you have to say this evening. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. Margo Brinn, 602 Hector Street - First, I want to say that I regret coming in at this stage of the planning process. I apparently missed the announcements. I also want to appreciate the careful thinking you are trying to give this development and having community buildings there and trying to think about making it handicap accessible. I am primarily here as a Hector Street resident. As you know, Hector Street experiences very heavy traffic. Our homes shake. The siding gets dirty. The air we breathe is pretty polluted. It is difficult for us and for our children to cross our own street. For example, my daughter goes to ACS, so she has to cross the street twice. It is time consuming and dangerous. So this development especially burdens us on Hector Street. We are not looking forward to the inevitable increase in of traffic, which will be I imagine marginally mitigated by... One question that I have is when was the last traffic count done on Hector Street? Does anybody know right now? Mr. Kanter - I can't answer that specific question, but I can tell you that there is a very thorough traffic study done by they applicant dated January 2002 all with updated data. So you are welcome to take a look at it. 13 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 70 2002 - APPROVED Ms. Brinn - Which included the ... I haven't heard what it was. I can tell you as a resident that it is very heavy. I understand that there are no bike lanes being planned, no sidewalks being planned to connect that development to downtown. Being that that is family housing, that seems very important, especially since young people above the age of children want, and before they can drive, need that kind of accessibility. We've already had a bike fatality on Route 79. There was another fatality of a young boy on Elm Street on his way back from ACS. I feel that if this development does go through, at least sidewalks going all the way through the development and bike paths should be part of the plans and the costs of the plans. Besides being a Hector Street resident, I am also here as a supper of sound environmental policy. If people have learned anything about environmental policy, its that we got to start building cities where people can work, shop, get educated and live within easy walking or public transportation distance of each other and maintain the rural agricultural character of the surrounding area. If we don't adopt this policy, which has to be adopted city -by -city and town -by- town, the car use will increase and agricultural land is being lost. This doesn't only mean a lower quality of life for us on Hector Street, though it certainly does mean that, it also means increased animal deaths, increased pollution and the increased asthma of young children, increased fatalities and serious injuries. Nationally, 45,000 people a year die and 400,000 people are seriously injured which is about like an ongoing small war. It is that level of human sacrifice. Also, there is the diminishing beauty and friendliness of a neighborhood. We need housing and we need low income housing. It needs to be in the City, near the library, the police station or on our own west hill. Right behind my house there is land where I think would make more sense for building this type of housing. I'd like the Planning Board to consider the health of the entire metropolitan area while they consider the Town's fiscal needs. Guide their decisions by policies that will preserve the environment, reduce traffic and work towards creating a community that will be livable for all of us. Thanks. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. Paulette Manos, City of Ithaca 1St ward Representative - I am here to read to you for the record the letter that I hope each of you have received. Please see attachment #1. I'm glad to hear from the developer tonight that some of the comments were taken into consideration. I would like to clarify the handicap accessibility to the bus stop. It is an issue. It was brought up to TCAT because we do have a person in the Phase I of Conifer who uses a wheelchair and who rides his wheelchair across Route 79, a state highway that is very busy at that spot, over to Warren Place to access the bus. The same spot where children are getting on to a school bus, a TCAT bus stops and the wheelchair is there. So we were hoping that there would be really good handicap accessibility to the bus stop. It's not really a hypothetical question at this point. It is a very real thing for the people who live in Phase I at this moment. I'm going to presume that Phase II and III will probably have the same types of issues. The other thing with the lighting and as long as I'm here and you're here, I would like to ask you personally if there is any way you could do something about the lighting that is closest to our residential area right away. There are buildings there are very close to our homes and backyards. I was wondering if that lighting ... you talked about the second floor. Even if some kind of shield could be put on the ones that exist at this point, it would be very helpful. In addition, I asked our MIA, PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED Neighborhood and Economic Development Planning to do some estimates on what a gateway treatment to the West Hill are might look like, might feel like and might cost. He gave me two options. He said that wooden signs on both sides of the street painted on the front and the back. The west face of the sign to say something like, "Welcome to the West Hill Neighborhood, City of Ithaca ". The east face of the sign to say something like, "The City of Ithaca wishes you safe travel ". Some landscaping and flowers at the foot of each sign ... some kind of indication that you are now entering the City of Ithaca and please slow down. - We fought hard last year to change the speed limit at that spot. There is a very sudden speed limit change from 50 to 30. We've brought that down to 40, 1 believe and then down to 30. It has helped somewhat, but the traff ic that has been generated and the speed has increased since Phase I has been put in there. That first option "a" was about $10,000, a very rough estimate. All they way up to an option b, which is the signs and landscaping in option a. Plus lighting for both signs plus if the street allowed a center island narrowing would be an appropriate traffic calming device, which could also be landscaped, that is up to $60,000. It is up to you. We would like some consideration. We realize that we weren't in close proximity to be part of your planning for this project. We appreciate the steps you have already taken. Thank you. Stacy Crawford, Better Housing - I just thought I would add my two cents also. Chairperson Wilcox - Let me guess what you're going to say... Ms. Crawford - Just some information... first of all I would like to thank the people who have offered comments tonight. It always helps to have as much information as possible. In coming to these meetings over the past couple of months, it has been really interesting for me to see just how much information of sharing of opinions and knowledge goes into this whole process of putting these things together. Some general information that I feel you really need to consider mostly has to do around affordable housing, which is what Better Housing focuses on. Generally, affordable housing as it is used and developed in the more rural areas of our county. The most recent data that I've seen, it involves using the 90 census data because we don't have the 2000 figures yet and also some data from the County Planning office from 1997, suggests of all the renters in Tompkins County more than half, 53 percent, have high housing costs. It means that they pay more than 35 percent of their income for rent and utilities. There is definitely a lot of need out there, even without a figure like that I really don't have to tell anybody that. I know that everyone's acknowledged that already. This particular project proposes putting in 48 units that are two bedroom units. According to a lot of housing providers around here, two bedroom units are the hardest size units for families to find. It could go quite a ways in helping to fulfill some important needs. As far as where exactly they are located and planning for the future, we've been talking a lot to the County Planning office. I know Ed Marx was here earlier tonight. They are encouraging their Vital Communities principles to be used first in their own office and then hopefully in the County. Then on a voluntary basis, other municipalities that would choose to adopt them. They involve a mix of providing affordable housing and a lot of different things. They acknowledge the fact that affordable housing is needed and desired in all areas of our County in rural and urban areas. You really can't say lets put all of the affordable housing in the City because not everybody wants to live there. Given those comments and given the work and a lot of the effort that Conifer has put into this development and from what I understand is going to be encouraging Home Properties to meet some of the needs in the existing development. We feel very confident that this is a good project. 15 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 71 2002 - APPROVED Mr. Fennessey - I would just like to address the issue of... Chairperson Wilcox - Let me give the public a chance to speak. You may stand there. I'm not sure if there is anybody else who wishes to address the board this evening. Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:33 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox - John? Mr. Fennessey? Mr. Fennessey - Just for everyone present, I want to clarify this issue about Conifer Realty and Home Properties. Conifer Development Inc., existed as a separate legal entity from 1975 until 1995. Home properties also existed as a separate legal entity. We both developed housing in upstate New York through the time period of 1975 to the year 1995. Then we merged. We formed one corporation. When we developed the first Phase of Linderman, we were a merged corporation under Home Properties. Subsequent to that, in the year 2000 we separated our ways. Home Properties stayed in the market driven housing market area and Conifer stayed in the affordable housing area. We hope to eventually acquire from Home Properties Linderman Phase I, but we are not there yet and maybe we will never be there. I just wanted to have that understood as to how we were married and now we are not married, but we're awful good friends. I will personally talk with Home Properties to see what we can do immediately to address some of these issues relative to light in Phase I. Chairperson Wilcox - Before you leave, you share office space with Home Properties still in Syracuse or Fayetteville? Mr. Fennessey - Yes. Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. So you are with these people. You have some influence over them I trust. Not only the lighting, but also the screening has been brought up on the eastern side of the Phase I development. Someone mentioned wanting higher berms and I thought of you immediately. The berms are already too high. Board Member Hoffmann - We got one that was not there on the plans. Chairperson Wilcox- Can we legally...? Mr. Marcus - Impose conditions on this development... Chairperson Wilcox - On another piece of property that... Mr. Marcus - I can guess you know the answer. Chairperson Wilcox - I know the answer, but I have to ask. Mr. Marcus - You can impose the condition and see what the result is, but you don't have any legal basis to require this developer to take action on property that they don't own. Particularly in a 16 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED situation where the other property has been approved and developed in accordance with that approval. The Town's authority in that case would stem from the possibility that some element of that development fails to satisfy your requirements. If it is the case for example the approval required a certain density of screening, a certain height of berms, a certain type of tree that was not installed by the developer, you have the legal basis in that case to take action against that developer. I'm not aware of that being the case. It sounds from the commentary as: if they may have installed what had been approved and they may have abided by your requirements, but those didn't turn out to be quite as substantial as might have been supposed. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank, Randy. Mr. Kanter - For the record I can confirm that what was planted did conform substantively to the approved site plan and landscaping plan. So, if there is a perceived deficiency its not because it doesn't conform to the plan. Its because there is more space for landscaping, but that's not what we required. Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. A couple things to come to mind in my own reactions to what was said. One was the traffic impact. We made a determination that the additional traffic would not have a significant impact, environmental impact. Mr. Kanter - That is correct. Chairperson Wilcox - I have not looked at that document since pre March 5th would be my guess when I think we had the first public hearing and before that when we did the environmental review. Nonetheless, the document was what we asked for. The numerous intersections that we asked that counts be taken were taken. Yes, there are some bad intersections in terms of delays, levels of service, but they were bad already and this does not have a significant impact on those existing issues. The issues of sidewalks to downtown were brought up. I heard someone say, "sidewalks to downtown ". Board Member Thayer - Bike trails also. Chairperson Wilcox - Bike trails to downtown. Sidewalks and bike trails and all those things are wonderful things, but I will look to Paulette and you know as well as I do that that is an elected official's responsibility not a Planning Board's. If something like that is going to happen it's going to have to be some sort of cooperative agreement between the Town and the City. The mention of not to take into account the Town's fiscal needs when this board makes a decision. I don't think we have ever made a decision with regard to the Town's fiscal needs. That is not the purpose of a Planning Board. The purpose of a Planning Board is to try to make good land use decisions. Mr. Fennessey, I ask you to use whatever influence you have on your former merged company that is now separate to be good neighbors. The suggestion was made that we can possibly help mitigate the light spillage just by someway shielding or disconnecting the second floor. I assume that those lights were put on the second floor for a reason, probably security. Maybe just disconnecting them is not the answer. Maybe there is another way to put a different glass over them or in some way make sure that you can't see the bulb or that there is no spillage or we've reduced the spillage. 17 The idea applicant condition: I'm going someone of some sort of a ramp doesn't have a problem or one or two conditions to think about the gate) else has anything to say, PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 71 2002 - APPROVED half way up the sidewalk is a wonderful idea. I'm glad that the with that. We'll have a condition to deal with that. A couple of to deal with revised fixtures and wall packs in terms of the lighting. Nay into the City for a while, while I let somebody else speak if Board Member Thayer - I'm a little confused about the lighting. Obviously, we approved the Phase I with the cut -off lighting. We didn't ... you know... We didn't? Mr. Kanter - Not correct. No. Board Member Thayer - I thought we talked about that in detail, didn't we? Board Member Hoffmann - Well, we usually do. I'm a little surprised, too. Mr. Kanter - In this case, we didn't. Board Member Thayer - Is that right? We didn't request cut -off lighting. Chairperson Wilcox - There was lighting on the roads, streets on the circulation pattern. Then there are the lights on the sides of the buildings. I haven't heard anyone say that the lights on the streets... Ms. Ritter - You have cut sheets for the lights on the streets. These are the historical ones. They do not have cut -offs. The light bulb is right, sort of in the center. Board Member Hoffmann - I thought I heard, not necessarily tonight, but earlier that those lights were someone offensive. Even the applicant stated that they felt that they were too high and that you are lowering them in this development. Now you are changing them further, which I think is a good thing. That kind of light has gotten to be very fashionable. That's the lights that they put in on Triphammer Road in Cayuga Heights. That's the kind of lights that are on the bridges in the City and on State Street in the City fairly new lights of that type were put in. I don't like them at all. Specifically because of the problems with glare. Board Member Thayer - You can see the bulb. Board Member Hoffmann - I much prefer the lights that light what you want to see and not spill light into your eyes or into driver's eyes. Ms. Ritter - I was just going to add that we did an Internet search today looking at different light. We looked at the Dark Sky. It's an organization that is really interested in preserving night skies. They do not like these traditional lights very much, but they did have some recommendations. If you are going to use this kind of traditional light they recommendation that the light bulb is at the top, above where the metal casing is. That one is preferred. There are better models of these historical types of lights. They are still not perfect. They still have some glare, but they are an improvement. PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED Mr. Walker - The lights that were put in State Street this past year are of this type. They have bulbs up above with the fake chimney and the reflector. They don't through as much to the side. I think the desire there is to light the street in a commercial area with the County Social Services Building there and a number of other high traffic situations. Ms. Ritter - The light bulb is at the top and this is just a fake little lantern. Board Member Thayer - So the light just... Board Member Hoffmann -I would have a problem for that. I'm not sure that it works for pedestrians. It might work for the people who don't want the sky lit up, but for people who are below at street level, the light might come into their eyes more. I think in all of these fixtures frosted glass is almost a requirement in order not to have a glare from the light bulb in your eyes blinding you. Ms. Ritter - It helps to see the light. Board Member Hoffmann - Well, there were some other things that I wanted to bring up when we heard some of the comments. Maybe I'm starting from the end. There was a comment about the speed limit. I believe that when we approved the first Phase of this that we asked for and got a reduction in the speed limit on Route 79 from the City line out to West Haven Road. Isn't that right? Mr. Kanter - That is what we requested. The State did sort of a variation of that. Board Member Hoffmann -.But is has been lowered from 50? Mr. Kanter - It has been lowered partway up the hill. Mr. Walker - The 30 mph speed limit actually extends into the Town a little ways about 100 yards. Chairperson Wilcox - Fully around the bend. Board Member Hoffmann - I don't believe that it is true any more that it is 50 to the City limit and then it goes to 30. One of the things that were mentioned was that it is important to be concerned about the environment and traffic and so on. All the points that this lady made, I believe your name was Brinn. I felt as if we had thought about all those things as we dealt with this application. This was an application to locate densely developed housing as close to the center as possible. We couldn't develop anything closer than that because then it is the City of Ithaca. Close enough so that it would be possible for people living there to use buses that we know go along this road already. We had talked earlier about setting aside parkland in this area, which would serve and this was very obvious in our discussions, which would serve not only the Town of Ithaca but in neighborhoods in the City. It would be right up to the border of the City. I think as we talked about this and developments in this area in general, we were very conscientious of making an effort to put the development where it was appropriate and saving the open space land, the good farmland that we have on West Hill in the Town of Ithaca as farmland. I'm trying to remember what other points you made where I felt that we had conscientiously thought about that in 19 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7,20(t2- APPROVED dealing with this application. I am sorry that you weren't in earlier and had a chance to be part of it of the discussions and public hearings for the first phase and the second phase. I think the applicant has done quite well with trying to conform to what we had asked of them within the constraints that they have of trying to develop housing, which can be affordable for people who need housing that is not is expensive as what's typically available in this County. I thought there was something else, but maybe I will remember it in a little while. Board Member Thayer - I will ditto what Eva says. This is the final approval. We have been through all of that discussion very thoroughly. Board Member Conneman - I think the gateway is a great idea, but isn't that up to the City of Ithaca to do that? Board Member Thayer - Right. Board Member Conneman - I think the City of Ithaca ought to have gateways at various places welcoming people and making sure people know that they are in the City of Ithaca, but I don't think that is a Planning Board function. Chairperson Wilcox - I don't know if it's the City or the Town, but I don't think it is a Planning Board function. Board Member Conneman - Maybe the City could partner with the Town, but that is an issue that they ought to talk about, not a Planning Board. Mr. Marcus - You are entirely right, George. The Planning Board is not a body, which has any authority to spend the town's money. It is simply reactive to what's being proposed. I think a joint effort in that regard might make sense. I thought is might also be worth taking note of the fact that under New York Law, the Planning Board does not have any authority to require a developer of a property to make improvements in a municipality's roadway. Chairperson Wilcox - Actually, for the record, it wasn't asked that the Town spend money, but the applicant spend money. Your second point addresses that issue. Board Member Hoffmann - I just thought of another thing that is the point about creating sidewalks, which we would only be able to ask to have put in, in the Town of Ithaca. I can't remember if there are sidewalks along Hector Street in the City of Ithaca to hook -up to for people to be able to continue going through the center or on any of the other streets in the City in that area. Mr. Walker - I know there are no sidewalks at where Hector Street makes the curve from Town line at least down past Candle Avenue. Chairperson Wilcox - I think it is down around the 500 block where the sidewalk starts. Mr. Walker - I know when we put the water and stuff in there, there were no sidewalks down there. 20 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 712002 - APPROVED Mr. Kanter - I just drove down there this afternoon. The sidewalks really don't start until you get quite far down near where the octopus reconstruction project was. Board Member Hoffmann - Yeah, so I think it is wonderful to be able to have sidewalks so people can walk to places, but to build a stretch of sidewalk where there is no sidewalk connecting in either direction from there doesn't quite make sense. I think it has to be an effort that is planned by both municipalities to try to come up with something that will function for people to use. Mr. Walker - The other thing is that Mecklenburg is a State Highway. The State would have to approve anything in the right -of -way as far as sidewalks. The topography really doesn't... it is very difficult for sidewalks there because of the slopes. The other aspect of this project in planning for the future parts of it with the connecting road going to the north towards Bundy Road, the Town parkland that's been donated to the Town by the developer on the north side of the property. The opportunity for sometime in the future to have a walkway or a walking trail down to Oakwood Lane, which is a residential street in the City with sidewalks, but very low traffic. There is an opportunity in the future for a recreational type path and maybe a commuting type path to go through the residential parcels and then down into the City on less traveled roads than Hector Street. The planning has been put in there as part of our Parks and Open Space Plan also. Chairperson Wilcox - It is along that paper street. Mr. Walker - This is an unopened street, which has no plans to build any roads on. We just put a waterline up through there. It is still pretty open. We are going to be vegetating it or replanting it this spring. The access to the Town parkland is potentially there. Chairperson Wilcox - Jonathan, did you get a phone call from a resident of that area recently? Mr. Kanter - I did. I got a call from Nick Lambro yesterday morning, who has been keeping up with the plans as they have been progressing. He appreciated getting direct notification in our mailings. Nick had been very involved in the Phase I proposal and in fact was one of the opponents of that project. His comment to me over the phone yesterday morning was simply that he was very happy with the way that Phase I had worked out. At this point, he is eager to see Phase II proceed. Basically, he liked the idea very much about the bus stop and the bus shelter being added. Chairperson Wilcox - Is his property affected by the light spillage or the insufficient screening? Mr. Kanter - No, I think Nick lives down on Warren Place a little bit further. Chairperson Wilcox - So he wouldn't be aware of those issues or affected by them. Mr. Kanter - I think it is interesting to not though since you mentioned that since Phase I has been built and it has been in place for two years now... When did Phase I open? It was sometime in 2000 or so, but in that whole time I am not aware of any complaint from any of the neighbors about lighting or screening or anything like that. So I think it is a little bit strange that we are hearing about that at this point. 21 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox - The only other person that we've heard from was Keith McNeil. Keith was at the last public hearing. He didn't seem to have any issues. He didn't say anything negative. He was more worried about traffic considerations around his house. Board Member Hoffmann - I would like to add one comment about something where I was disappointed with how it came out in Phase I. That is I also do not think that the screening that was supposed to be put in with the berm and plants and so on between the eastern most houses and this development and the properties in the City just adjacent to that was very well done. I was disappointed in that. I feel that the drainage way is very unattractive looking. When you look from the driveway that goes around the houses there towards the east, there is a house. The one that is furthest south on the corner there near the curb. The plan that we got it says, "L and CP Horcore Road ". I think it must be the owners of that parcel. You can see straight into their back yard and onto their deck. That is not how it should be. That's not what I. expected it to be. I thought there would be screening so that they would have some privacy in their back yard. That didn't happen or maybe the trees have grown up enough yet and the shrubs. That is a disappointment to me that it came out that way. Chairperson Wilcox - Any thing else? Rod? Board Member Howe - I'm struggling a little bit with the handicap accessibility. I wish it were easier to get to the bus stop and follow federal guidelines. I guess I was surprised to...l hadn't paid much attention or somehow missed the fact that if you are in one unit you might have to get into your car and drive over to the community room. That seems a little odd. Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody else? Staff? Fill -in Town Attorney? Would someone like to move the draft...? Board Member Hoffmann - Let me add one more comment about the plantings. In general I think the improvement in the planting plan is very good. I don't understand quite why there are some spaces left open along the western boundary. I know that the plan you have up is not the one that is the final one. So I am going to try to find the final one here. It looks to me as if the plantings along the western boundary except for in the southernmost corner there is the same as what you had in the preliminary plan. I would really like to see more plantings along that whole western boundary. Could you address that? Mr. Harding - The priority was to locate the additional plantings and the larger trees in locations that would most effectively screen the views from the highway. As you move further to the north along that westerly property line, the site distance from the highway over to the development becomes much greater and would be less easy to perceive the presence of the apartment building, particularly with the grade that is there. If you flip to the grading plan you will see how there is a 12 or 15 foot embankment coming down off of that west property line that sinks those future Phase III apartments down pretty low. If you see anything it will just be the rooftop. Board Member Hoffmann - It is 12 to 15 foot drops. The buildings are two - stories high. Right? Mr. Harding - That's correct. 22 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 -APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann - So what is the total height of the buildings? Mr. Harding - I believe that the total height to the peak was something like 36 feet. If you constructed a cross - section sight line from the highway through the ... over the top of the embankment to the rooflines, I think what you will see and until that actually gets constructed we'll only tell for sure. I'm pretty sure you will only be able to see part of the upper story of unit and the roof. You are talking about seeing something that is probably somewhere on the order of 500 or 600 feet away. It is just my opinion not that visually prominent that it needs the type of screening that you are suggesting. Board Member Hoffmann - I agree with you that it is more important to have it along the road and to have a greater depth of planting there. I see that is what you have proposed. Mr. Harding - You have to have a practical limit. Doing more extensive plantings like you are suggesting has a dollar amount associated with it. It is something that John Fennessey will have to speak to. I am not sure that the project can support continuing to put additional... Board Member Hoffmann - Well, let me just double check that I understand something correctly. Are all those plants along the western boundary going in now? Mr. Harding - Yes. The only plants that are not going in are what you see on the Phase III plan, which is the last L sheet in that set. That plan shows the additional plantings that will occur around the units in the immediate vicinity. They are predominately foundation plantings and some shade trees along the street line and some flowering trees in between. Board Member Hoffmann - That makes sense because you need some room to do the construction. But what about if you were to plant some more plants to fill in but not maybe as large a size as you have proposed. Some smaller plants that will have a chance to grow by the time you begin this. Mr. Harding - Its definitely a more cost expedient solution. However, you have to be patient. This is the boat that we evolved to in- the Phase I project. Some of those project costs, particularly developing the access road all the way around that old farmstead property started to drain away finances from what otherwise could have been put into larger plant materials. We apologize for the lack of effectiveness that you are seeing there. But with a little time that will start to improve. We can do the same thing on the Phase II as you are suggesting, but you might look at those after the fact and go why did they bother. Board Member Hoffmann - I didn't mean with all of the plants. I would like to see you go ahead with the plan that you have proposed and the sizes you have proposed. If you could fill in with some extra plants with a smaller size along the western boundary where there is more opening then you could perhaps do that without such a great expense. Mr. Kanter - David, maybe you could mention ... I think the revised landscaping plan did fill in some on the corner. Board Member Hoffmann - Yes. I see that on the plan. North of the corner it is still the same as in that plan there. It is just a lower berm essentially. 23 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED Mr. Harding - We were trying to locate them where they would have the greatest impact and that was along the front. Board Member Hoffmann - You did a good job with that plants. Mr. Harding - John? I guess I am still asking for a few more small Mr. Fennessey - You can always plant more plants. You can keep going on forever if you want to. I think this is a good plan. It serves the purpose its intended to. We have gone substantially beyond what we had originally planned. I think we are where we need to be for the plantings along this development. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, John. Board Member Hoffmann - How do you feel about this staff members and other board member? Board Member Howe - I'm fine with the revised... Board Member Thayer - I'm satisfied with the revised. Board Member Conneman - I think Eva makes a point. If you are going to plant trees there and they are not going to do anything for a couple of years, plant a smaller tree or more of them. Chairperson Wilcox - Balanced against the cars coming down Mecklenburg Road who have that to the left will have that view onto the units. We need to get some screenings along the road of some reasonable height so that the views are not as open as they might be. Board Member Hoffmann - Right. Board Member Thayer - The big berm they are going to leave there will take care of that. Chairperson Wilcox - The extra tall berm. I was about ready to see who wanted to move the motion before I was rudely interrupted. Board Member Conneman - I will move the motion. Chairperson Wilcox - So moved by George Conneman. Do I have a second? Board Member Thayer - I'll second. Chairperson Wilcox - Seconded by Larry Thayer. Okay. We have a couple of changes to make based upon discussion. Randy, here is where you earn your money. One was the revision of all appropriate drawings to reflect what was referred to as a landing midway along the sidewalk that connects Phase II to the bus shelter. I know what they mean, but is that the right term? E PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED Ms. Ritter - It is a flat spot. So as you are coming down you come to a flat spot and then you can start up again. It's like a little rest stop. Chairperson Wilcox - Is it a technical term? Mr. Harding - Yes. I would suggest that we do that every 30 feet. That would be three landings. Chairperson Wilcox - So revise all appropriate drawings to show three landings spaced equal distance along the proposed sidewalk. The other changes had to do with revisions to show the shoebox fixtures along Conifer Drive and on the loop road and revisions to the wall packs on the building. Ms. Ritter - To have cut -off. Chairperson Wilcox - I'm looking for my cut -off. page here. I just want to make sure that we are all on the same Ms. Ritter - We don't have a picture of any... at this point they didn't want to commit to a particular light box. Chairperson Wilcox - So what do we want? We want revisions of all drawings to show... Ms. Ritter - Lights utilizing cut -offs. Mr. Marcus - You had also suggested at one point eliminating the second floor wall packs. Board Member Hoffmann - Wasn't there also some comment from staff about the wall packs being brighter than they needed to be? Ms. Ritter - I think as long as they have the offul'mfnthey ot even el burelthat hi9ee ht now they would be too lights manythat just come right down at you. If they had a cut-off, Chairperson Wilcox - Two on the first floor and one on the second floor? Mr. Fennessey - If we could have some flexibility in that on the second floor. It may not be necessary. I would like to have an analysis done by them to say, "Listen, the two wall packs with cut- offs are sufficient". If we could do that we would like to eliminate that one on the second level. Ms. Ritter - So, I guess allow them some flexibility in determining how many lights. As far as the shoebox goes, are you okay with the shoebox lighting? Mr. Fennessey - Yes, despite my consultant not liking them. I think they will do the job. What we want to do is be consistent with the light fixture as they go back in... Chairperson Wilcox - So, how do we word this with regard to the wall packs? 25 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 712002 -APPROVED Mr. Marcus - I think that you probably want to say that the wall packs will be guarded or have cut -offs. The developer may delete the second story lighting if that is acceptable to your Planning Department, Chairperson Wilcox - Director of Planning we usually assign that to. Mr. Kanter - Could we just add that the intent there of the cut -offs is to minimize horizontal spillage of light from off the site? Mr. Walker - You want a perimeter cut -off fixture. Mr. Kanter - Yes, thank you, Dan. Chairperson Wilcox - Are those changes acceptable George and Larry? Board Member Conneman - Yes. Board Member Thayer - Yes. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you very much. Is there any further discussion? changes? Ms. Ritter - I think we're all set. Chairperson Wilcox - All those in favor please signal by saying "aye "? Board - Aye. Are there any other Chairperson Wilcox - There are no abstentions. The motion is passed. I thank you all. RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -036 - Final Site Plan Approval and Final Subdivision Approval, Linderman Creek Apartments, Phase 11 and Ill, Mecklenburg Road (NYS Rte 79). MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Final Site Plan and Final Subdivision approval for the proposed Linderman Creek Phase 11 and Ill development to consist of 96 apartment units (72 units to be built initially in Phase II, 24 units to be considered in Phase Ill) in twelve buildings to be located on 15.2 acres to be located off of Mecklenburg Road (NYS Rte 79) at Conifer Drive, a private drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 27 -1 -13.12 and - 13.16. The proposal also includes a community building, access drives, parking, sidewalks, landscaping, and a recreation area including a pavilion and play structures. The proposed development would consist of affordable housing units with 36 of the units being handicapped accessible or handicapped adaptable. The property was rezoned by the Town Board on April 8, 2002, from R -15 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 -APPROVED Residence to MR Multiple Residence. Estate of Anthony Ceracche, Owner; Conifer Realty, LLC, Applicant; John Fennessey, Agent, and 2. The Town of Ithaca Town Board, in a resolution dated April 9, 2001, referred the petition to rezone the above - referenced parcel to the Planning Board for a recommendation, and authorized and requested that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board act as lead agency for environmental review of the proposed rezoning, and 3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at its meeting of February 5, 2002, declared its intent to act as lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed Rezoning, Site Plan, and Subdivision Approval for the proposed Linderman Creek Apartments Phase 11 and Ill, and circulated a notice of intent to serve as lead agency to involved and interested agencies, and 4. The proposed Rezoning, Site Plan and Subdivision Approval are Type I actions pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Town of Ithaca Local Law No. 5 of the Year 1988 Providing for Environmental Review of Actions in the Town of Ithaca, and 5. The Planning Board, at a meeting held on February 19, 2002, began review of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I prepared by the applicant, and at a meeting held on March 5, 2002, accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I prepared by the applicant, the Parts ll and 111 of the EAF as well as a Visual EAF Addendum, prepared by the Town Planning staff, and other application materials, and 6. The above - referenced EAF incorporates specific studies and reports prepared and submitted by the applicant, including, but not necessarily limited to, a Site Impact Traffic Evaluation (January, 2002), a Stormwater Drainage Report (January 17, 2002), and a Wetland Delineation Report (June 29, 2001, with additional maps and information submitted January 28, 2002 and February 7, 2002). The EAF and other application materials also include relevant references and analysis of the cumulative impacts associated with possible future phases of development on remaining portions of the property being acquired by Conifer Realty LLC, and 7. Based on the above, the Town Planning Board, at its March 5, 2002, meeting, issued a negative determination of environmental significance regarding the proposed Rezoning, Site Plan, and Subdivision Approval, and 8. The Planning Board, after holding a Public Hearing on March 5, 2002, and after reviewing and accepting as adequate preliminary plans entitled, "Linderman Creek Apartments Phase ll, Preliminary Site Plan & Details (L -1), Overall Grading Plan, Erosion Control Plan, & Details (L- 2), Enlarged Grading Plan -West (L -3), Enlarged Grading Plan -East (L -4), Storm System Plan & Details (L -5), Planting Plan & Details (L -6), Site Utilities Plan & Details (C -1), Site Electric & Lighting Plan (C -2), Site Utility Details (C -3), and Site Utility Details (C -4)," prepared by Carl Jahn & Associates and dated January 17, 2002; floor plans entitled "Linderman Creek Apartments Phase 11, One Bedroom Unit Plans & Elevations (A -101), Two Bedroom Unit Plans & Elevations (A -102), Three Bedroom Unit Plans & Elevations (A- 103)," dated January 17, 27 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED 2002, and "Community Building Plan & Elevations (A- 104)," dated January 21, 2002, all prepared by DLK Architecture, P.C.; a preliminary subdivision plat entitled "Revised Final Plan, Linderman Creek Apartments, Lands Now or Formerly Anthony Ceracche, Part of Military Lot 56, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by C, T, Male Associates, P.C., and dated January 29, 2002; and other application materials, granted Preliminary Subdivision Approval and Preliminary Site Plan Approval and issued an affirmative recommendation to the Town Board to rezone the above - referenced parcel from R -15 Residence to MR Multiple Residence, and 9. The Town Board, after holding a Public Hearing on April 8, 2002, has enacted a local law amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Map to rezone a portion of Tax Parcel No. 27 -1- 13.12, located on NYS Route 79, from R -15 Residence District to MR Multiple Residence District, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Tax Parcel No, 27- 1- 13.12, 42.9 + 1- acres total, into three lots of 10.415 + 1- acres, 2.772 + 1- acres, and 29.069 + 1- acres ( 736 + /- acres part of DOT highway); and the subdivision of Tax Parcel No, 27- 01- 13.16, 32.44 + 1- acres total, into three lots of 1.634 + 1- acres, 2.079+/ - acres, and 28.7 + 1- acres, as shown on the plat entitled "Revised Final Plan, Linderman Creek Apartments, Lands Now or Formerly Anthony Ceracche, Part of Military Lot 56," dated January 19, 2002, and most recently revised April 3, 2002, and prepared by C. T. Male Associates, P.C., conditioned upon the following: a. Approval of easements guaranteeing access of the large remaining parcels to Conifer Drive, by the Attorney for the Town, prior to signing of the Final Subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair, b. No building permits for future phases or development of the remaining large parcels located north of Phase I and Phase 11 shall be issued until the access road, extending from Conifer Drive and over Linderman Creek is reviewed and approved by the Town Highway Superintendent and Town Engineer, C, Before construction of the future access road is commenced, any required wetland permits shall be obtained and a copy forwarded to the Town of Ithaca for review, d. Submission of an original mylar and three copies of the final approved subdivision plat, all signed and sealed by a licensed surveyor, for signing by the Planning Board Chair, prior to filing at the Tompkins County Clerk Office, and e. Compliance with all of the conditions set forth below with respect to site plan approval, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Linderman Creek Apartments Phase 11 and 111 development to consist of 96 apartment units (72 units to be PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED built initially in Phase ll, 24 units to be considered in Phase Ill) in twelve buildings and a community building to be located on 15.2 acres of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 27 -1 -13.12 and 27- 1- 13.16, as shown on site plans prepared by Carl Jahn & Associates and entitled "Linderman Creek Apartments Phase ll, Layout Plan & Details (L -1), Overall Grading Plan & Details (L -2), Enlarged Grading Plan -West (L -3), Enlarged Grading Plan -East, Erosion Control Plan & Details (L -4), Storm System Plan & Details (L -5), Planting Plan & Details (L -6), Site Plans & Details (L -7);" utility and architectural plans prepared by DLK Architecture, P.C., entitled "Site Utilities Plan (C101), Site Electric & Lighting Plan (C -102), Sanitary Sewer Profiles (C -201), Site Utility Details (C -501, 502, and 503), Unit A- One Bedroom First Floor Plan (A -2), Unit A- One Bedroom Second Floor Plan & Elevations (A -3), Unit B -Two Bedroom First Floor Plan (A -5), Unit B- Two Bedroom Second Floor Plan & Elevations (A -6), Unit C- Three Bedroom First Floor Plan (A -8), Unit C- Three Bedroom Second Floor Plan & Elevations (A -9), Community Building Foundation & Floor Plans & Elevations (A -10), "all dated March 28, 2002, and other application materials, conditioned upon the following: a. Revision of the Site Utilities Plan (Cl 01) to show an 8" PVC sewer main between SAMH 4 and SAMH 9 rather than the proposed 6" main, to ensure adequate future sewer service for the Phase 111 portion of the property, b. Revision of the Site Utilities Plan (C101) to indicate that the sewer lines from SAMH 4 to SAMH 9, and the connection from Mecklenburg Road to SAMH 5, be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca for future use as a public sewer, with a 20 -foot easement to the Town of Ithaca centered on the sewer main for both lines, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any of the buildings, C, Provision of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, prior to issuance of any building permits, d. No berms are to be constructed higher than shown on the plans, and all other construction is to be fully in accordance with the approved plans, and e. Submission of an original mylar of sheets L -1, Layout Plan & Details; L -2, Overall Grading Plan & Details; and L -6, Planting Plan & Details, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, and f. Revision of all applicable drawings to show a landing every 30 feet, a total of 3 landings, along the sidewalk connecting Phase Il to the TCAT bus shelter, and g. Revision of all applicable drawings to include shoe box/cut -off light fixtures along Conifer Drive and the loop road to minimize horizontal light spillage, and submission of cut sheets for the luminaries for review and approval of the Director of Planning prior to issuance of an building permits, and h. The wall pack light fixtures will be shielded or have cut -offs to minimize horizontal light spillage, and the developer may delete second story wall pack lights with the approval by the Director of Planning, cut sheets for the wall pack lighting units shall be submitted 29 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 NNUTES APPROVED - MAY 72 2002 - APPROVED for review and approval of the Director of Planning prior to issuance of any building permits. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Tally. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 9:11 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9:12 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES = March 19, 20020 RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -037- Approval of Minutes - March 19, 2002. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Kevin Talty. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the March 19, 2002 minutes 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, Conneman, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Thayer. The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS: Chairperson Wilcox - Let me get through other business as quickly as we can. Let me do the most important one first. Christine, which is yours. Why don't you take the lead on it? Ms. Balestra- Lehman - This board approved cell antennas on the Town water tank on Sapsucker Woods Road. Within that approval, condition number 4 states, "structures and antennas must be painted the same color as the water tank". This is water tank green. I have pictures to show you. What we would like to ask the board is to modify that condition because aesthetically speaking, the building as it exists is a nice sort of beige. It kind of looks like bark. It is less intrusive than if it were to be painted that water tank green color. We were hoping to ask you guys if you could modify that 30 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 712002 - APPROVED condition so that they don't need to paint it. The antennae are painted that same color, which is appropriate. Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. Let me take a look at these. All right. Lets pass them around so everyone can get a look. It is staff's recommendation that rescind that. Mr. Kanter - Basically, to modify. Chairperson Wilcox - Modify the approval to delete it. Can we do this without a public hearing? Mr. Marcus - Yes. It is your condition. Chairperson Wilcox - Maybe someone would like to tell us that they would like the condition to be left in. Mr. Marcus - I'm sure that there is somebody. Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody have any issues with the color, as they go around? Board Member Thayer - Nice squirrel. Chairperson Wilcox - Does that beigy brown look okay? green. Board Member Hoffmann - You're right. You can't see it. It probably looks better than water tank Ms. Balestra- Lehman - If it were water tank green, you would be able to see it. Chairperson Wilcox - I usually do these. So I will move the motion to amend resolution 2001 -108, preliminary and final site plan approval, recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals regarding special approval for Nextel Telecommunications antennas on Town water tanks, Sapsucker Woods Road, to delete condition number 4. Mr. Walker - Modify. Chairperson Wilcox - Oh, modify the approval to delete condition 41 Mr. Walker - Just modify condition 4 so that the building doesn't have to be painted green. Chairperson Wilcox - Right. The antennae are green, but the building doesn't have to be. Do I have a second? Board Member Talty - I have a question Chairperson Wilcox - No, but it is. Does the water tank have to be green? 31 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED Mr. Walker - Don't even go there. We just painted it that color. Board Member Talty - All water tanks are basically green or blue. Mr. Walker - That's because they kind of blend in with the scenery that way. Board Member Hoffmann - The one down by the airport was rather... Chairperson Wilcox - I need a second. Seconded by Kevin Talty. All those in favor? Board - Aye. Chairperson Wilcox - Everybody's hand is up. There are no abstentions. That takes care of that one. You will get back to the applicant. Ms. Balestra- Lehman - Yes. RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -038 "Amendment of Resolution No. 2001 -108. MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Kevin Talty. RESOLVED, that this board amends the Planning Board Resolution Number 2001 -108, Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding special approval, Nextel Telecommunication Antennas on Town Water Tanks located on Sapsucker Woods Road to modify condition number 4 to allow the equipment box to remain the color beige. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Tally. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox - I'm sure they'll be happy. Kevin already mentioned the Tompkins County Planning Department training session coming up. He already signed up. Good man. The form was in front of you this evening when you arrived. Again, I encourage anybody who hasn't gone or hasn't been for a while to take advantage of the County Planning Department and what they're doing. I'm going to leave that up to Jon to bring up. Jon, you said our next meeting is looking rather full at this point or starting to? Mr. Kanter - Fairly. Chairperson Wilcox - It is a reasonable compromise between 9:15 and midnight in terms of when we get done. 32 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED Mr. Kanter - Somewhere in there. Chairperson Wilcox - And because Larry changed his schedule and went vacation and came back for a meeting and then he is leaving. We have to wish him the very best. We look forward to seeing you back when you're better and when you're ready. Board Member Thayer - Probably a couple of meetings and then I'll be back. Chairperson Wilcox - You may not be very comfortable when you sit, but you'll be back. Board Member Thayer - Who knows. Chairperson Wilcox - Jon, I'm going to let you bring up the Vital Communities thing, which you mentioned before. Mr. Kanter - Thank you. We were wondering if the board might be willing to schedule an agenda item for the next meeting, the May 7th meeting to consider endorsing the County Vital Community Initiative principles. I attended a public meeting that the County held last week. The County's planning committee is now actually considering those principles and passing them on for whole Board of Rep for consideration of adoption. I think this board and the Town Board both had presentations of the Vital Communities Initiative maybe six months ago. We never actually did anything with it. So I think it would be appropriate if at this point as the County is actually getting ready to consider adoption for this board to consider some form of endorsement and possibly some sort of recommendation to the County Board when they consider adoption. I don't think we would want to go as far as adopting the principles ourselves as a Town, but certainly to give some kind of a message to the County that these sound good. You should use them. We agree with them. In fact, our Comprehensive Plan in most cases has adopted most of them. I think if we put a resolution like that together... We do have for you copies of the most recent draft of the Vital Communities Initiative principles. If you agree that it would be appropriate to have an agenda item for the next meeting, hold on to those handouts and take a look at them. We can discuss it at the next meeting. Board Member. Howe - I agree. Board Member Hoffmann - Yes. Chairperson Wilcox - You can add it to the schedule. Mr. Kanter - We will probably put it late on the schedule, not late, late, but towards the end of the schedule. Hopefully ... I don't foresee it as being a very long agenda item. We were also hoping to put this on the Town Board agenda for them in May to do a similar thing. Chairperson Wilcox - Any other items or concerns? Staff? Jon, anything else? Mr. Kanter - I think we wanted to get a sense from the board whether you wanted to schedule a field trip out to the Cornell Athletic Fields to look at the Hawthorne Thicket area. That is going to be on the agenda for May 71h also. I don't think there is anything else we need to update the board on right 33 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 712002 - APPROVED now. If that is something you want to do, we should try to schedule it before May 7"'. If you recall, that had to do with the acreage figure discrepancy between the originally stated tenth of an acre disturbance and the revised figure of half an acre disturbance of the Hawthorne Thicket. Comell has submitted a letter basically explaining that it take a look at it as a group, it is something whether you would like -to do that. Board Member Howe - I'm interested. was an oversight. If anybody would like to go out and we can try to set up. We'll get your feedback as to Board Member Conneman - I would be, too, if we could set a date. Chairperson Wilcox - I'm in. Board Member Talty - The prior week I will be out of Town. Ms. Ritter - So, the week before the Planning Board meeting you are not available. Board Member Talty - Right. I'll be available that Friday. Chairperson Wilcox - We'll do it on Friday. I'll bring the beer. Ms. Ritter - Rod, with your work schedule? Board Member Howe - I think Friday afternoon would be okay if it is in the afternoon, probably after 3. Chairperson Wilcox - The only reason that I might think of for scheduling it earlier is in case it rains that day. If we schedule it on that Friday... Board Member Talty - I'm never going on a site visit without my boots. Mr. Kanter - If we can get through College Circle we can get through anything. Chairperson Wilcox - Man, that was wet up there. It was terrible. Ms. Ritter - This shouldn't be along site visit just to quickly go out there and take a look. We can tentatively schedule it for then and call and confirm it with you. Board Member Thayer - Don't call Larry. Mr. Kanter - Sue and Mike pointed out that you can't really plan to walk through thicket because that is what it is a thicket with thorns. We can certainly walk down from the tennis center and look at it from up hill and get a good idea of the length and perimeter of the area that is going to be disturbed. It would be helpful to have Cornell. Ms. Ritter - I can see what I can arrange with Cornell folks. l PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002'- APPROVED Board Member Talty - Four members have to be there, right? Chairperson Wilcox - No, any number can go. If we expect four or more we should notice the paper that we are holding a meeting. It is a meeting when four of us get together to discuss business. Mr. Kanter - I think what we will do is call around and confirm after we check with Cornell we'll get back to you. If it turns out that we have four or more we will put some kind of a notice in the paper. Chairperson Wilcox - You are probably out the next two meetings or longer. Eva, you are missing the next meeting only? Board Member Hoffmann - Yes. Chairperson Wilcox - You won't be sitting next to me. I'll miss you. Board Member Tatty - George can snuggle up next to you. Chairperson Wilcox - So we are going to be down to at least five the next meeting. Board Member Conneman - I'm sure it's not the same. Chairperson Wilcox - We better hope Tracy is here. Mr. Kanter - We have the Public Works facility May 7 t Chairperson Wilcox - By the way I did get a copy of the environmental statement. Mr. Kanter - The State purchased recently from Dave Auble at the corner of Danby Road and King Road, which didn't go for subdivision approval but that is because it was the State buying it. Ms. Ritter - It is a good thing. Chairperson Wilcox - State buying land? State Parks buying land. When I heard State, I immediately thought of DOT. I didn't think of parks. Mr. Kanter - Then there is one other subdivision. Town of Ulysses is buying a piece of land up on Woolf Lane to put a water pump station up there to extend water lines into the Town of Ulysses, which is a whole separate review and joint agreement between the Town and Ulysses. This particular subdivision is going to be to cut off a piece from an existing parcel. Ulysses will buy it and build a water facility there. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. Mr. Kanter - Its pretty full. Chairperson Wilcox - But not one of those midnight ones. Kv PLANNING BOARD APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED Mr. Kanter - No. I think we can squeeze on the vital communities discussion. Chairperson Wilcox - I received an email, which was a copy of the letter that Andy Frost sent out to the trailer man. Andy was forceful. Referenced our ... the time that he was here, referenced the minutes of the meeting and set a deadline for the gentleman to come back to the Planning Department with some sort of plans other than a hand drawn plan on a piece of graph paper that we saw before. Mr. Kanter - The deadline he gave was May 1st to either remove the trailers or come in with a plan acceptable to us to bring to you. Chairperson Wilcox - I thought we were very generous to say that we will give you a year, but don't expect an extension. He hasn't done anything. If you remember he kept saying, "what am I walking away with, did you approve anything "? No, we haven't approved anything. I'm kind of irritated with this guy right now. Have you seen his commercials on TV? He's got some commercials running on TV. Any other business? Where's Mike Smith? Ms. Balestra- Lehman - He's not here tonight. Mr. Kanter - Mike covered the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting last night so we gave him the night off. Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. Can I have a motion to adjourn? So moved by Larry Thayer. We are adjourned at 9:28 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the April 16, 2002 meeting of Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carrie Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk/Deputy Receiver of Taxes 36 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR • ALAN J. COHEN Telephone: 607 /274 -6501 Fax: 607/274 -6526 4/13/02 Mr. Fred T. Wilcox, Chair Town of Ithaca Planning Board Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 Dear Mr. Wilcox, We are writing in regards to the site plan application for the expansion of the Linderman Creek housing project. As you well know, this project has elicited some strong feelings from our constituents on West Hill. Many do not want to see this expansion take place at all. With the recent rezoning action by the Town Board, we consider it a foregone conclusion that the expansion will be approved. Given that, we would like to comment on three aspects of the project; traffic generation, lighting and visual screening. As was expected, the project has already produced an increased volume of traffic on Hector Street. We are encouraged that a TCAT bus stop is incorporated into the next phase of this project to mitigate what we know will be another increase in person trips along the Hector Street route. We ask you that you carefully consider traffic impacts and consider other ways the developer can mitigate them. One suggestion would be a contribution by the developer to the construction of a gateway treatment at the entrance to the city. A gateway would signal to motorists that they are entering a neighborhood, and our research shows that this type of installation does have a traffic calming effect on motorists. As to lighting, we fully understand the visual and security needs to have ample lighting on the site. Our concern stems from the light pollution that the current site lighting is emitting. We ask you to consider requiring the developer to install deflector shields on both the new lights and the existing lights. Such shields would not detract from the lighting for the site, but would effectively prevent the ATTACHMENT #1 An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program �1: light from spilling onto adjacent properties. The issue of screening is one that we raised during discussions about the first phase of this project. We were given assurances, which we took at good faith, that there would be adequate screening, between this new 'R3' use and the existing 'R1' use immediately adjacent to it, both for visual and noise mitigation purposes. The reality of the current situation is that the berms and sparse plantings on the site fall far short of providing for a reasonable screen between these two uses. We ask two things of your board. First, if you have not already done so, we ask that you conduct a site visit to verify what we are saying about the screening. Second, that you use the expansion application as a legal and legitimate opportunity to redress the deficiency in the original site plan and require the developer to use some combination of higher berms or denser vegetation to provide for a more reasonable screen. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Respectfully, 0 a� Pat Paulette Manos Pryor A an J. Cohen 1st Ward Alderperson 1st Ward Alderperson Mayor CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street— 31 Floor Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DOUGLAS B. McDONALD, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT JOANN CORNISH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning & Development - 607 -274 -6550 Community Development/IURA - 607 - 274 -6559 Email: planning @ciryofithaca.org Email: iura @cityofithaca.org Fax: 607 - 274 -6558 Fax: 607 - 274 -6558 To: Paulette Manos, Common Council From: Tim Logue, Neighborhood 8v Economic Development Planner Date: April 16, 2002 Re: West Hill Gateway Treatment Here are two options for gateway treatments for Hector Street at the City /Town line. These are rough estimates. Option A Wooden signs on both sides of the street, painted on front and back. West face of sign could say something like "Welcome to the West Hill Neighborhood, City of Ithaca." East face of sign could say something like "The City of Ithaca Wishes You Safe Travels." Landscaping with flowers at the foot of each sign. Approximate cost: $10,000 Option B Signs and Landscaping in Option A, plus Lighting for both signs, plus If street width allows, a center island narrowing would be an appropriate traffic calming device. This island could also be landscaped. Approximate cost: $60,000 "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." to***! TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, April 16, 2002 AGENDA 7:30 P.M. Discussion of County / Town Planning efforts with Edward C. Marx, Commissioner of Planning, Tompkins County Planning Department. 7:50 P.M. Continuation of consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 136 Seven Mile Drive and 182 Calkins Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33- 2 -1.2, Residence Districts R -5 and R -30. The proposal is to create a 5.36 +/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 33- 2- 1.21), which contains a residence off of Calkins Road, and a 15.34 +/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 33 -2- 1.22), which contains the mobile home park on Seven Mile Drive, out of the 21 +/- acre parcel. This subdivision follows existing parcel boundaries that did not receive Town subdivision approval. Paul A. and Linda S. Jacobs and Roland W. Fellows, Owners; Paul A. Jacobs, Applicant. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III development located on Conifer Drive (a private drive), just off Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 27 -1 -13.12 and 27- 1- 13.16, Residence District R -15. The proposal includes 96 apartment units (72 units to be built initially in Phase II, 24 units to be constructed in Phase III) in twelve buildings on 14 +/- acres of a 45 +/- acre parcel. The proposal also includes a community building, access drives, parking, sidewalks, landscaping, and a recreation area including a pavilion and play structures. A bus stop and bus turnaround area is proposed for the northern end of Conifer Drive. The proposed development would consist of affordable housing units with 36 of the units being handicapped accessible or handicapped adaptable. The applicant is also requesting to subdivide Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -13.12 into three lots and Tax Parcel No. 27 -1- 13.16 into additional lots for ownership purposes. Approximately 57 acres will remain undeveloped initially, but will be retained by Conifer Realty for possible future residential expansion. Estate of Anthony Ceracche, Owner (Tax Parcel No. 27 -1- 13.12), and Home Properties of New York, Owner (Tax Parcel No. 27 -1- 13.16); Conifer Realty, LLC, Applicant; John Fennessey, Agent. 4. Persons to be heard. 5. Approval of Minutes: March 19, 2002, 6. Other Business. 7, Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY MARY BRYANT AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, April 16, 2002 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 8:00 P.M. Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III development located on Conifer Drive (a private drive), just off Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 27 -1 -13.12 and 27 -1- 13.16, Residence District R -15. The proposal includes 96 apartment units (72 units to be built initially in Phase II, 24 units to be constructed in Phase III) in twelve buildings on 14 +/- acres of a 45 +/- acre parcel. The proposal also includes a community building, access drives, parking, sidewalks, landscaping, and a recreation area including a pavilion and play structures. A bus stop and bus turnaround area is proposed for the northern end of Conifer Drive. The proposed development would consist of affordable housing units with 36 of the units being handicapped accessible or handicapped adaptable. The applicant is also requesting to subdivide Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -13.12 into three lots and Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -13.16 into additional lots for ownership purposes. Approximately 57 acres will remain undeveloped initially, but will be retained by Conifer Realty for possible future residential expansion. Estate of Anthony Ceracche, Owner (Tax Parcel No. 27- 1- 13.12), and Home Properties of New York, Owner (Tax Parcel No. 27 -1- 13.16); Conifer Realty, LLC, Applicant; John Fennessey, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance tas necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, April 8, 2002 Publish: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 The; Ithaca Journah i Wednesday, vrll 10,:2002 _- .TOWN.OVITHACA,: ,'= 'PLANNING'SOARD .; f :NOTICVOP PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday April .16 2002 and ai in %�y Ap`61 16,'2002; VorthsTioga StreeF: I'.Y:, at thefollowing' d on ,the following - (o .private a 45 �.+ /-acre por•' proposolLols. in- .a: - community - ;access- drive's, aoina . and '�a turnaround area is,prc osed for:the.northern end of Conk fer'Z_-Drive., -The' .pproposed development .would ",consist of =affordable housing units with x'36• oflke :units ,being kdndicapped - accessible or !handicapped -'adoptable. The-: applicant is ;also =re questi 'to 'subdivide Tax ParceP No: 27- 1- 13,12�into; Ithree;lots-and Tax :Parcel.Na. 27 =1- 1'3:16' into`. additional- Owner= Tax. Parcel :.No.: 27.1- M.12), and ; Home Properties _of New York, Owner (Tax` Parcel `No. .27.1- 13.16); Conifer Realty, iLC;' Applicon; John :Fen- nPttP.V , (cent- .:. .hear all:persons -in support of such matters;or objections thereto.'Persons.may appear by' agent .• wtth or in person. Individuals ' ,*visual im.poirments, hear-in � impairments orother specia needs, will.be,pi&ided with assistance' as. •necessary; upon= request; - Persons iiesu- ing'- ;assistance must make .sucha.'request not.less. than 48'h'ours,prior to :the timetof jhe';p6blic1 hearin9s.: Jonathan Kanter;•AICP Director of Planning 273;1747 Dated:' -April 8,: 2002 April 101'2002 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: April 16, 2002 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION S ss�c, G , Uo L N) .a TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 commencing at 7:30 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting : Date of Publication April 8, 2002 April 10, 2002 G'dt- Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 10th day of April 2002. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01CL6052878 Qualified Commission Expires December 26, County 0 CQ