Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2003-05-06-- _7 FILE j, May 6, 2003 Planning BoaMnutes Approved May 20, 2'0'x'3 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, May 6, 2403 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, May 6, 2003, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Vice Chairperson; George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Peter Grossman, Attorney for the Town; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Michael Smith, Environmental Planner EXCUSED: Rod Howe, Board Member. ALSO PRESENT: Brian Klumpp, 298 Cortland Road, Reagan Land Surveying; David Auble, P.O. Box 3945, Bules Creek, North Carolina; Bruce Brittain, 135 Warren Road; Doug Brittain, 135 Warren Road; Steve Wright, 204 Humphreys Service Building, Cornell University; Karissa Woodin, 111 West King Road; Doralee Woodin, 111 West King Road; Jennifer Terpening, 207 West King Road; Ron Teeter, 215 West King Road; ML Cartlucci, 123 West King Road; Diana Vrabel, 209 West King Road; Patricia Fain, 133 West King Road; Stephen Fain, 133 West King Road Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:04 p.m. and accepted for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on April 28, 2003 and April 29, 2003, 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 29, 2003, Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:05 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed garage /storage building at the Robert Trent Jones Golf Course, located on Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68 =1 -9, Residence District R -30. The project involves removing May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 the existing 2,900 +/- square foot garage /storage building and replacing it with a new 3,040 +/- square foot building in the same location. The new building will continue to be used for the storage of 40 golf carts, the players clubs, the golf team clubs, general storage for the Pro Shop, and general golf course storage. Cornell University, Owner /Applicants Steven G. Wright, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Before you begin, I will point out that there is no environmental review because this is classified as a type 2 action because , I'll just read it from Mike's notes. "It is the construction or expansion of the primary or accessory or pertinent non - residential structure or facility involving less that 4,000 square feet of gross floor area and not involving a change of zoning or a use variance consistent with the local land use controls." The floor is yours. Stephen Wright, 204 Humphreys Service Building, Cornell University — Thank you. This is a fairly straightforward project. We have an existing structure out there. It served as the old pro shop, but it actually was a multi purpose building. It serves now as storage for the ball team, club members and also storage for the retail function that happens in the pro -shop and did happen before that. It serves as the dispatch place for the golf carts. Right now, I think I sent you some pictures, the golf carts sit underneath the covered are that is pretty much around half the building. They used to have a fleet of electric golf'carts, they would pull them in there and charge them up at night and then they would dispatch them to an area by monthly. Now the pro shop is bimonthly, so they dispatch a portion of them down there every day. Typically, on a given day, the golf course will use about twenty golf carts. Sometimes they will use as many as thirty. It's a rare occasion when they use as many as forty. When they have the larger events they'll actually rent golf carts and they'll be brought in and they'll have sixty or seventy, but those wouldn't be dispatched out of this building. This building would be used to house their fleets. It's a fairly simple, residential style type construction. There's no heating system in it. The whole lighting system consists of the incandescent lightbulb that goes straight down the middle and the code required residential power around the building. It's got one door going out on this end and one door going out on this end. Then three storage compartments, for the storage that is currently housed in the building. The storage will be increased in size a little bit because just the nature of the building doesn't allow easy use of the storage. For the same volume that we can store- you will end up with more aisle space and the flooring would be increase a little bit. (pointing to diagram) This is Warren Road, going up this way. So this is the entrance and this road goes around over here. Here's the new pro -shop. Here's the existing building. We're going to put the new golf cart storage on the site of the existing building. So, that's what we're seeking today, approval to proceed with this project. It's somewhere in the range of $100,000 to $200,000. The 2 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 existing building has to be demolished and that has asbestos and lead paint in it. That will take up a portion of the cost disposing of that environmentally. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions? Board Member Conneman — Is it going to be lit at night? Mr. Wright — There will be no exterior lighting. Board Member Conneman — No exterior lighting? Mr. Wright — No. Board Member Hoffmann — How does the height of the new building compare to the height of the existing building? Mr. Wright — It will have a low slope roof, so they'll be just the same height. It won't exceed the zoning requirements which is lower that 15 feet. Board Member Hoffmann — This looks like it would be — oh, I'm reading the numbers wrong here. Mr. Wright — If you look at the existing building, it's got a very shallow roof. Board Member Hoffmann — That's why I was asking, because the drawing that you have here is not complete with heights. Mr. Wright — This is what the profile of the building looks like. Board Member Hoffmann — Oh, there you do have the heights. Okay. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions? Stephen why don't you have a seat. Gentlemen, this is a public hearing. Do either one of you wish to speak this evening? Well, you're here. You know the routine, name and address. Douglas Brittain, 135 Warren Road - I'm not prepared because I hadn't known what it was going to be on, but, what I'm mostly concerned about, and it looks like, to a large extent, it is being addressed, is it would be nice to have this fairly inconspicuous. Which involves the height, it involves exterior lighting. It involves having it hidden by bushes because there are some bushes around the existing structure. But- oh funny looking, isn't it I guess I shouldn't say that. But, the more inconspicuous, the better and if it's about the same size, that would be nice. I think, maybe I shouldn't speak for all of us neighbors, but I think that having the golf course be attractive and in good conditions is a good thing to have happen. As long as it turns out okay, I think this building will probably be fine. How's that? 3 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Board Member Wilcox — That's a great answer. Anybody else? Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 7:11 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Since there is no one else, I will close the Public Hearing and bring the matter back to the Board. Welcome Tracy. Board Member Mitrano — Thank you Fred. How are you? Chairperson Wilcox — I see nothing but benefits. Stephen will this be on the same concrete slab as the existing one? Mr. Wright — Part of the problem with the existing one is that it isn't on a concrete slab. Chairperson Wilcox — That's right. That's why the cinder blocks -- Okay, thank you. Board Member Hoffmann — I have a couple more questions, if you don't mind staying there. I see what you call the north elevation here, which looks to me more like the east elevation. It has some small doors, but no windows. Is that true for the opposite elevation too, which would be facing more- Mr. Wright — There is nothing on the other elevation. There's no door and no windows. Board Member Hoffmann — No doors and no windows, okay. Mr. Wright — The intent is that this is a garage. It's not lighted because we don't want people hanging around it and there's not windows because we don't want people looking into it. It's just for storage. Board Member Hoffmann — I wanted to ask you about plantings. I see that three trees are going to have to be removed, but I didn't see anything about them being replaced. Are they being replaced? Mr. Wright — Right now the front of the building, which is standing right there. There are plantings in that area, but there's no exit in that area, so when we put the exit for the building in that area, there won't be plantings there. The intent of the golf course folks is to not have a lot of plantings. There are trees to the east of it and those will not be disturbed, but the existing, I guess we call them "scrub trees" that have grown up around the building, those are not expected to be replaced. 0 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Board Member Hoffmann — You're not removing the trees to the east? It says "The project includes removing three eight inch caliper trees.". Mr. Wright — Right. Those are the ones that are out in front of the building out here. They interfere with where golf course would run. Board Member Hoffmann — On my drawing there is a line that says "removes three eight inch caliper trees". And it points to a different area. It points to a different area. It paints -here it says "removes three eight inch caliper trees" and then it points here, to the other end of the building. Mr. Wright — Oh, I'm sorry. I was thinking you meant that. There is actually a string of trees along here and, yes, one or two of those will be removed. Board Member Hoffmann — What about some planting long the fagade of the building that faces Warren Road? Some smaller plantings just to break the long expanse of the building? Mr. Wright — The side that faces Warren Road will be the 32 foot side. So, I'm not sure you'll have a big mass there. Most of the mass will be the doors. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, you can't plant anything there, obviously. You're answering my question by saying that there are no plants. Mr. Wright — There are currently plants, althoug folks, they have a landscaping budget and they golf course and plant things and take things out that it be an attractive place as well. So I would time, just in an effort to make things look better, things will be installed. h I will tell you the golf course routinely go throughout the entire all year long. So they're vision is imagine that, over the course of things will be replaced and Board Member Hoffmann — Thank you. Mike, I think I'd like to ask you where this statement about the three eight inch caliper trees came from? Mr. Smith — Where it came from? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Mr. Smith — In looking at the plans, it just shows that they are removing three of the trees. Beyond that, I didn't suggest anything additional. Board Member Hoffmann — So this was what you thought, too? Mr. Smith - Yes. The loss of the trees was on the back side of the building. 5 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions? Would someone like to move it? So moved by Kevin Talty. Seconded by Tracy. We'll shut out Larry this time. There being no further discussion and there being no proposed changes, all those in favor please signal by saying "aye ". Anybody opposed? Are there any abstentions? The motion is passed unanimously. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 029,Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval, Cornell University -Golf Cart Garage/ Storage Building, Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68. -1 -9, Residence District R -30. MOTION by Kevin Talty, seconded by Tracy Mitrano, WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed garage / storage building at the Robert Trent Jones Golf Course located on Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 684-9, Residence District R -30. The project involves removing the existing 2,900 +/- square foot garage / storage building and replacing it with a new 3,040 +/- square foot building in the same location. The new building will continue to be used for the storage of 40 golf carts, the players clubs, the golf team clubs, general storage for the Pro Shop, and general golf course storage. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Steven G. Wright, Agent, and 2. This is a Type 11 Action, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), requiring no further environmental review, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 6, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, a plan entitled "40 Golf Cart Storage Facility - Cornell University ", dated 1/17103, prepared by Barradas & Partners Architects, and other application material, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed removal of the existing 2,900 +/- May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 square foot garage /storage building and replacing it with a new 3,040 +/- square foot building in the same location, as shown on the plan entitled "40 Golf Cart Storage Facility — Cornell University ", dated 1117103, prepared by Barradas & Partners Architects, subject to the following condition: a, submission of an original of the final site plan on mylar, vellum or paper, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Tally. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Howe. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. ADGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination: Holly Creek 8 -Lot Subdivision & Associated Development, West King Road and Danby Road, Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:18 p.m. Brian Klumpp, 289 Cortland Road, Reagan Land Surveying — I work for Gary Wood and Reagan Land Surveying and Dave Auble. Mr. Auble is looking to subdivide a piece of property located at the intersection of West King Road and Danby Road. Lots 1 through 5 will be single family residential lots. Lots 6 and 7 will be multi - family apartment units. Lot 8, along Danby Road will be reserved for commercial development. This project involves rezoning of the site. The current zoning for the site is mostly Business C. There are two MR Zones at the site. Lot 2 is one MR Zone and a small corner down here on Lot 8 represents the other MR Zone. There is one Business D Zone and that is located at the intersection of West King Road and Danby Road. The project proposes to re -zone Lots 1 through 5 and the westerly portions of Lots 6 and Lot 7 are R -30 Residential. Lots 6 and 7 are zoned MR, multiple residence. Lot 8, this project is proposing to convert any portion of Lot 8 that isn't already Business C to Business C. There is an existing sanitary sewer line running from south to north on the property and it continues on to the property of Gary and Doralee Woodin. Their lot is right here. This manhole (pointing to map) will be used to create a new sanitary sewer line running along the east of all the apartments on Lots 6 and 7. Lots 1 through 5, single family homes will use individual pumps to pump up to the proposed sanitary sewer line. Lots 6 and 7, the apartment units will use gravity flow to connect to the proposed sewer lines. There is an existing water line running on the north side of West King Road. The project proposes to tie into that existing water line with a new water line running, more or less, parallel to the center line of Holly Creek Lane. This water line will provide service for Lots 1 through 7. 7 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 The new road for this subdivision is approximately 800 feet in length and to be used as access to Lots 1 through 7. This road will be built to Town specifications with the intent of being dedicated to the Town. The proposed storm water pollution preventions plan to manage runoff both during and after construction, using the methodology described in the NYS Storm Water Management Design Manual. Currently, storm water on the southerly portion of the property closest to the existing stream, runs east to west to the approximate side of the property. It doesn't show up that well on this map. Two pond will be constructed to manage stormwater runoff. Those ponds will be located on the westerly portion on Lot 6 and the westerly portion of Lot 7. These ponds were designed to include the full development of Lot 8. The southerly pond will discharge as channelized flow to the stream. The northerly pond will discharge to an outlet swale. An exercise path would run along the perimeter of Lots 6 and 7. All residents of the subdivision have an easement to use the path. There is a proposed play area on Lot 6 and residents of Lot 6 and 7 will have permission to use this play area. The apartment units themselves, each unit would have three bedrooms and an attached one car garage with an additional open parking space. The site plan that we're looking at here shows the two car garage. Since this plan was submitted, our view of how the property should be done has changed. The drive- ways would be initially gravel, but likely to be paved in the future. That's the summary of the project. Mr. Auble and I are here to answer any r questions you may have. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, let's concentrate on the Environmental Review first. Board Member Conneman — I have a question about the site, not the environmental. Board Member Hoffmann — I have a few questions that over the Environmental Review Form. On page 5, point description and it talks about the total number of acres. to be developed initially and 5 later on. Under point 1, f. of parking spaces existing, which is zero and the numb( I'm a little confused here. Does that mean for the whole parcel. Or does it mean just the part — came up when I went b, is the project 15 acres, of which 10 are it mentions the number ;r proposed, which is 50, parcel, the whole 15 acre Mr. Klumpp — That's just for Lots 1 through 7, the apartments and the single family. So that number will certainly increase when Lot 8 is developed. Board Member Hoffmann — It's a little confusing. Under 1 b. it says 15 acres ultimately for this project ", but that's not really true. It's really 10 acres ultimately for this part of the project, isn't it? May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — It think the intent here is that the entire site is 15 acres and the intent of the developer is to eventually develop the commercial zone. Board Member Hoffmann — I know that, but this part of it doesn't express it very clearly. Mr. Kanter- Well, it's a little confusing because this involves several actions and one of them is subdivision. So the subdivision does entail the whole 15 acre site. Board Member Hoffmann — That's true, I guess. Well, do we need to maybe fill in here that the 50 parking spaces is just for the first phase to make that clear? Mr. Kanter — We could do that. Board Member Hoffmann — And then, on page 6 point 7, it talks about the phases. Here again it's a little confusing. Points b and c talk about the anticipated dates of starting Phase 1. It says " 6 month, 03 year ". That means June, 03, 1 assume. Mr. Klumpp — Optimistic. Board Member Hoffmann — And then the next one "approximate completion date of final phase 9 month, 06 year ". Does that mean September 06 that you're figuring on? Mr. Klumpp — That's an estimate. We don't know what's going to take place on Lot 8. We don't have a buyer and it's a commercial zone so the possibilities are tough to nail down. Board Member Hoffmann — Again , my question doesn't only have to do with clarifying what months and years we are talking about, but again, I think that the form is a little unclear there and what's put into the spaces makes it unclear too. Chairperson Wilcox — Although I think we all understand what was intended. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but I think it could be designed to make it easier to figure out. Page 7, point 18, it says "will the project use herbicides or pesticides" and it says "no ". Does that mean that you are going to put some restrictions on the home owners for the single family homes as well as on the apartments. That they are not allowed- Mr. Klumpp — It was not our intention to put restrictions on the home owners. Board Member Hoffmann - Then how can you prevent pesticides and herbicides from being used? May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Let's be careful. This is the project. This is what they are doing. Are they going to be using herbicide or pesticides, it's not whether the eventual land owners are. Board Member Hoffmann — But, I think the form applies not just to what happens during the project, but what happens after. For instance, otherwise it wouldn't ask how many parking places there will be after completion and how much paved area there will be after completion. Chairperson Wilcox — On the other hand, you can't expect the applicant to say for the lifetime of this project, will there be herbicides or pesticides used. Board Member Hoffmann — I think they can if they- Chairperson Wilcox — You're right. If they're willing to put deed restrictions on them. Board Member Hoffmann —1 think, otherwise maybe the answer to this question should be "yes ". Rather than "no ". But again, it's a problem with the form. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney, will you offer an opinion? Mr. Barney- I think I agree with Eva, it is a problem with the form because in the project, as we understand it, they are not going to be using herbicides or pesticides during the course of the project. I'm just trying to think of an analogical situation. If someone said they were going to come in and put a commercial office park. In the course of doing that, some day, some time someone might use herbicides or pesticides, but it's not the intent to do it right now. Perhaps the better answer is that none is intended at the present time and no representation can be made with respect to what future owners might do. Mr. Kanter — How about this, put a little note on the side. "Project itself will not use herbicides or pesticides during construction. There will be no restrictions, however, on future use by residents." Chairperson Wilcox — It works for me. Thank you Jon and John. I see nodding heads. Board Member Hoffmann — That's better. I also looked a little bit on the figures on the second part. This comes, of course, from the applicant's information. On page 5, under point 15, in the second paragraph, it talks about the number of vehicle trips. There are 5.8 trips per day per apartment, presumed and 9.6 trips per day per house. I just wonder why there re so many more trips anticipated from the houses. Mr. Barney — I'm sorry, where are you reading from? May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Board Member Hoffmann — It's page 5 in the second part. Mr. Barney — Part 2, page 5? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes and it's the last paragraph on that page. Mr. Kanter — I think we're having trouble finding this. In the part 2 description text? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. It's the part 2 description. Mr. Barney — At the bottom, what is the page number? Board Member Hoffmann — Five. Mr. Kanter — It is the part 2 text, prepared by staff. Board Member Hoffmann — Why are there so any more trips assumed from the single family houses than from the apartments? Mr. Klumpp — Unfortunately, I can't answer that specifically because Gary Wood is the one that did the traffic analysis. But he followed the national standard for transportation. Chairperson Wilcox — Would it be your speculation that those came out of a book? Mr. Klumpp — Yes, they did. Mr. Kanter — That doesn't surprise me that single family homes may tend to generate more trips over a day. Is that what you're asking about? Board Member Hoffmann — Is that typical then? That's why those figures are given in books? Mr. Kanter — They're not hugely different, but that would be the ITE, the Institute of Traffic Engineers, trip generation, numbers. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. The other thing is, on the third line from the bottom, there, you have written the 116 additional vehicle trips to be generated don't have a significant impact. But it seems to me that it's 116 from the apartments plus 48 from the single family houses, so it's 164 total. Isn't that right? Mr. Klumpp — Yeah, it looks like it. 11 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Board Member Hoffmann — It's not a huge difference, but it should probably be corrected if that is, in fact, the correct figure. Mr. Kanter — I'm unclear on where this correction goes. Board Member Hoffmann — The third line from the bottom of that same page. Chairperson Wilcox — Are we all set Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — I had another question about the apartments. I can't remember where I read, but I think I read somewhere in here that the apartments would have three bedrooms, but when I looked at the drawings of the interiors of the apartments. Mr. Klumpp — The drawings don't show a second floor. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I thought they did. Mr. Walker — Yeah they do. Board Member Hoffmann — They do show a second floor, don't they? The second floor has a master bedroom and a den added and the down stairs drawings don't show any bedrooms so I was wondering where the three bedrooms were. Mr. Klumpp — These floor plans weren't final drawings. Mr. Auble visited Barden Homes and they were in negotiations regarding exactly what Dave wants. They just gave him these drawings as a starting point. So there will be some modifications to the floor plan. Board Member Hoffmann — So you're saying that each apartment will have three bedrooms? And the traffic figures are based on all of them being three bedroom apartments? Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Dan, we'll start with you, since you did the drainage. We have your memo. Mr. Walker — That's not a very large area and there is no watershed above it. The two detention ponds will mitigate the increased runoff generated by the additional impervious surface. The only comment we had was on how the pond to the south or north would discharge. They showed a detail with four pipes coming out and we want to see a level spreader all the way across just to prevent any concentration of flow. But, I'm satisfied with that. 12 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Satisfied based on the materials that have been submitted so far with regard to the request for preliminary site plan approval? Mr. Walker — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — I will note that John Andersen, what's his title? Mr. Walker — Director of Environmental Health, I believe. Chairperson Wilcox — For Tompkins County. Provided an e-mail message to Jon Kanter on Tuesday, April 15th expressing some concern about the need for individual sewage pumps on the single family homes. It has been pointed out in the materials that were on the desks when we arrived, that the Town has standards for those individual systems and that. Board Member Talty — Dan, the outlets to those ponds, are they on the park property? Mr. Walker — They're adjacent to the park property. It will drain through the park property. Which it already does. They're not changing the drainage patterns. It's basically, with the spreaders, the one pond will drain into the Holly Creek and the other one will be spread out to basically maintain the existing flow. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there any advantage to sheet flow over channelizing the flow in general? Mr. Walker — If you don't have channels there now, yes. They'll become channels if you don't just keep it spread out to keep the channels from forming. It will eventually, I'm sure there are other little channels further down the hill. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions in regard to the Environmental Review of both the recommendation for the re- zoning, site plan and the subdivision? Board Member Hoffmann — I just remembered another thing that was a little different. When you were talking about the project, you talked about the man hole on the lot which is developed next to the driveway going into this project. Mr. Klumpp — Woodin's parcel, yes. Board Member Hoffmann — Right and you mentioned that it's in the southwest corner and you pointed to the southwest corner. In the papers, I remembered it being stated as being in the southeast corner. I think that is something we should also correct. I found it here a while ago. It was in one of the pieces of material that you provided to the Town. 13 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Mr. Klumpp — You're correct. It says southeast in the engineer's report and it should say southwest. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, it's the engineer's report. On page 2 or 4, at the very first line at the top right of the page is where it is. It should be corrected to say southwest. Chairperson Wilcox — Also in front of you when you came in this evening is a copy of the proposed local law that would, if enacted by the Town Board, would re -zone the various parcels as Brian has described. Any other questions with regard to the environmental review? Dan, you're all set. Jonathan, you have anything to say? Mr. Kanter — Just if there are any other questions on the part 2 that we created, but I think it's all pretty well spelled out in it. Chairperson Wilcox — Brian, can I ask you to take a seat just for a second? Mr. Klumpp — Sure. Chairperson Wilcox — To those members of the audience, normally what we would now do is hold a vote on the Environmental Review, then we would go to the Public Hearing, which this evening will deal with the site plan, the subdivision and a recommendation on the zoning. If someone wishes to address the Planning Board this evening, specifically with regard to the environmental issues with regard to this project, I will give you the opportunity at this time. You will still have an opportunity to address the Planning Board when we open the Public Hearing. So, if there is someone in the audience that would like to speak to an environmental issue with regard to this project, now is your opportunity to come to the microphone. There being no one, who would like to move the motion? Board Member Conneman — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by George Conneman. Do I have a second? Board Member Thayer — I'll second it. Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by Larry Thayer. There being no further discussion- Board Member Hoffmann — I just remembered- Chairperson Wilcox — There being further discussion. MAI May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Board Member Hoffmann — I just remembered that I wanted to ask a question about the buffer zones because the papers specify that there is a 30 foot wide strip, which I can see on the drawings in some parts, but, the areas where the ponds would be would be wider and I'm assuming that those areas are also part of the buffer zone, even though they are deeper than the 30 feet. Is that right? Mr. Klumpp — I'm not following your question. Board Member Hoffmann — The areas that are indicated by lines — there are lines indicating the 30 foot buffer strip between the westerly boundary of the parcel and the area that the houses can be built on and those buffer zones are supposed to stay vegetated and un -built on. Mr. Klumpp — That is correct. Board Member Hoffmann — The areas where the ponds will be are deeper than 30 feet. They kind of come down and it looks more like 60 or 70 feet maybe. Mr. Klumpp — That's to incorporate the size of the pond. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but are those whole areas included in the buffer zone, too? Mr. Klumpp — The ponds will encroach on that buffer zone. There won't be 30 feet between any disturbed area and the pond parcels and the westerly portion of the site. Board Member Hoffmann — And .you're saying that the buffer zone is not deep enough in that area to include the whole pond, it includes part of the pond, is that what you're saying in the 30 feet? Mr. Klumpp — I'm saying that the buffer zone doesn't — we don't have a buffer zone in the pond lots. The buffer zone is only for the residential lots. Chairperson Wilcox — The other way to think about it is that the ponds are the buffer. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, that is sort of what I was saying. Chairperson Wilcox — You can't build on the ponds. Board Member Hoffmann — Right. The buffer zones, I guess maybe have certain other protections too, which maybe the pond areas don't have. I have to think about this a little. You're also saying that there will be drainage areas going through the buffer zone. So that the buffer zones will be disturbed in some ways. 15 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Mr. Klumpp — The buffer zones won't be disturbed on the residential lots. They don't exist on the pond lots. We will be disturbing area very close to the property line on the pond lots. Board Member Hoffmann — You see, this is what I thought. I thought this whole area was buffer zone and then I thought maybe this was included in the buffer zone too. Chairperson Wilcox — But it's not. The buffer zones starts there and the residential lots stop there. Mr. Kanter — Two things might help clarify. The cluster provisions requiring the buffer zone — the buffer zones on the residential lots will be on Lots 3 and 5 only adjoining the state park land. We've proposed a condition in the subdivision approval portion of the resolution, that's on page 3 of your resolution, that says "The areas labeled 0.43 acres westerly parcel..." In other words, the two westerly portions that cover the ponds shall be limited to storm water management purposes for the proposed pocket ponds and these areas will be labeled on the subdivision plan as part of Lot 6, part of Lot 7. Basically no construction, other than the pond will be allowed on those lots. It's different from the cluster buffer, but it's actually just as strong a buffer of it's own right. Chairperson Wilcox — There's a thunderstorm outside if anyone is curious about what's going on. Board Member Hoffmann — Thank you, that does clarify. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you Jon. There being no further discussion, I have a motion and a second on the Environmental Review. All those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Is there anybody opposed? Are there any abstentions? There being none, the motion is passed. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -030 SEQR Proposed Rezoning, Site Plan and Subdivision Approval, Holly Creek Subdivision, Danby Road and West King Road, Tax Map Nos. 37. -1 -17.1 and 37. -1 -18, Residence District Multiple Residence and Business Districts "C" and "D ". MOTION by George Conneman, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS. 7. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Preliminary Site Plan Approval, and a recommendation to the Town Board regarding the proposed Zoning Change for the proposed 8 -lot subdivision and associated development located at the intersection of 16 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 West King Road and Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 37 -1- 17.1 and 374-18, Multiple Residence and Business Districts "C" and "D': The proposal is to subdivide the 15 +/- acre parcel into 5 lots for single - family residences (to be zoned R -30 Residence), two lots totaling 4.63 +/- acres for 20 apartment units in four buildings (to be zoned Multiple Residence), and reserve the remaining 5.01 +/- acre lot along Danby Road for future commercial development (to be zoned Business "C" in its entirety). David C. Auble, Owner /Applicant; Gary L. Wood, P.E. and Brian M. Klumpp, L.S., Agents, and 2. The Town of Ithaca Town Board, in a resolution dated December 9, 2002, has referred the petition to rezone the above - referenced parcel to the Planning Board for a recommendation, and 3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, in a letter dated December 23, 2002, has circulated a notice of intent to serve as lead agency to involved and interested agencies regarding the environmental review of the proposed rezoning, Site Plan and Subdivision Approval for the proposed Holly Creek Subdivision and Site Development, 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 May 6, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I prepared by the applicant, Part ll of the EAF prepared by the Town Planning staff, and has reviewed other application materials, including Engineer's Report — Holly Creek Subdivision (March 14, 2003), Preliminary Drainage Study — Holly Creek Subdivision (March 18, 2003), and Supplemental Engineer's Report — Holly Creek Subdivision (April 4, 2003), all of which are incorporated into the EAF, and 6. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed rezoning, Site Plan and Subdivision Approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from other Involved Agencies, hereby establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above - described actions, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 17 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced actions as proposed and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Howe. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Preliminary Site Plan Approval, and a recommendation to the Town Board regarding the Zoning Change for the proposed 8 -lot subdivision and associated development located at the intersection of West King Road and Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 374-17.1 and 37 -148, Multiple Residence and Business Districts "C" and "D ". The proposal is to subdivide the 15 +/- acre parcel into 5 lots for single - family residences (to be zoned R -30 Residence), two lots totaling 4.63 +/- acres for 20 apartment units in four buildings (to be zoned Multiple Residence), and reserve the remaining 5.01 +/- acre lot along Danby Road for future commercial development (to be zoned Business "C" in its entirety). David C. Auble, Owner /Applicant; Gary L. Wood, P.E. and Brian M. Klumpp, L.S., Agents. Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:49 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox - Ladies and gentleman, this is a Public Hearing and this is your opportunity to let the Planning Board know of your concerns or thoughts with regard to this project. We will ask you to come to the microphone, which allows us to record what you say. May we ask you to give us your name and address and we will be very interested to hear what you have to say this evening. So, if someone would like to just step forward or raise your hand, that's fine with me. Jennifer Terpening, 207 West King Road — I am here tonight to discuss my thoughts in regards to the proposed zoning change on West King Road in order to accommodate a 20 unit apartment complex. The present West King Road and Stone Quarry Road neighborhood is relatively a compact area. It's composition is mostly owner - occupied single - family homes surrounded by State Park Land. We have public water, but the vast majority of us have a private septic system. In addition to the residents that travel our road, others also use Stone Quarry Road as a short cut to the west side of the City of Ithaca and it's used by those that use West King Road to enter Upper Buttermilk Falls State Park. May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Development within a one mile radius of West King Road is in abundance. Cayuga Vista Town Houses, Long View Senior Housing, Chase Farms Single Family Homes, Deer Run Single Family Homes and owner occupied town houses, there's Springwood Apartments on East King Road, it's a large complex. Along 96B, there is Ithaca College, which has the capacity to house 3, 680 students Just 3/10 of a mile from West King Road is College Circle, which was developed in the back yards of single family homes along Route 96B, these units presently house 350 students, with a similar complex now under construction, it is slated to house an additional 350 students in the same development. That's 4,308 students within one mile of King Road. In addition to all of this, numerous apartment buildings and several duplexes have been added along Route 96B. Our immediate neighborhood has a few single family homes that have been converted into student apartments with either little or no legal regulation. All of the developments mentioned are within one mile of the proposed King Road multi- residence proposal. With the exception of the College View complex, which is spilled over into single family neighborhoods, most of the large development has been consistent and compatible with the neighborhood. It is my opinion that a multiple residence that may house a minimum of 60 people with an endless .possibility of more, is not compatible with the present single - family neighborhood, nor with it be compatible with the single - family R -30 residence that are proposed to be built across the street from it. The combination of single - family homes and dense apartment complexes don't work, they don't work in Collegetown, in the development at Linder man Creek on West Hill or Aurora Street or Pleasant Street in the City of Ithaca. Originally Mr. Auble had a large development in the present proposal, but he chose to sell it to the State of New York and therefore gave up his rights to the original project. He is left with 15 acres zoned mostly commercial. He wished to change his present zoning and continue the project on a down sized scale as the original project. I understand the economics of his position and the potential assessment that a project like this could add to the economics of the Town of Ithaca, however, neither my neighbors nor I who signed these petitions can agree with a change that will be incompatible with the existing owner - occupied homes. Neighborhood dynamics can dramatically change when an alteration is inconsistent and incompatible with the established community. Last week I spoke to one of you on the Planning Board by phone, I've spoken to Dave Auble and I've spoken to the State Parks Commission. In all of these cases, I was left with the feeling that this proposal is well in motion and I believe that this meeting is part of the democratic process and therefore I hope that the proposal has not been so formalized that the neighborhood opinion goes unheard and is therefore insignificant. Thank you. Board Member Mitrano — May we ask questions at this time Fred? Chairperson Wilcox — Would you take questions, ma'am? 19 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Ms. Terpening – I don't know if I can answer them. All I know is how I feel. Board Member Mitrano – If the multiple residences of this proposal were not a part of the proposal, would you still have an objection? Ms. Terpening – No, I think that it's the multi - family that is the objection of the entire neighborhood. These signatures are from - actually it's a small neighborhood. There's King Road and Stone Quarry Road and back there's Sesame Street. There are very few houses, but if you look at the paper, that's almost every neighbor up and down the road. I think the problem is the combination of having apartment dwellings with single family in a single family neighborhood. It is just clustered. As I said there, I have no idea how many apartments there are in Springwood. I don't know what Evan Monkemeyer has there. All these apartments I have no idea, except for Ithaca College, which I called and asked them how many students there were. That's a lot of people in a one mile area. Now you're looking to add more to that. Now, if you had single - family houses, you'd have at least somebody there that's paying the taxes, that cares what it looks like. They're not going to cram in however many kids. I know there's regulation for the number of bedrooms, but you can't regulate the number of guests they have and all those sorts of things so where are you? I'm not saying that there is going to be a spill over from the colleges or anything like that, but if the bedrooms are there, they're going to be filled. Economically, you have to get a certain amount of rent and if you need four or five people to do that, that's what you're going to do. Board Member Mitrano – You mentioned that it doesn't work at Linderman Creek and you mentioned some others. The only one that I'm really familiar with is Linderman Creek. What are your thoughts and what is your evidence for the clustering not working? Ms. Terpening – The evidence that I have, I talked to the sheriffs department, the evidence that I have is the amount of calls that they make there and it's in the backyards of single family homes. Board Member Mitrano – Calls that they make to the parts of Linderman Creek that are multi - dwelling? Mr. Barney – Who did you speak to at the Sheriff's Office? Mr. Terpening —Peter Meskill. Mr. Barney – And how many calls did he say he makes? Mr. Terpening – I didn't ask him that. I could find out. 20 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — All set? Thank you very much. Who would like to go next? Ma'am. Patricia Fain, 133 West King Road — Just to follow up a little bit on what Jennifer said, is that I didn't realize about the proposal, I had a notice before, but about the meeting tonight, I'd didn't receive the letter until Friday and I was out of town. Jennifer and I went around tonight in an hour and a half and also last night for about a half an hour and we contacted many of our neighbors, as many as time would permit. Many of them were not even familiar or had not even heard about the development, which does put an impact on our area, which we want as a residential neighborhood. I think if I had known ahead and could have let them know, we would have had at least 20 or 30 people here tonight. They were all very upset about this, not about single — family homes .that are going to be similar to what ours are that we put the money and the time into. Also, I did check the traffic on West King now and I did talk to Fred at the Highway Department and he said that it's over a thousand cars a day. You know that if you are putting that many more apartments behind it, how many more are going to be down by our house and down Stone Quarry, which can't handle the traffic that it has now. I also have a question, I'm not familiar because I didn't get the notice in time, I would like him to point out where he wants to change the zoning to what zoning and what is the difference between a "C" Business and a "D" Business, I'm not familiar with that. If they could show me on the map. Also I have a question: in a three bedroom apartment, how many un- related people can live there? My great grandfather owned a lot of the land and stuff on West King Road and Stone Quarry many years ago and sold the lots off. It was all farm land, even on the corner of Danby Road and West King was a big farm and some how over the years it's been in different zones. Looking at the zoning map that I have, there's like three different areas of zoning there, there's commercial, there's business, there's R -30, there's R -9. I don't really know what the difference is. The house next door to me, at the top of Stone Quarry, when we spent the money and re -did our house, was a single family and they took very good care of it. Now it's owned and it's students. The house on the corner of Stone Quarry and West King is also students know, that's supposed to be only two family, only have four unrelated, but when there's 8, 10, 12 cars there all the time and there are parties there and you have to call regularly to the owners, regularly to the Sheriff. This is what we don't want our neighborhood changing anymore into this. You can't regulate who lives in the houses, but we can say that we're not happy too with the way the neighborhood is going and we don't want it to go any farther. If you're familiar or drove down West King Road or down Stone Quarry, almost everyone has taken care of their homes. We've invested more money into it, more time and we're proud of our neighborhood and we don't want it to turn into something that we feel is changing and is not a family residential area. I wish that someone would explain to me or show me, maybe they showed at the beginning and I didn't get here in time, what actually is the area now zoned for. It's very hard to look at a zoning map, there's a "C" and a "D ", what is the difference and what are the changes that they want to have done. 21 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to do it now? Why don't you point out, if you can. Do you have an appropriate map to do that? You can point out the districts. Mr. Kanter — This map that Brian is showing is a new map that the Board didn't get in the packet. It was submitted tonight. Mr. Klumpp — (Pointing out different zones on map, inaudible speaking away from microphone). Chairperson Wilcox — Jon Kanter, I'm going to let you or John Barney go though the zone specifics. Mr. Barney — Well, the Business "D" zone is a gas station, basically. Chairperson Wilcox — A gas station or auto repair and that's being eliminated. Mr. Barney — And that's being eliminated. Business "C" allows a number of various commercial uses. Pizza parlor, retail stores, bank. They're not changing very much of it to Business "C", most of it already is Business "C ", so what they're really changing , the bulk of it is being changed from Business "C" to other zones. Chairperson Wilcox — Much of what is being requested here is actually what we refer to as a "down zone" it reduces the density either by changing some of the existing zoning from Business C or Multiple Residence to single family residences, what we call R -30 30,000 square foot lots or by changing some of the Business C to Multiple Residence. Generally Multiple Residence can be a less intensive use than the Business C and the retail establishments that comes with it. In general this, the plan as proposed, is a reduction. The zoning, as proposed, reduces the density of development on the land. Ms. Fain — With the exception of the corner, which is zoned "D" now, you're proposing to "C", which would change what they could put up. Chairperson Wilcox - It means that there can't be a gas station there. In my personal opinion, that's a good thing. Ms. Fain — Also, I have questions on the residence districts. Could you explain that too? Like, in our area there, we have R -9 where I am, next door is R -15, now he's proposing R -30. What is the difference? Chairperson Wilcox — The number refers to the thousands of square feet required for the minimum lot. So R -9 would be a minimum 9,000 square foot lot, 15 would be a minimum 15,000 square foot lot. These are generally 30,000 square foot lots though. I believe one or two of them are slightly less than 30,000. 22 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Mr. Kanter — One of them is. Chairperson Wilcox — They're 26,000 — 27,0000 square feet. Ms. Fain — In the proposed units that he is proposing, how many unrelated people can live in the apartment that he's proposing now? Mr. Barney — They can live together if they demonstrate that they live as a family unit. You can't discriminate against unrelated people simply because they are not related by blood, marriage or any other thing, but our ordinance requires somebody that wants to live as a family unit that is not related by blood or marriage to basically come in and demonstrate that they eat together, they buy their groceries together, they do all the kinds of things that families normally do together. Generally speaking, in a multiple residence unit no unrelated people are permitted, just a family. Ms. Fain — But again, you're saying that they don't have to be related by blood, as a family. Supposing that six students come in, is there a limit of the number of people that can be in the apartment or they could have 20 if they wanted in one apartment? Mr. Barney — If you had 20 people that lived together as a family unit and they could demonstrate, and there are certain criteria in our ordinance that they must show, and they could meet those criteria, then they would be allowed to be there, The history since we've allowed this provision in the ordinance, I think there have only been two or three applications for family units and I can't recall that any of them were ever granted, I could be wrong. It's been around for probably 12 or 13 years, so it's not a common occurrence. Ms. Fain — So the apartments have to be families? Mr. Barney — Basically. Ms. Fain — Basically. My concern is if students come in and you have a large number, this is what we have next door. Mr. Barney — Students generally are not considered family. Three students that come and go on their own, have different course schedules, go different places at different times, are there maybe only for a semester or for a school term, they're not generally considered operating as a family unit and would not be permitted. Ms. Fain — So they wouldn't be permitted to rent from this apartment complex. Mr. Barney — One student for each apartment would be allowed. 23 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Ms. Fain — Also, when I was talking to the people, there was much concern about having the main road come into West King Road, instead of coming on 96B or Danby Road. That was a major concern with the traffic, bringing that much more traffic in, especially in the winter times when you're going up there the cars getting out and you're going to have more cars coming in and out and more traffic there. Like I said, we have over 1,000 cars a day there. I think they're just putting more instead of putting it on the main highway. Chairperson Wilcox — thank you ma'am. Board Member Mitrano — Is what you just described John, for a family unit, the same as Linderman Creek? Mr. Barney — I don't recall the details of the zoning for Linderman Creek. I think it is. Mr. Kanter — That was just re -zoned to Multiple Residence. Actually, let's not equate Linderman Creek with this MR because Linderman Creek was also a subsidized low to moderate income apartment project. This is not. The zoning for Linderman Creek actually did take into consideration the financial aspect of it. Mr. Barney — Plus, there were considerably more units. Board Member Mitrano — How much is the ordinance that you just described with respect to the family unit enforced? Mr. Barney — It's enforced regularly when we are aware of a problem. We don't go into everybody's house, but when we become aware of a problem, which typically arises when a neighbor spots six cars coming and going from a place when there should only be two. Doug Fain, 133 West King Road — I called the Town and I've been told "we'll look into it ". That's usually about the end of that. I usually end up calling the sheriff. can't add a lot to what the two pervious speakers, Jennifer and my wife said, except that I'm very concerned for the sanctity of our neighborhood. I've lived there for 25 years. I love the area. It is primarily single family owner residence neighborhood and it's nice. It borders to the park, it's tranquil, as much as it can be with the amount of traffic. My concern lies with the increase in traffic, it's going to come, believe me, it's going to come wit this development. With the fact that they want to route that traffic directly onto West King Road, approximately 80 yards below the light at West King and Danby and they'd be better off putting it straight onto Danby. The non -owner occupied rental units that will be on the property. I just haven't had a lot of good experience with non -owner occupied units in that area, around our house. The landlords are almost always absentee. I called one that is immediately next door to me, he's up in Auburn, he responds ►. May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 well, but not living in the area does not give him the same feeling for the area, keeping his property clean, keeping it upright, keeping the renters under control as much as you can. I have another concern about drainage and I know that they are proposing ponds and that should be well, but as it stands right now, on the south side of West King Road, there is inadequate drainage. On the north side of West King there is a large culvert coming out, it runs down the road, it runs past our barn and it runs down and dumps into Holly Creek. On the opposite side of the road there is a very small culvert that comes down and it ends at 123, my neighbors, right past their driveway and it dumps into my lot. Last year when the storm came through, which was very similar to the one tonight, except it lasted a little longer and it washed out Stone Quarry Road. I had what resembled a river running down through my lot into the back and finding its way down to Holly Creek. Water will find its way to where it wants to drain. Now, maybe the Town wants to put a culvert in on that side or, what Fred has told me, maybe they can run underneath the road over. I'm not sure that the culvert on the other side will take all of that excess rain water. I'm concerned about the traffic, the disturbance to the tranquility of the neighborhood and to the drainage too. Would you want it in your own neighborhoods? In your own back yard? NIMBY. That's what I'm telling you not in my back yard. I don't want any more rental units that close. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you sir. Mr. Barney — Fred, I've got to correct something. I was confusing the limitation of the number of unrelated people in a two family house in an R -9, R -15 and R -30 zone. Actually, in a multiple residence you can have two borders or lodgers in addition to a family, so that would permit up to three unrelated people per dwelling unit. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to mislead you. I didn't sleep well or something last night. Board Member Mitrano — Thank you for looking it up. Ms. Terpening — I am very familiar with rentals and I would just like to make a comment about tenants and the number of people that you can rent to You can actually sign a lease with so many people for your apartment house, but there is no regulation for how many guests those people can have. Who's to say how long their guests can stay. If they have a legal residence that they can get mail to, they can stay in your apartment however long they want. Board member Mitrano — What are the rules regarding sublets then? Mr. Barney — Well you go back to the test of three unrelated people living there. It could be tenants or subtenants or one person renting and having two other people living there. You get into a gray area if you have someone come in and W, May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 spend two weeks there as a guest. The issue of whether they are really occupying it longer than reasonable. Board Member Thayer — Does the fact that Mr. Auble is going to live in one of these houses make any difference to these people. Chairperson Wilcox — I wrote it down. I was going to finish the Public Hearing . If he wants to get up and so state that, I will give him the opportunity at a later time. Is there anybody else this evening who would like to speak this evening and address the Planning Board? Sir, I will give you another opportunity, I just want to give everybody a shot at it. Gary Woodin, 111 West King Road - I want to start out by saying that if I owned that land I would want to do what I want to do on it. I wouldn't want to own that land and do nothing with it. Where I'm at, in my back yard, 30 feet from my lot I'm going to have an apartment building. That's not too pleasant. I've got three manholes in my yard and they're going to pick the one manhole where they're going to knock down my fence to go to. The last meeting I was told that we didn't care about that. We put a fence around this for my dogs to keep my dogs in, but I knew that manhole was there, so I can't do anything about that. That's one of my concerns and one of my wife's concerns. I'm a little concerned there because they are going to be digging into my lawn. I'd like to at least figure something out to do with my fence. I do want to say that it's right in my back yard and I probably will be renting my house out to students. It'll be hard renting it out for probably two years because of the dust and everything that is going on. I'm going to have a building 30 feet behind my house. Right to the edge of my lot is going to be mud, muck and noise. Like I said, if it was my land, I'd want to do it so I'm not going to knock Dave for wanting to do that. Board Member Conneman — Fred, can I ask him to point out where he lives? Mr. Wooding — (referring to map ) Right here and the first apartment building — Board Member Conneman — You live right opposite what is unit 20, is that what it says on the map? Mr. Woodin — I don't see that. Board Member Conneman — It's the multiple residence closest. Mr. Woodin - Right. He's been working with me, telling me what's going on and this and that. He's willing to plant all these little trees and stuff. There's isn't trees and stuff like that on the plans either. I trust Dave, but tomorrow he could tell me "I ain't planting nothing." I'd like to see that in the plans too. I'm losing a lot here too. Part of Dave's lot, we have a row of pine trees going down and he's taking half of them. Like I said, it's his land, he can do what he wants. 26 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 As far as these guys are talking about students, students are going to be in my house when all these apartments go in here. Chairperson Wilcox — I appreciate your candor. I want to just address one thing. When we get to the proposed resolution that was prepared for us by staff, I'm just going to read one of the numerous clauses. "Submission of a final landscaping plan and planting schedule for Lots 6 and 7..", and it is Lot 7 which borders Gary's land. 16 11, including the addition of a berm or fence, mature evergreens and other appropriate plantings on the northern end of Lot 7 to establish a buffer between the apartment development and the adjacent house on tax parcel number 37. -1 -16, said landscaping plan and planting schedule also to include the vegetative treatment of the pocket ponds and drainage swales." So, yes, should Mr. Auble receive preliminary site plan approval one of the numerous conditions he'd have to fulfill in order to receive final site plan approval would be to submit those detailed plans showing the landscaping and it would have to be acceptable to this Board , or at least the majority of this Board. Sir , you wanted to make some additional remarks? Mr. Fain — I heard someone on the Board raise the question about whether we would feel any different if Mr. Auble was living on the property. I understand that he stated that he intends to build a house there and live in it. Personally, I wouldn't feel too much different because, unless I'm mistaken, I'm not sure that the Board could make that contingency of granting him his variance. In other words, he could tell you that he is going to build a house to live in, get his variance, develop this and then just say "I'm sorry, I can't do this." Can you hold him to that? Mr. Barney — It would be an unusual condition. Mr. Fain — It would be very unusual and a little bit hard for the Town to enforce it. So, it's almost a moot point really. No, I wouldn't feel mush different because I'm not sure than anybody could require it and if he says it up front, I'll take that with a grain of salt too because developers are developers. If he lived on the property I'm not sure that that would change the nature of it all that much. It may stay a little cleaner and a little neater. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Anybody else this evening? Yes ma'am. I was just about to close it. Don't worry, we don't bite. Diane Vrabel, 209 West King Road - I have lived there for eight years. My husband and his parents have lived there for 35 years. When they moved there she showed us all the old home videos. She showed me how they cleared the land and all that and made it so that it was a home and not just a piece of land with a house on it. I believe that if Mr. Auble goes with these multiple family dwellings, I think it's kind of like mixing oil and water. To explain that, I just feel that these families that moved in wouldn't have as much respect for their property 27 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 as a single family home would. The single family homes might work, but I think with the multiple family ones, we're just getting into a whole new chapter. I really wonder about that. (,don't know if any of you are familiar with the layout of West King Road, are you? Chairperson Wilcox — Oh yeah, it's our job. Ms. Vrabel — Okay, that's fine because I was going to say I'm hoping that you could take a drive down there and see, as Mr. Pain has stated, the people do take care of their properties there. Aside from a couple of student properties that are there. We really feel that it's a community that we want to keep as a community. I know I'm sounding segregated, but I don't mean to. I just feel that it's that wrong combination that's all. There's a time and a place for everything, but there's a place and a place for different kinds of dwellings. I think I would appreciate if Mr. Auble would consider that. That's it. Chairperson Wilcox — Did your in -laws teach me German at Ithaca High School many years ago? Mr. Vrabel — Yes they did. So you know them. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else this evening? Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 8:27 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — For the record, I have been handed four petitions and my quick addition comes up with 35 signatures. Board Member Talty — Now Fred, what did the petition actually say? Chairperson Wilcox — I'll read it to you. "We, the West King Road and Stone Quarry Road neighborhood wish to express our concern and disapproval of the proposed David C. Auble zoning change for tax parcels numbers 37.- 7 -17.1 and 37. -1 -18 in the Town of Ithaca. Specifically, we are opposed to any zoning change that would not be compatible with the present, mostly owner occupied single family neighborhood." And that one of the issues here. The zoning there today allows multiple residence, it allows business use. It even allows a gas station. Much of the issue seems to come from the fact that the neighborhood may not have been aware of the existing zoning. We should also point out to those members of the pubic who are here this evening, a planning board, and we'll get to this as part of our deliberations and our discussions, we're essentially constrained by the zoning laws and other applicable laws and regulations imposed upon us by the Town and by the State and potentially other entities as well. It's not for this Board to look at a project and ignore the existing rules and regulations under which we operate. Our mandate is to apply the applicable regulations and deal with the May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 project in that way. Having said that, petitions are wonderful and I thank the residents of the area for accumulating them, but they don't generally sway me and I don't know if they would sway other members of the Board as well because we must operate under the existing zoning laws and regulations. Board Member Mitrano — Does the existing zoning as it is, in any way invalidate the criteria that which we otherwise do review these kinds of applications, I'm thinking here of changing the character of the neighborhood. Chairperson Wilcox — That's a valid question. If you accept the premises that the zoning changes that Mr. Auble is requesting, which we are being asked to provide a recommendation to the Town Board for zoning changes. If you accept the premise that it's a down zoning, that it lessens the density on that lot, then are we creating a development,.a.subdivision if you will, that is, I'm not going to say in conformance with the existing lots, but certainly brings the density closer to the neighboring lots. It certainly, in my opinion, reduces the density that could be built there under the existing zoning. Board Member Mitrano — I have a more precise question, I think. Is it inconsistent to say that we would approve of the zoning down, but that we would consider the multiple family residences as inconsistent with the neighborhood? Could we say both things? Chairperson Wilcox — John Barney will correct me if I'm wrong, but if the zoning is multiple residence and the applicant comes in with a plan that meets the zoning requirements and is also consistent with any additional requirements that this Board imposes, which we have a right to impose under the regulations, such as buffers and landscaping and things like that, it they have a plan that meets that, then I'm not sure that we, legally, can turn them down. Board Member Mitrano — Well, that's my. question. Is that what John thinks too? Mr. Barney — That's correct. Board Member Conneman — Let me rephrase the question. I did go up and I walked the property and the Conservation Board gave me the recommendation, I'll admit that as I looked at this, I didn't know that Gary was going to be here, but I thought that it came awfully close to his house. That was a question that I was going to raise. I guess my question would be, going back the other way, are there changes in what Mr. Auble proposes that might make the neighbors happier than they are now. For example, suppose that you brought the road in from Danby Road or suppose that you moved the last multiple unit that is proposed here so that Gary had some more feeling that he wasn't trapped. I thought it was awfully close to his house to be honest with you Fred. Are there ways that we can build berms that would make this better — or trees? I know that's Eva's category and not mine. Are there things that you can do that would make this 29 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 acceptable to the neighborhood? Are there restrictions that you could put on, I know they're very concerned about traffic. That's why you might bring it in from the other way. They're concerned about drainage, which is not my things, but understand that having lived in a place one time where drainage was a problem. They're concerned about tranquility. Are there ways that you could build berms or something? Make it less dense? This proposal might be acceptable then. It seems to me that's the other side of the question. Of course, you can go back, we can go back and say that it's zoned this way, he comes and meets that, he can't do any better. But are there acceptable ways to change this? I think that's always the case. I'd like to see this pursued. It seems to me that we might consider some changes that would make this more acceptable. I think it's in the area of traffic and how close and how you mitigate noise and so forth. Also, how you can mitigate their concern of being overwhelmed by students. Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to say that I see some changes already in what Mr. Auble has proposed since the first sketch plan review. We had two sketch plan reviews on this one and what I remembered hearing for the multiple residence part that this was going to be apartments for professional people. Mainly couples because we had talked a little bit about playground equipment and it seemed to me that Mr. Auble indicated that he was not building this for families with children, he was building it for professional couples and so, when looked at the drawings that were supplied in this engineer's report that is dated March 14th of this year, this was the first time we saw drawings of the interior of the buildings and they showed one bedroom and a den. I thought this looks like it is for maybe professional couples who don't have children. Of, perhaps other couples, which I believe Mr. Auble also mentioned. But now we hear, just a month and a half later than this report was prepared that there are going to be three bedrooms in each unit and that changes things very dramatically to me. That's a change that Mr. Auble has caused already since he first came in with his proposal. He has changed it in a way which I think I look somewhat more skeptically at. I think there is going to be more of that negative impact that some of the people have spoken about today if the changes were to be approved that you have proposed today. Let's see, there was something else I was going to mention, too. Oh yes, there is a lot of traffic already and I understand that a lot of that traffic comes from developments that have already sprung up around there and many of the people who drive through on King Road and go down Stone Quarry Road to get to downtown to Wegmans and whatever no doubt come from those other developments. This would add to it, that's true. But the other components of this whole project which we haven't seen the details of yet, but which we have heard of, is this commercial development, which, the way I look at it, if it's done right, can be something that helps prevent more traffic from happening because some people who live in that area can come and shop locally in the neighborhood shopping center. They don't have to travel on those other streets to get downtown for everything. So that might, perhaps, lessen the traffic impact. That's 30 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 one of the things that I was hoping could happen and it's something to think about. Mr. Kanter — The two bedroom thing was on my mind too. I remember that it was two bedrooms. Board member Hoffmann — Even though it says one bedroom and a den, but of course a den can easily be made into a bedroom. So it's, in effect, two bedrooms for people that want it. Mr. Kanter — We also talked about the road entering Danby Road and I think DOT was strongly opposed to that. Chairperson Wilcox — If DOT, the Department of Transportation, did not want another curb cut, certainly an unnecessary curb cut, on Route 96B and probably within proximity of the signaled intersection. Mr. Kanter - Especially a new public road which would be different than a commercial driveway that would be quite close to the intersection. It's a signal controlled intersection and it controls traffic very well. As we mentioned in the Environmental Assessment, the levels of service range from "a ", which is excellent to "c ", at the worst, which is still quite acceptable. So the interception works quite well. Chairperson Wilcox — We should also point out — I'm going to try to remember or look up the traffic counts that have been quoted this evening, but well up into the thousands on both King Road and on Danby Road. Here we are. "Recent New York State counts indicate the average daily traffic volume on Danby Road is approximately 8,000 vehicles per day. Recent traffic counts conducted by Tompkins County indicate the average on West King Road in both directions is 3, 435 vehicles per day and it is estimated that this particular project will add 164 vehicle trips per day." Counts of 8,000 and over 3,000. Dan, if I may, there were some comments made about current drainage on Stone Quarry Road. Mr. Walker — Stone Quarry Road? We had problems with Stone Quarry Road, Chairperson Wilcox — Clearly we did, quite a wash out along the road there. Do you wish to make any comments or not? Not that you have to. Mr. Walker — The problems that we had last year were from a very high intensity storm that exceeded the culvert capacity. I think we've eliminated the problem because we've put a much bigger culvert in so the water can come through and hit the City now. 31 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — An engineer's response a bigger hammer, bigger culvert, bigger whole, right? Mr. Walker — Most of the problems that we had with Stone Quarry were because debris came down and blocked the culverts. Historically there have been some problems with the drainage that comes off of 96 and comes down between some of Monkemeyer's parcels and hits, it has to make a right hand turn when it hits King Road and water doesn't like to do that. So there have been some occasional problems with overtopping the drainage system. We've been trying to eliminate or minimize that by restricting development or making sure that we have the proper drainage management up above, these are some of the concerns that we had in College Circle. When we have heavy rain, we do have a few problems on King Road. Chairperson Wilcox — Nonetheless, it's your opinion that the proposed drainage will not- Mr. Walker — This is not going to impact that at all. Chairperson Wilcox — In your opinion, it won't in any way, exacerbate any existing drainage issues? Mr. Walker — No. Board Member Conneman — Jonathan, where was it proposed when DOT turned it down, where were they going to enter the property. Mr. Kanter — It was never proposed, but we got two letters from DOT as comments, just in general and they indicated concerns, especially with the future commercial development site on entering and exiting Danby Road. That one is going to involve some pretty heavy review when it gets to that stage, but a full public road access on Danby Road there would have to be pretty close to the full intersection and it might not even meet State DOT standards for distance between two intersections. Whereas, a commercial driveway has a lower footage standard of separation. It still has to be separated from the intersection, but not as much as a public road. Chairperson Wilcox - We've been discussing primarily the site plan, does anyone have questions with regard to the actual subdivision that is being proposed? Any discussion with regard to the recommended re- zoning that is being asked for? Specifically to the re- zoning? Board Member Mitrano — What was the motivation for the down zoning? Was it us or was it Mr. Auble? 32 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — I'm going to wait for the Town Attorney and the assistant town attorney to... Mr. Barney — The Town Attorney is ready to speak. Ask Jon anything you want. Mr. Kanter — He was asking me a question and I don't know what the answer is here. Chairperson Wilcox — Jonathan Kanter were there any discussions between you and /or you staff and Mr. Auble and /or his agents with regard to the eventual proposed zoning map that evolved and is in front of us? Mr. Kanter — Basically, only where the zoning boundary line would go, the only technical aspect is that we came to the conclusion that the boundary between the R -30 and the MR zone go along the road right -of -way line, simply because it was an easier survey line to identify, but there really weren't changes recommended. Go back to the original, if you recall the original proposal that came to the Board and this was before really we had any staff discussions, was for the five single family lots to actually be included in the MR zone and then it was felt by a number of people that that might leave it too much open for future development. Further development of those five lots, so that quickly changed to R -30. The basic MR zone and the minor changes in the Commercial Zones, I think were always basically the same. Now, we might just mention too that the Town's proposed zoning revision which has been going on for a number of years has also been addressing that particular area. This proposal by the applicant actually is very close to what the Codes and Ordinances Committee came up with for their recommendation. Basically, the smaller, more concentrated commercial zone on Danby Road, the MR development for a modest number of apartment units. Actually, this takes it a further step down from that with the R -30 lots adjacent to the State Park. Board Member Conneman — Jonathan, let me ask you a question so that I may be able to understand this. Suppose you leave it the way it is, is it possible to build a nice shopping center there? Not Wegmans, but something other than that. It seems to me that it is possible to have a community there that might be kind of nice, you wouldn't have to go down to Wegmans. The issue is that if Lot 8 were to become a shopping center, wouldn't DOT think there was a lot of traffic going in there. I don't understand the issue of traffic in that sense. If you develop Lot 8, you've got to put a way in from Danby Road to get there. Right? Mr. Kanter — I think there would be a number of possibilities for how you would access Lot 8. Let me re -phase the question. The basic question, I thought I heard you say was could you develop a nice, attractive commercial development there? I think you could under either the way it's proposed with the smaller area in this proposal or a slightly larger one under the current 15 acre commercial zone. The thing is though, I think the Town's been talking a lot and Codes and 33 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Ordinances has been thinking a lot about the idea of mixed use. In fact, mixed use development is part of the new Zoning Ordinance proposal where you could have apartments mixed actually with a commercial development. Board Member Conneman — Mixed with single family homes isn't in the proposal? Mr. Kanter — The applicant's proposal, I think also is very consistent with that idea of mixed development with a small scale commercial, some higher density housing right adjacent to it, some buffering, lower density residential and then of course with the State Park land, that's and ideal kind of a transition. Mr. Walker — I just want to mention to that if you look at the current zoning map on the wall there, you see on the site there's a big red "L" shape. All that red and the yellow around it was a part of this original parcel that Mr. Auble owned. That was all multiple residence and I believe there was somewhere around 70 or 80 or more units in that area. Mr. Kanter — Actually the original proposal for the existing zoning districts back in the sixties had three hundred and something apartment units, 150,000 square foot shopping center plus 20 to 30 single family lots. So, recognizing that Mr. Auble sold off some of that property to the State, if that original proposal had been fulfilled, it would have been quite a different neighborhood there than what you see today. Board Member Conneman — That would have been developed in the sixties. Mr. Kanter — Sixties and the zoning has remained still today. Mr. Walker — That's the current zoning. Mr. Kanter — That's the current zoning. Of course, it was based on that specific proposal, which I think sometimes is a little bit funny how you see those reactions to specific proposals. The zones put in place. Sometimes it's built, sometimes it's not. We don't often times put in time on zoning changes. This one has been there for a number of years. Mr. Walker — So from the original potential to what is being proposed now, it's fraction of what could have been. Chairperson Wilcox— In fact, it's a fraction of what could be built today under the existing zoning, given the amount of land that is still undeveloped. Mr. Walker — Well, it's owned by the State Park, so they probably wouldn't develop it. 34 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to add also, for the benefit of people in the audience who are not familiar with some of these things that we've talked about. The Business District C as it's been envisioned in the Town is meant to be a neighborhood shopping center. It's not supposed to be something that attracts shoppers form all over Ithaca, but it's meant to be something that serves the people who live locally so that they can walk or bike to it and the people that live around can drive to it. The intent is very much that it should serve the neighborhood and it should cut down on the traffic that has to go through the neighborhoods to get to downtown to shop. Mr. Barney — It think Eva that that is the intent of the new Zoning Ordinance. Board member Hoffmann — Right. But I'm hoping that by the time we see the proposal for this parcel, that our new Zoning Ordinance will be in effect. Board Member Mitrano — Since that question is still up for discussion, is there any possibility that these people here could be motivated by this plan to advocate for more strict zoning in that area, i.e. Single dwelling units for a certain time period. Some residents were just apprised now of the zoning and may like to change it. Mr. Barney — The Zoning Ordinance is not cast is stone yet. It still has a Public Hearing yet to go before the Town Board and then it's all, I don't know whether we have a formal Public Hearing Here? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Mr. Barney — So, there is one more Public Hearing and then it goes before the Town Board, Board Member Mitrano — What were to happen if, given everything that you have advised us tonight that it would be inappropriate to vote against this proposal with its multiple dwelling residences based on the current zoning? Mr. Barney — I don't know that anybody says it's inappropriate or appropriate to vote any way you choose to vote. Board Member Mitrano — Well, just on that point alone. That is more or less what I heard. Mr. barney — No, I think what you heard was that this would be a down zoning. Board Member Mitrano — Yes, I did hear that. 35 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Mr. Barney — There's nothing magical that says you much vote in favor of that because the down sizing is on it. Board Member Mitrano — But one would have to have a good reason not to vote for it. To say it's going to change the character of the neighborhood when the neighborhood does reflex zoning that allows for multiple dwelling residences. Mr. Barney — As a Planning Board all you can do is make a recommendation, ultimately the determination on this is going to be the Town Board's determination. But the three tests that you have are articulated in the part of the draft resolution that put in that says that there is a need for the proposed use at the proposed location. The second test is that the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood in which the use is to be located will not be adversely effected. It's obviously going to be effected, but will it be adversely is the issue. Three, the proposed change or use is in accordance with the comprehensive plan or development of the Town . I think clearly three has been met because the comprehensive plan does call for kind of a neighborhood type zoning and some multiple residences. So it's really your determination. Do you see a need for the proposed use and do you feel that this particular plan will not adversely effect the character of the neighbor? Board Member Mitrano — Let me ask a little bit more general question. If we went ahead and voted for this proposal this evening and then such an effort was made as to pursue the appropriate boards to make this a single family dwelling zone. What would happen then to this proposal? Mr. Barney — The proposal would not become final. Mr. Kanter — That's why I set up the resolution with the recommendation on the zoning first because if that fails then you're not going to want to go ahead and vote on the other actions. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I'd like to tell you that I'm not inclined to vote for this new change in number of bedrooms because as you remember when we first saw this proposal, there were not four separate houses with apartments, there were three. On the southern most piece of that parcel there was a proposal for another single family residence. W e decided that it would be alright to have that whole piece be multiple residences, but I certainly didn't envision that many more bedrooms. So, I think that's a very negative turn that this project has taken and I'm not in favor of that. Board Member Thayer — I see Mr. Auble taking a lot of notes. I wonder if we cold let him speak. Chairperson Wilcox — I'll give him a chance if he wants it. 36 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Board Member Mitrano — That sounds like a good idea. Chairperson Wilcox — I will actually give you a chance to speak, I just want to see if the Board has anything else. Board Member Conneman — I think we've raised the issues for him. Board Member Talty — I think that it is the obligation of the Board to listen to these people when they come forward. I understand that we are restricted in some ways, but in other ways we are to here to do what's best for the community and we don't live in that area. Board Member Mitrano — I do. Board Member Talty — Well some of us don't live in that area. I think that it would be irresponsible of this Board not to take into effect exactly what was stated here this evening. If we have to put off and have different changes in the plan — I like what George had to say with regard to potentially meeting half way or indicating changes in the original plan. I also like what Eva said with regards to the bedrooms, that was not what was intended initially. I think we've all lived in rental areas, as well as single family home areas in our lives and I am a firm believe that rental units do effect the ultimate community. Especially when they are single family homes that surround it. I am given, based upon the change to the plan, I am not in favor of the current plan as it is now. Board Member Hoffmann = The thing is, maybe these apartment units don't have to be rentals, maybe they could be available for sale and then that would be a different situation if the people that lived there owned them. That's what happened at Deer Run, for instance and other places. We hear all the time that there is a need for apartments. There are a lot of people in this area that don't want to own single family homes and have to mow the lawns and do all that stuff. They would like to have a place to live that they own or rent, which is easy to take care of so that they can pay attention to their careers and their jobs. Board Member Conneman — There's lots of communities that have neighborhood associations that do that. So I think it's possible to accommodate to have apartments. Chairperson Wilcox — Am I the only renter sitting on this Board? Are we all set for now? Mr. Auble, I can't see you. I won't say why. David Auble, P.O. Box 3945, Bules Creek, North Carolina — I want to address the question of the number of bedrooms first and apologize for what I feel is a misconception of the design of the units. First of all, we're obviously progressing towards site plan approval and that's the first stage in this. The architecture is a 37 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 process that is not completed and the original foot print of the units is why we submitted the plans that we did. They are essentially a two bedroom unit. It says a bedroom and a den, but it's essentially a two bedroom unit. The type of apartment that I had envisioned and have been working on with designers is an apartment with a down stairs master bedroom that would accommodate elderly, disabled and folks, I'm going to say I my age bracket, which is what the market is that I hope to market to. Obviously, I have to abide by state laws in that regard. Ir any case, I believe that what we will end up with is a two bedroom apartment. A down stairs master bedroom and an upstairs bedroom and den is the configuration that we are working on now. This part of the process is obviously an expensive proposition and we're really essentially working on site plan approval. SO, by the time we get to the next meeting we'll have the design of the apartments established, but they won't be designed for students. They won't be dormitory style units. I've just looked at some of the other units that are under construction, say on Troy Road where you see essentially a four bedroom, three bathroom apartment, which to me is a dormitory type design. That is definitely not what we are designing here. I think when you see the final design, you will be a little more comfortable. Board Member Mitrano — Where is that on Troy Road? I'm not familiar with that. Mr. Auble — Troy and King Road, near the intersection. Just down the hill from King Road. On the left. Board Member Hoffmann — Is it Southwood you're talking about ?. Board Member Mitrano — What are you alleging is there? Mr. Auble — Well, there are eight new units being built there and they're, some of them of four bedroom three bath. Some of them are three bedroom two bath something like that. They're obviously designed for student rental. As a matter of fact, I think one or some units are five bedroom. That's just my impression from looking at the units. Mr. Walker — I think the buildings you're talking about are actually duplex with a combination of two and three bedrooms. So the total bedrooms in each building might be five, but it's actually two. It's a single family home with an accessory apartment. Mr. Auble — My point is these units will not be designed that way. They will be designed for the market that I have mentioned to you. Right from The beginning that has been my intent and I intend to stay with that. The other aspect of this is that one of the reasons for incorporating a single family home component in this is that the single family home owners, as they are doing here, basically help police the neighbors. They observe what's going on. They are the ones that call in the complaints and the violations and if there are problems with the number of m May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 cars that are parked outside and make the zoning officers aware of the abuse of the zoning ordinances. Board Member Mitrano — Why would they want to spend there time doing that? Mr. Auble — I don't know way are you folks here? That's what people do. That's what neighbors do when they're not happy with what they see next door they have to come to the Town or to the Sheriff's Department to correct the problem. Board Member Hoffmann — I think all of us would rather avoid that if we could. (Inaudible voice from the audience) Chairperson Wilcox — Sir, sir. I think Mr. Auble was very polite while you spoke and I think you could afford him the same courtesy . Mr. Auble — Well, in any case, of course I take it a little bit in the front that I am misrepresenting the design of the units. I have not misrepresented the design of the units. We took a sample of an existing unit to show the footprint fundamentally because of the requirements of having to provide something to the Town prior to being able to develop our final design. Our final floor plan. Board Member Hoffmann — I would just like to be sure that we all understand how this works. There is a sketch plan review, in this case there were two. Then there is a preliminary approval and then there is a final approval. AS all of us on the Board know, most of the details really have to be worked out because what's approved at the preliminary approval stage, which is tonight, it's not very easily changed at the final. The final approval is just supposed to bring together some details that maybe weren't available, but it should only be details. Things like the design of the houses and certainly how many bedrooms and how the apartments are supposed to be used, that need to be available at the preliminary approval stage because we base our decisions on that. Once we decide that "okay, this looks okay for preliminary approval" then it turns out that something else is going to happen, it's very hard to change that. So we are very careful that what we see and hear and the preliminary stage is how it's going to be in the end. Mr. Auble — The side of the units and the shape of the units, I don't think allows for a huge number of bedrooms. We're looking at site plan approval here, it's my understanding. The final architecture of the units and the floor plan is something that we're still developing. It's fine with me if you want to make some kind of a requirement that there is a maximum of two bedrooms and a den or three bedrooms in the units, I have no problem with that because I don't feel like there is an y more room in these units to go beyond that. 39 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Board Member Hoffmann — Personally, I would like to see what you have in these plans which is a maximum of 1 bedroom and a den or two bedrooms. Mr. Auble — Essentially two bedrooms, would you agree. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Because otherwise I think the potential for it becoming housing for students is that much greater. Mr. Auble — Well, first of all, I don't think there's anything that restricts anybody from renting to students, any of these people here or you or anyone else, but that's just not the market that I'm interested in. I could have come in and said I'm interested in student housing, but I know that 400 student housing units are being built right now. Why would I want to try to compete with student housing when 400 units are going to go closer to the University. It never even occurred to me to build student housing. If I intended to, I would have said that at the beginning, there is no restriction on me doing that and this is a down zoning and we have responded to the Town's desire to see a large portion of this property sold to the State as a buffer and sold way below market value. I'd like to get some credibility established here for that and for, I think, the fine development that was done at Chase Farm. I think that that was a pretty outstanding development. Board Member Hoffmann — You do have credit with me for doing the business you did with the parks. I think that was a very good move for everybody. Mr. Auble — It's a little embarrassing to sit here and be accused of being deceptive. I don't feel comfortable with that. Secondly, as far as the neighboring property, I've spoken to Mr. Woodin about potentially buying his property. Either or one of my close associates intend to make an offer within the range of what he's felt would be the price that he is interested in. I think that that's to his benefit and it's not going to be some, you know, it's just going to be something that has to be done for the stand point that it's an extra expense and it's an extra chore to do that on behalf of that neighborhood. I understand his feeling and if we don't come to an agreement on the price, we'll definitely do everything we can to buffer his property. I've done some research already into the kind of trees that would work. We've had a lot of discussions with our engineer and it's a major consideration, I understand his feelings. On the other hand, he knew when he bought that property that it was zoned for a shopping center adjacent to his property. Chairperson Wilcox — And in fact, you'd be required to buffer your land and his property. Mr. Auble — Hopefully, we'll have that settled in the next few days. We'll either agree or disagree to make that transaction and that will solve that consideration. .e May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Board Member Thayer — Would you consider the footprint of the diagram as is, rather than changing it? The layout of the apartments. Mr. Auble — Would 1- Board Member Thayer — In other words, would you consider just the two bedrooms, period? Mr. Auble — The two bedrooms and a den would be what I'm shooting for because the kin do f market that I'm looking at would be a person who's semi - retire, a consultant, wants and office, wants a downstairs master bedroom, wants a guest bedroom on the second floor for his grandchildren when they come to visit. That's essentially the scenario that I'm hoping for. Board Member Thayer - So are you going to eliminate the dining room or the living room downstairs? Mr. Auble — Well, I'm not even sure. The living room/ dining room is going to have to stay downstairs, so we're trying to force -fit a lot into that downstairs area. Board Member Thayer — But you wouldn't consider leaving it as is? Mr. Auble — I want a downstairs master bedroom. That's different from what you're looking at right now. Board Member Thayer — My other question is would it be economically feasible to have all single family dwellings on the lots rather than them being multi - family? Mr. Auble — Well, I really feel that by going to residential versus commercial, that's a tremendous reduction in the kind of traffic that would be. My alternative would be multi -family before commercial to be honest with you. The single family, I don't feel would be marketable that close up to Danby Road. The lower part of the property has a nice buffer of a hedgerow that divides the property between multiple resident and single family. So that hedgerow, I want to build up even more as a buffer to divide those two segments and make those as saleable as possible. I don't feel that the land closer to Danby Road would be that desirable for single family residences as far as sales go. Mr. Klumpp — When we came to the Board with this proposal, one of the things that we tried to do was to have a step down from the commercial on Danby Road to apartments via having a commercial area, multiple residence area, single family home area we are creating that step down. Chairperson Wilcox — Larry, has he answered your questions? Board Member Thayer — Yes, thank you. I May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Board Member Hoffmann — Could you remind me and maybe we have talked about this earlier, but I have honestly forgotten if these are all supposed to be rental units in the multiple residences or if some of them could be available for purchase? Mr. Auble — I'm glad you brought that up again. We have purposely designed the units in the configuration that they're in so that they could be marketed at two for sale units. That's another discussion that we're having. Mr. Barney — Are you going to build them to the building code requirements to allow that? Mr. Auble — That's what we're discussing with the designers to determine whether we can build them within the cost parameters that we feel we would need to be and still meet the code for the town houses. Mr. Barney - It's a considerable stiffer code. Mr. Auble — We may have to go with block separation between each unit, as opposed to the sheetrock double layers and all that sort of thing for the apartments. Mr. Barney — David, if you don't make your deal with the gentleman who owns the property on West King Road adjacent to you, what are the possibilities of dropping a couple of the units entirely from the program and making it an 18 unit? Mr. Auble — I'm not comfortable with doing that. We're meeting the Town requirements. We're already, I fell bending over backwards, I feel in a sense, trying to cooperate with what was indicated to us as the future zoning/ re- zoning changes and the concepts there. I'm pretty comfortable from my discussions with Gary that that's going to happen. And his intent is that if it doesn't happen, it doesn't matter if it's 30 feet from his property or not because he's not going to live there because he's going to rent out to students. I don't know if it's as critical to do that if it's a student rental unit. I'll probably be looking more for the buffer than he will if it's a student rental house. Mr. Kanter — Actually the Woodins property is zoned Business C currently as well. Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else? Is there something you want to see? is there something missing? Is there some drawing? Is there some information that instead of us relying upon, is there some concrete information that you want to see? 42 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Board Member Thayer — I think it's important to know whether they are going to be a sold as town houses or apartments. I think that's a very important missing piece here. Chairperson Wilcox — And number of bedrooms? Board Member Thayer — And the diagram that we're looking at isn't the diagram. Chairperson Wilcox — And we already know that the number of garage stalls is different. Mr. Kanter — On the other hand, I'd hate to see you send Mr. Auble out to do detailed drawings and then have him come back and it not be what you actually wanted to see. So I think you have some obligation to tell him what you would be willing to accept. Which is what we really need to get down to. Chairperson Wilcox — I get a sense from the Board that it's two bedrooms. And by two bedrooms, I mean either two bedrooms or one bedroom and a den. Board Member Mitrano — I think we've registered a preference for town houses. Board Member Conneman — It seems to me that that changes a little less, the character of the neighborhood. Board Member Talty — I would say, what's the size of the den because I have a den in my house and there's no way it could be a bedroom. Board Member Thayer- You're saying the upstairs won't change? Mr. Auble — My goal .now is to incorporate a downstairs master bedroom for the kind of market. Board Member Thayer — And leave the upstairs as is? Mr. Auble — The upstairs will probably be a bedroom and a den, that's what it was originally. Board Member Thayer — That's an 11 x 12 den, which is big. Mr. Auble — So be it. The upstairs, there's a certain amount of space up there. When you have a downstairs and you have x amount of space and you have an upstairs you have to do something with the space. Chairperson Wilcox — So, we want to see final drawings? 43 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Board Member Thayer- I do. Chairperson Wilcox — Before preliminary? Board Member Talty — I can't vote on this. Board Member Hoffmann — I would also like to see drawings of what is actually going to be built. Maybe there are some details that could be left out, but another bedroom is not a detail to me. Board Member Thayer — And a town house or an apartment isn't a detail. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you have a preference on the number of bedrooms? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. I said before, two maximum or one bedroom and a den. Board Member Thayer— That's why I was asking if he could leave it as is, it looks good. Mr. Auble — Do you agree, Mr. Thayer, that a downstairs master bedroom makes sense for retired folks. Board Member Thayer — I wouldn't rent, if I were in the market, if it didn't have one. I do agree. That's not the discussion. Mr. Auble — I guess I'm a little confused as to what you expect me to do with the upstairs then. If I'm going to incorporate a downstairs master bedroom, what should I do with the upstairs? Board Member Hoffmann — We're not trying to decide this for you, but when I look at the downstairs plan that you've provided us with, the only thing I can think of to incorporate a bedroom downstairs without getting rid of either the living room, the dining room, or the breakfast room, which is part of the kitchen , is to close in the deck. In that case, maybe you could use that space upstairs to build a deck. Something that would have been either the den or the bedroom upstairs could become a deck. Mr. Auble — I guess I have to apologize for not understanding that these plans would be interpreted as our final floor plans. I felt like this was site plan approval, we were essentially looking a the footprint. We're spending a huge amount of money on drainage studies and site considerations and that the architecture was the next phase basically. We're talking an expensive process here. When I see something on Troy Road that is essentially a lot more density and I come in with something that I feel is going to be more oriented towards family, retirees, possibly two single researchers at Cornell, those kinds of things, that kind of .. May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 market. I guess it mystifies me how someone can get a unit approved with say four bedrooms in it. Mr. Barney — Those are two family houses. We don't have any right to tell them what number of bedrooms they have. Mr. Auble — Did you look at the architecture of those units? Mr. Barney — You could build them as long as it's a two family house and as long as the second unit is no more than 50 percent of the first unit and that's what they are. To keep pointing at that doesn't advance you. You're taking about a pure multiple residence here with apartment. That's a two family house, each on a separate lot. It's a different ball game a different zone. If you want this zoned as single family, you could probably do the same thing here, put a two family house up with two bedrooms in one unit and four bedrooms in the other unit if you wanted to. Mr. Auble — All I'm saying is that I took a look at the units and they're essentially apartments that are built for students. If you look at them, they're not on separate lots, they may be separate lots, but they're attached units. Mr. Barney — The two units are joined together as one building, but only two units per lot. You're look for 20 units. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you John. Thank you Mr. Auble. This Board, I think, has made it reasonably clear that they have a preference for units that have two unable-bedrooms, whether that's two bedrooms and no den or one bedroom and one den: We'd like to see, what I would call nearly finally design drawings which are consistent with what this Board would like to see. We don't have to label them exactly final at the time drawings, but clearly a commitment to what would be built in the floor plan. The Board has indicated a desire to know something about whether these would be apartments or town houses and I'm not sure what the legal definitions of those is. My interpretation is owner versus renter is kind of the distinction of the difference between apartment or townhouse and whether they would be built so that they could be sold individually. MR. Barney — If you're going down a different road here, if you're talking about separate one family dwellings as townhouses, you're then basically talking about a cluster. Chairperson Wilcox — No, what I'm saying is knowing whether these could be sold individually by way of putting in a fire wall and all that. Mr. Barney — I would hesitate if you're talking about re- zoning to a multiple residence zone, imposing any conditions that would require them to be sold as 45 May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 individual units. If you're talking about individual units, then you're really talking about a cluster development and a single family area zoned for that. Not that you can't have one in a multiple residence zone. I think Mr. Auble has been in looking for multiple residence and if you're saying that you're not going to give him multiple residence you might say then why is it zoned that way. Chairperson Wilcox — Can we take away that owner - renter townhouse issue and just look at two bedroom? Board Member Hoffmann — Alright, but I think if Mr. Auble wants to look at it and come back, we don't have to give the preliminary for it tonight. Chairperson Wilcox — And I'm not proposing that we give preliminary approval tonight, I'm proposing that we adjourn this and ask Mr. Auble to come back with some more information. Specifically about the floor plan, the footprint. Board Member Mitrano — My response to the last question, it's the applicant that says we do this and we do that. All we're asking is tell us what you're going to.do. Mr. Auble — Can I just be specific then and say that these will be for rent, number one. Number two, they would be two bedrooms, a den and that should answer your questions. Chairperson Wilcox - You said two bedrooms, plus a den? Mr. Auble — Yes. Mr. Kanter — That's not what I heard you guys say. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't want to debate it. What would this Board approve? Board Member Talty — I'll tell you my opinion of what I heard tonight. Basically, Mr. Auble, everything is compromise and I don't think it would hurt anyone at this time, maybe your pocketbook, but to meet some of you future neighbors half way and look at potentially townhouses and a cluster type of effect because then that lends credibility to people owning what they have in your neighborhood. They may not be single family dwelling units as you're accustomed to, but it does lend itself to ownership. I think that's what I'm hearing tonight. Board Member Conneman — That would at least not change the character of the neighborhood. Board Member Talty — That is correct. May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Board Member Conneman -- I think that's what they said. They would still like to be in a neighborhood where their neighbors were essentially the same character that they are. Board Member Talty — That it would not adversely effect. Renter can, I'm not saying it will, but renters can alter adversely. Isn't that point two? Mr. Barney — So can commercial development and that's what it's zoned for now. I think you have to make the determination of whether the change is going to be an adverse change, that would effect it adversely more so that what it currently zone for. Board Member Conneman- And students, although I love them and work with them all my life, can adversely effect a neighborhood. Mr. Kanter — Students are going to be anywhere though. They're on Pennsylvania Avenue, anywhere. Chairperson Wilcox — But students I a single family home. Board Member Hoffmann — But in this kind of a development, there could be a concentration of students, which may cause more of a problem then if they were interspersed. Board Member Talty — Even though we understand completely that's not the market that you're looking for, but things can change. Chairperson Wilcox — The proposed resolution states that the "Town of Ithaca Planning Board....hereby finds the existing probable future character of the Town will not be adversely effected by the proposed re- zoning project." Owner is better than rented and I think we led Mr. Auble to this point, to some extent by going through the sketch plan review and though we hadn't seen the. details that we have tonight, I think this Board, we can change our mind, but I think in general agreed in sort of principle as sort of our sketch plan review that a mixture of commercial rental properties and single family owner occupied would be a reasonable mix. I also think that we, as a group, would like to see the reduction in the number of bedrooms. I'm not going to sit here and say that they all have to be two or one plus a den, I'd like to see some drawings. On the other hand, I'm not particularly comfortable that they're all three or two plus a den. I don't want to beat this to death. It's already 9:30. Is that what his Board wants to see? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. I was disappointed that what we say when we prepared for this meeting was different than what we heard at the meeting. The three bedrooms we just heard tonight. EVA May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — A point to Mr. Auble, by the way. He made the comment about how we're discussing this and not discussing drainage and traffic flow. We got good reports on drainage and traffic flow and took care of all those issues, which is why we're not spending much time discussing them. Here we have less detail. Here the Board wants to see more. So, what I would like to do — do you feel you have an idea what this Board wants to see right now? Mr. Auble — I believe I do. Chairperson Wilcox — Given that, I would like to adjourn consideration of a recommendation for re- zoning to the Town Board, preliminary site plan approval and preliminary subdivision approval unil Mr. Auble can provide additional details on the architecture, floor plan of the proposed units so that this Board can have them available for their consideration. Mr. Auble — Essentially, you're saying the floor plan? Chairperson Wilcox — Is there anything else ladies and gentlemen? Board Member Hoffmann — Well, there are other things that are mentioned in the conditions here that perhaps Mr. Auble could have a look at and try to prepare so that we can see. Chairperson Wilcox — We very often grant preliminary approval with lots of conditions that all have to be met by final. We have spent all our time this evening talking about the floor plan, not about a tree here, a tree there or landscaping or anything like that. Obviously the more Mr. Auble can give us, the better we are able to make an informed decision and grant preliminary approval. But the thing that we concentrated on tonight is the floor plan. Board Member Conneman — The better he does there, the more pricey the lots in the back are going to be so he's going to be happy. The neighbors are going to be happy. Chairperson Wilcox — So we'll adjourn it unit such time that we have- Mr. Kanter — Weil, since you're taking about buildings and you won't be happy if he comes in without what I am going to say, I think I better say it and that is that there's nothing indicating the building heights and the building heights are quite relevant in terms of spacing between buildings in the MR zone as well as setbacks from lot lines and unless we have more detailed elevations with building heights indicated, we're not going to know whether the buildings are meeting the spacing and setback requirements. That's all I wanted to say. Board Member Mitrano — That sounds good. I know I am beating a dead horse, but just so this is clear and the applicant doesn't feel mislead in any way. What auto May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 does tend to throw me off is when I have reviewed for something and then it changes right here at the meeting and so if you're really looking to be sure next time this gets through, I would advise strongly that what you prepared for us and what we review is what you say here and it doesn't change. Chairperson Wilcox — I would remind those of you in the public that the Public Hearing has been opened and closed and you've all had an opportunity to speak., although I am sometimes open to allowing the public every opportunity to speak. Should we re- convene and take this matter up, l will not guarantee that you'll have an opportunity to speak, but I'm more than likely to give the public a chance to speak if you have new information or something to add with regard to the changes that Mr. Auble has proposed additional details that he has brought in. Your legal right to speak has been satisfied, but there are other reasons that you should be allowed to speak and I'm more than likely to let you. Yes, ma'am? (inaudible speaking from the audience) Chairperson Wilcox — You are allowed to ask questions of the Board. All set Mr. Auble? Legally, I'm okay? Mr. Barney — You're adjourning it until when? Chairperson Wilcox — When Mr. Auble gets us the information. Mr. Barney — You're adjourning it without date. Chairperson Wilcox — Do we need to vote. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -031: Preliminary Site Plan Approval/ Preliminary Subdivision Approval and Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding Rezoning Holly Creek Subdivision, Danby Road and West King Road, Tax Map Nos. 37.-1 -17.1 and 37. =1 =18. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George Conneman. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: This matter is adjourned to a date not yet set, pending submission of detailed floor plans and building elevations by the applicant. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Howe. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 Mr. Kanter — I've got one more question of procedure. Timing was everything with this in terms of when it goes to the Town Board and there is no recommendation from this Board to the Town Board yet. So, my assumption is that this will not go to the Town Board until this Board does give a recommendation although that wouldn't be indefinite because if you indefinitely postpone a decision, I think the Town Board would start wondering what was happening. But, I guess the question was, if the Town Board was going to consider setting their Public Hearing for the June 9th Town Board Meeting, guess feed back from you would be helpful as to whether you think we should still ask the Town Board to do that at this point, pending of course whatever happens here. Board Member Conneman — Is he likely to come back by the 20th of this month. Chairperson Wilcox — I think it would be very difficult given he's got to get them in, they've got to be reviewed by staff and they have to be mailed out to us. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't want this Board to get that detail and then say oh now we want this. Board Member Mitrano — So, we still have to answer Jonathan's question. Mr. Kanter — We have a May 20th meeting and then there's a June Td meeting, which we are actually looking to cancel, but of course if his plans come in, I don't think I would do that. Chairperson Wilcox - What's the question Jon, I'm sorry? Mr. Kanter — Well, it's your input, it's not your decision. I'm just looking for your advise as to whether we should ask the Town Board to set the Public Hearing for June 9th not knowing whether this Board still will be done with it at that point. When the Town Board sets Public Hearings, they can always cancel it. But if they don't set it, it's a lot harder to hold it. Mr. Barney — It also costs money. Chairperson Wilcox — The next meeting would be June 3rd. You know he wants to start construction this summer. Odds are he'll be back here on the 3rd. So, it's not unreasonable that the Town Board could address it on the 9th. Mr. Kanter — I think we'll go ahead and ask them to set the Public Hearing. AGENDA ITEM: Approval of April 15, 2003 Minutes w May 6, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Approved May 20, 2003 PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 =032, Approval of Minutes — April 15, 2003 MOTION by Eva Hoffmann , seconded by George Conneman. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the April 153 2003 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meetings as presented with corrections. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSENT• Howe The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other business? Any other business John or Jon or Mike? Mr. Kanter — I don't think so. Board Member Talty — We're going to have enough people for May 20th right? Chairperson Wilcox — We've got one not here and one maybe not here. Board Member Hoffmann —But Rod will be back. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't even know where Rod is. Mr. Kanter — He just told us that he wouldn't be here today. Chairperson Wilcox — So, hopefully he'll be back. Just give us nice easy ones. AGENDA ITEM : ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the May 6, 2003 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:41 p.m. �Rees�pectf�ullypSubmitted, C/ 7 62i l Lori Love 51 May 5, 2003 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga St. Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 Re: Proposed subdivision, David C. Auble Town Planning Board meeting, May 6, 2003, f 7:20 P.M. We, the W. King Rd. and Stone Quarry Rd. neighborhood, wish to. express our concern and disapproval of the proposed David C. Auble zoning change for tax parcels # 37 -7 -17.1 8s 37 -1 -18 in the Town of Ithaca. Specifically, we are opposed to any zoning change that would not be compatible with the present, mostly owner - occupied, single family neighborhood. �NS rRim "��� Cy z1t e=1 �� / LtvC1 c :J r AJI 0 �AJiL? i 1 l� �c: -tGLI /V',G ( DIP-INq ` J O�� �' ei rr f` Cj s `. f,L( �CS /rte J /�� rJ - �•`�_% � + /��'�.:. r (LA, r, r Ceti C� C ( May 5, 2003 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga St. Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 Re: Proposed subdivision, David C. Auble Town Planning Board meeting, May 6, 2003, 7:20 P.M. We, the W. King Rd. and Stone Quarry Rd. neighborhood, wish to express our concern and disapproval of the proposed David C. Auble zoning change for tax parcels # 37 -7 -17.1 8v 37 -1 -18 in the Town of Ithaca. Specifically, we are opposed to any zoning change that would not be compatible with the present, mostly owner - occupied, single family neighborhood. .17J 9idJt' C1, 6) y/7 '2 Tth9tii N7 J` elf 4 /l /�Vw> i I� L tX.l 1 �i May 5, 2003 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga St. Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 Re: Proposed subdivision, David C. Auble Town Planning Board meeting, May 6, 2003, 7:20 P.M. We, the W. King Rd. and Stone Quarry Rd. neighborhood, wish to express our concern and disapproval of the proposed David C. Auble zoning change for tax parcels # 37 -7 -17.1 Ss 37 -1 -18 in the Town of Ithaca. Specifically, we are opposed to any zoning change that would not be compatible with the present, mostly owner - occupied, single family neighborhood. . .' -4"_ ^ t StQ�7�,J ell � �:��i 11�/' �LI 1 li Lam' �- i ! 1 I�. i 1 ✓1 �! �.L�. i� l� ✓�� �.i A/ 2,I /� �� ��•� � f`1 ".5 May 5, 2003 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga St. Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 Re: Proposed subdivision, David C. Auble Town Planning Board meeting, May 6, 2003, 7:20 P.M. We, the W. King Rd. and Stone Quarry Rd. neighborhood, wish to express our concern and disapproval of the proposed David C. Auble zoning change for tax parcels # 37 -7 -17.1 8s 37 -1 -18 in the Town of Ithaca. Specifically, we are opposed to any zoning change that would not be compatible with the present, mostly owner - occupied, single family neighborhood. �L(C� 7 J OF J C c TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, May 6, 2003 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed garage /storage building at the Robert Trent Jones Golf Course, located on Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68 -1 -9, Residence District R -30. The project involves removing the existing 2,900 +/- square foot garage /storage building and replacing it with a new 3,040 +/- square foot building in the same location. The new building will continue to be used for the storage of 40 golf carts, the players clubs, the golf team clubs, general storage for the Pro Shop, and general golf course storage. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Steven G. Wright, Agent, 7:10 P.M. SEQR Determination: Holly Creek 8 -Lot Subdivision & Associated Development, West King Road and Danby Road. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Preliminary Site Plan Approval, and a recommendation to the Town Board regarding the Zoning Change for the proposed 8 -lot subdivision and associated development located at the intersection of West King Road and Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 37 -1- 17.1 and 37 -1 -18, Multiple Residence and Business Districts "C" and "D ". The proposal is to subdivide the 15 +/- acre parcel into 5 lots for single - family residences (to be zoned R -30 Residence), two lots totaling 4.63 +/- acres for 20 apartment units in four buildings (to be zoned Multiple Residence), and reserve the remaining 5.01 +/- acre lot along Danby Road for future commercial development (to be zoned Business "C" in its entirety). David C. Auble, Owner /Applicant; Gary L. Wood, P.E. and Brian M. Klumpp, L.S., Agents. 5. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 6. Approval of Minutes: April 15, 2003. 7. Other Business. 8. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE 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, May 6, 2003 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, May 6, 2003, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed garage /storage building at the Robert Trent Jones Golf Course, located on Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68 -1 -9, Residence District R -30. The project involves removing the existing 2,900 +/- square foot garage /storage building and replacing it with a new 3,040 +/- square foot building in the same location. The new building will continue to be used for the storage of 40 golf carts, the players clubs, the golf team clubs, general storage for the Pro Shop, and general golf course storage. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Steven G. Wright, Agent. 7:20 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Preliminary Site Plan Approval, and a recommendation to the Town Board regarding the Zoning Change for the proposed B- lot subdivision and associated development located at the intersection of West King Road and Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 37 -1 -17.1 and 37 -1 -18, Multiple Residence and Business Districts "C" and "D ". The proposal is to subdivide the 15 +/- acre parcel into 5 lots for single- family residences (to be zoned R -30 Residence), two lots totaling 4.63 +/- acres for 20 apartment units in four buildings (to be zoned Multiple Residence), and reserve the remaining 5.01 +/- acre lot along Danby Road for future commercial development (to be zoned Business "C" in its entirety). David C. Auble, Owner /Applicant; Gary L. Wood, P.E. and Brian M. Klumpp, L.S., Agents. 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 as 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 28, 2003 Publish: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 The lftm ca Jol.lrnal' , 1NedheAay fAprli 30, µ2003F ;;'- arvvrn vr- ssnwcw,-. �; "PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC;:' Tuesday `May 6 r2003 a� l'.C6nsidera: liminary:and'F.inal' Approval L for the: nm • ar..new, quare =foot •b! 16nd .I .r. G.- Wright, Agent.' 7:20 P.M� Considera• ,lion.'of- Preliminary' Subdivf:< sion`?Approval, ';Preliminary Site 'Plan,- Approval, � ond'a' recommendation '.to. .the Zoniif ' Charigefor the pro- as�8tedtdeve pmen 6 cafe& -artW. intersection; of West-Kiny Road and Danby- .Road,. Town'.of'lthocd -,Tax- Parcel No'','s-37- ,1- 17.1'amd. 37- 148,-- Multiple Residence- and-;Busin' ess Dishicts and: "D The: prop - OHM'to. aukidivide :`the" :15'' + /,- •acre,: 1: parcel. Wo'- 5'lots .for °single=, 'for_-20 - apartment .;units :.in four'- bAdings (to:be;ioned ►Multiple Residenee); and -r&' serve the -remaining 501. + /- :,,acre .kit, along _Danby Road -for future commercial. development - -(to : be -ioned Business : "C, ". in .-its entirety(:: ;David. C.. -. -: Auble' Owner /Ap kcant, Gary L;. Wood, P fp and -Brion M:: Klumpp L S , Agents Said °Planning B'oord w-01 at' (said` times and.said" place. hear 'all _persons'iii -support . of'such matteii or objections thereto. - Peiions may qp pear by- agent.or,m person: Individuals ,witK visuak,im -, Ipoirments, •hearing impair- :'merits or-' other special needs, will be provided*vMK. assistance as; necessary, I pon request:- Persons'desir ing'7assistance.,m'ust .make 'such; a -request_notless than 48,'hours :prior to the time 'of the,publ c h'earings.' v Jonathon Kanter. AICl` r' (Director: of 0anning; '273= 1747 'Dated: ;Monday,` ;April 28, 2003 Publish: Wednesday, ' April; ' TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 (PLEASEPRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEA E PRINT AME PLEASE PRINT ADDRE55 /AFFILIATION 2a� nor �o� I�et}. �, L�Vito Su��� ; UCH 17 ]C&Irj 1 !S :,::> W 42FJ 17/1 A C4 UlZIPL�IL U) )o �� 1�\ �� Z- 0 , ,. a ,�..' 20 7 bAj 42 8 ei 2 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, May 6, 2003 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting Date of Posting : Date of Publication April 28, 2003 April 30, 2003 STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio a Street. Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30th day of April 2003. IliL /V % -- 0(� ,L Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 r J(o