Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2004-01-20F1 LE `- DATE a �� TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2004 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, January 20, 2004, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Dan. Walker, Director of Engineering; EXCUSED: Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Michael Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra, Planner, OTHERS: Roger Dupuis, _Ithaca Journal; William Kerry, 202 Elmira Rd; Jeff Shetterly, 412 S. Albany St; Chris Stephenson, Lansing NY; Mike Thorne, 104 Brookfield Rd; Will Burbank, 132 Glenside Rd, Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:01 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 January 12, 2004 and January 14, 2004, 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 January 14, 2004. 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. Chairperson Wilcox — A couple of minor housekeeping items. As you can see by the fact that I'm sitting in this chair, the Town Board did reappoint me for another one -year term as Chair. And ... and Eva was reappointed to another seven year sentence. Have you taken your oath? Board Member Hoffmann — No. Chairperson Wilcox — That certainly means that you can't vote. Could we do it now? I know you can't vote and there is the possibility that maybe you shouldn't even participate because you are not a member until you take the oath. Carrie is going to do it right now. She is the Deputy Town Clerk. For the record, I have already taken mine. Board Member Hoffmann — In the meantime, I forgot, is there a meeting in New York City this February? Chairperson Wilcox — The Association of Towns has their annual meeting in New York City in either January or February. Board Member Hoffmann — Has that already been taken care of? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — I went the first year 1 was on the board. Generally, I didn't find it very interesting or exciting.. The Planning Federation is much better. Association of Towns, in my opinion, is more geared to Town Board. Board Member Hoffmann took her. oath of office for another seven year term on the Planning Board. AGENDA ITEM: Persons to be Heard Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:04 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:05 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed 8 -11ot Holly Creek 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 371-18, Residence District R =30, Multiple Residence, and Business District "C ". The proposal is to subdivide the 15 +/- acre parcel into 5 lots for single - family residences, two lots totaling 4.63 +/- acres for 20 apartment units in four buildings, and reserve the remaining 5.01 +/w acre lot along Danby Road for future commercial development. David C. Auble, Owner /Applicant; Mike Thorne, Agent. Board Member Hoffmann — I actually have a comment before we get started on this. The last set of minutes had so many instances where whatever people said was not audible enough to be able to be put into the minutes. I think that is a problem actually, especially when the applicant is speaking about what they are going to do. I feel personally embarrassed that the Town cannot come up with a system to allow people to sit and speak and go up to the drawings and speak and be heard. It looks as if one could take off that microphone from the stand there. Is that possible? Maybe that is what we should ask people to do. If you have to go up the.drawing and talk, maybe you should take the microphone with you, not the whole thing with the stand. Carrie Coates Whitmore — We are actually in the process of purchasing'a wireless mike, but until that time, people really do need to speak into the microphone even if it means bringing the drawings closer. Projecting just doesn't work. Board Member Hoffmann — It is obvious from the minutes that it doesn't work. What can somebody do tonight? Chairperson Wilcox — What we can do tonight is to turn this one around. Mr. Kanter — Also, if you pull the microphone out and take it with you, you can hold it right up to. your voice. r PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED = FEBRUARY i7, 2004 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — It is also incumbent upon us as board members to speak. into the microphones as well. Unfortunately, the biggest offenders are not hear right now. With that, the floor is yours. Mike Thorne, 104 Brookfield Road -- I am representing Mr. Auble. I guess I'll start out by saying. that I just got involved in this project about a month ago. I have been looking through everything and I think that what we turned in on December 31St pretty much addresses any outstanding issues that were remaining. I am here to answer any questions. Chairperson Wilcox — Have you read the comments provided by Town Planning staff? Mr. Thorne — Yes, I have. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva, do you want to start? Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. There was a comment about the fact that there are not going to be any basements anymore. The housing units in the apartment units are going to be built on slabs with no basements underneath, no crawl space, too, I assume. Mr. Thorne — That is correct. Board Member Hoffmann - The only reference that I could.find for that in the plans was on the drawing called Sheet 1, which has the elevations, front and rear elevations of one of the these multi -unit buildings. 1 have a little trouble reading. It says, "slab 1 one grade foundation ".: .something ... something, .."with lower building height" .either 13.5 or 18.5 inches. It is so small that I have trouble reading it. Mr. Thorne — I'm sorry, which sheet is that on? Board Member Hoffmann — It says, "Sheet 1 of..." and then rest is blacked out in the copying. Mr. Kanter — It is the sheet with the elevation drawings, Mike. Mr. Thorne — Okay. Oh, 1 see. Board Member Hoffmann —On the right hand side of the rear elevation... Mr. Thorne — What that says, "slab or the building height by 18.5 inches ". Si give us the option ofi either putting it on working with the architects on getting basements. grade foundation, cross walls will lower building 1, 1 think what the architects did at that point was a crawl space or a slab on grade, which they are the final drawings complete. There will not be K3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 -APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, but in the papers that we have for tonight's decision this is the only reference that I found to the fact that it is going to be a. slab on grade. Is that right or does it appear somewhere else? Did you tell us somewhere else in any of the papers that you provided? Mr. Thorne — I believe it was in the letter. I'll have to double -check that. Board Member Hoffmann — Did anyone else see it anywhere else? Mr. Kanter — It was in my cover memo. Chairperson Wilcox — I read it in his cover memo. Mr. Kanter —Which 1 also got from confirming in my conversations with Mike. He was in the office quite a.few times. Board Member Hoffmann — I see. You have it based on conversation. Mr. Kanter — I relied on that drawing as you referred to because it was a clear reference. Board Member Hoffmann — My second question that has to do with that is does that mean that the height that is indicated here, the total height of 25 feet 9 inches is the earlier height with basements or is it the one with the slab foundation? Mr. Thorne — No. That height will be reduced by 18.5 inches since we are going slab on grade. Board Member Hoffmann - Okay. I needed to have the clarified. Thank you. So we should probably make a note somewhere in the resolutions about that so that it is clear. I had some questions about the plantings that are proposed. I agree with Jonathan Kanter's comments that the planting plan is a bit. sparse... I would certainly like to see more plantings along the lines that he already has suggested in his memo, but in addition to that and maybe we can all talk about it to give you some more specific recommendations. In addition to that I see that there is a proposal for a fence between the land next to parcel 7 and the lot, which was owned by somebody else until recently when Mr. Auble bought it. Mr. ,Thorne — Right. That is the property line at the back of the house that. Mr. Auble just purchased and lot 7. In our earlier resolution, we had indicated that we would like to see many more plantings with evergreens and a berm so that there was a much more clearly defined buffer, a more well developed buffer between the apartment building and this land, which I remember is zoned commercial so it may not stay as a residential property. Mr. Thorne = Right. It is zoned commercial very limited space along that property line. The fence was proposed because there is You have a walking trail and you also have 11 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - APPROVED a drainage ditch. So, placing a berm or large trees and things like that are not practical. With Mr. Auble purchasing that lot, what we would like to do is explore some other ideas that might be more attractive than a fence, but if that doesn't. occur, a fence could certainly work there. Board Member Hoffmann — I would assume that you would have to come in if something else was going to happen on this residential lot. You would have to come in for approval of some sort of commercial development, but this is what. I worry about. That something different might happen and there wouldn't be enough of a buffer. As it is now, I don't think a fence is enough of a buffer between this single family residential and the apartments. I would urge you to try to come up with some other way of creating a stronger buffer. Mr. Thorne — Certainly. It is our intent to really do a nice landscaping job on this. The plans right now show very sparse landscaping. One of the things we wanted to do was see what some of the issues might be before we put a lot of effort and time into the landscaping plan, but I think that I saw somewhere in the notes that the landscaping plan would be submitted when we apply for building permits, that they could be reviewed at that time. Board Member Hoffmann.— Yes. It is not ideal. Ideally, I would like .to see it before giving final approval, but if you could tell us tonight a little bit more about what could be done, I might be willing to give final approval conditioned on having the Town Planner see a plan and approve a plan. Mr. Thorne — After talking with Jon a few times, Jon mentioned that he would like to see. a lot more plantings along the backend of lot 6, to have a larger buffer between the commercial and these lots. We fully agree with that. We just have to go ahead and select the plants and find out what is going to work best .there. Along this edge, Mr. Auble is planning on either a fence or better, but if we do anything other than a fence it is going to have to be on this lot right here simply because we don't have room for anything other than a fence. Board Member Hoffmann — But that shouldn't be a problem since Mr. Auble now owns that lot. Chairperson Wilcox — The issue is do we want to put in that fencing or some other barrier on another lot or do we want to keep it on the lot that is part of this proposal. That is part of the consideration. Yes, he owns that other lot, but do we really want that buffer. Board Member Conneman — Mr. Auble plans to rent the house out, is that what he plans to do? Mr. Thorne — He's planning on living in it temporarily while the site is being built. I think he is planning.on building on lot 5, which the one back in. the corner there. But in the 61 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - APPROVED meantime, he's planning on using it as a temporary residence and also a temporary office for the site development. Board Member Conneman — My recollection when you were here the last time was that there was a controversy. The gentleman who owned the house had sort of been pushed up against these houses and therefore, there should be some sort of a barrier there. What I would be concerned about is if you do nothing and then Mr. Auble lives in the house and then they rent it out to college students or something. That would be a concern of mine. It seems to me if it is going to be a residence over a long period of time, there ought to be some sort of landscaping there. Otherwise, you are sending to me a different message about what is going to happen. Mr. Thorne — You are talking about the single - family house. Board Member Conneman - Maybe I'm wrong on what I thought about that, but that is what I thought part of the issue was. Mr. Thorne — That's true. Chairperson Wilcox — I would like to see landscaping or a berm instead of a fence, but given the layout a fence maybe all that we can do. Board Member Thayer — Sure, it depends on doesn't it? I mean if he is going to continue t o going to tear it down and use it as part of th e plans are for that? what he is going to do with the house, have a single - family unit there or is he project. Do you know what his future Mr. Thorne — I think he was looking at it for possible professional office. Chairperson Wilcox — The problem is even if we know what he is going to do, it doesn't mean he has to do it number one and number two, we don't know what the use will be 3 to 5 years down the road. Mr. Kanter — If I could, besides the precedent of having the buffer on an adjoining lot as opposed to on the development site, part of the issue is the maintenance and upkeep responsibility. Normally, if you could just put it on the apartment site, then it is obviously the owner or manager's responsibility to maintain it and replace plantings., If it is on this adjoining lot and then MR. Mr. Auble sells that lot to somebody else, then it become somebody else's responsibility to upkeep the buffer. So that is an issue. I don't know if there is a way that that could be addressed long term. Board Member Hoffmann — That is true. The reason that this concerned me was especially was that in your description of what you were going to do there, this is point 1 e of your letter of December 31St. It says the buffer will consist of a lattice fence with vines. The lattice fence could be something, which has rather big openings in it, and a vine doesn't cover it necessarily in the winter. It might be... R PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - APPROVED Mr. Thorne — My thought was to have something a little bit more attractive than just wood slats up, but again,.what we have space for right now is a fence. We would be happy to look at other options, but things like a berm and stuff like that are just not going to work with the space that we have. I think we are limited to putting some type of fence there. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, a lattice fence definitely is not going to do it forme. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you have a suggestion? Board Member Thayer — Well, they have really tight lattice fences. Board Member Hoffmann — Really? Board Member Thayer — Oh,. sure. Mr. Thorne — What we had envisioned is something that would basically support vines and things like that so that you wouldn't actually see the fence. Board Member Hoffmann — And would the vines be evergreen? Mr. Thorne — We haven't gotten that far yet. Board Member Hoffmann - But it is something to think about. I don't even know if there are any evergreen vines that can live in this area. Mr. Thorne — Okay. Well we will have to talk to a landscaper. Chairperson Wilcox — The purpose of the fence is to deal with the view. The purpose of the vines is to deal with the fence. Board Member Hoffmann — A lattice fence to me is a fence, and I don't know the details of what lattice fences are available, but it is a fence that has holes in it.. If you don't have. a vine that covers those holes, then you don't deal with the view. Mr. Thorne — Our intent is to do something nice, and not ugly. Mr. Auble owns both pieces of property. It is in his best interest to do something nice. Chairperson Wilcox — We don't doubt you, but we would still like to see it. Board Member Hoffmann — Let's see. I had some concerns about some of the language in some of the easements, too. Jonathan Kanter had some comments about that in some of them, but even in the first one, the drainage easement, it is legal language. Maybe I'm just not interpreting it correctly. On the first page of the drainage easement, unfortunately there are no page numbers in this handout we got from Mr. 7 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - APPROVED Auble, but it is the first one in attachment one. On the first page of the drainage easement, point 3, it talks about the easement including the right to inspect, maintain, etc, etc, but it isn't clear to me who would do it. Would it be Mr. Auble or would it be the Town? I would like to have that clarified, maybe by Mr. Barney. On the next page, point 5 says that although covenants and agrees that no buildings or structures shall be constructed during its term of ownership within the foresaid permanent easement. That seems to indicate that the covenant would cover only Mr. Auble's ownership, yet under point 9, it says this easement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their respective distributees, heirs, successors, and assigns and shall run with the land. The two of them seem to be contradictory to me. Am I just reading it wrong? Attorney Barney — No. I had those comments plus several more. Mr. Walker — The intent here is not for the Town to actually have to maintain the drainage. The maintenance of the drainage is the responsibility of the landowner, but we want to ensure that in the case of an emergency where some other properties are threatened downstream that we have the right to protect those other properties by doing emergency maintenance, the cost of which would be borne by the homeowner to be billed to them by the Town. This is just a draft form of the easement, We also have to have a storm water management agreement similar to what we have with College Circle, where the Town to protect the adjoining landowners can go in and rfiX something if they see it during an emergency high water event, but the cost is still the liability of the owner of the property. That is something that we would condition on here. This is a lot more detailed than what we, normally get with an easement at this stage. Usually we say we'll get the. right easements and then we hammer it out in the next six months with the attorneys. We have a better start. We've already gotten three months of legal work out of the way. Board Member Hoffmann — Weil, thank you. I was just concerned that we not approve something that isn't... Attorney Barney — I don't think you are approving this drainage easement by approving the resolution that you are approving conditional upon the easement being granted subject to the approval of the Director of Engineering, the Director of Planning and the advise of the Town Attorney. This is kind of a lopsided easement. There would be a few changes here and there. Board Member Hoffmann — There were some similar things in the other easements, too. Well, I think that's it for me for the time being. Chairperson Wilcox — We never approve easements, I don't think. I think we always defer that and that is a good thing. Attorney Barney — Eva is right.. It isn't explicit in your approval if you should approve the plan tonight. ft PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - APPROVED Board Member Conneman - Did you have any other comments, John, that you wanted to make about the easements? I was concerned about all this because I don't understand all the language in them. Would we leave that to you to work that out? Attorney Barney — That is the way that we usually do it. IT spend some time with the Mr. Auble's attorney, Dan and Jon to...(not audible)...if we reach an impasse in some way, then it would come back to the board for review. Chairperson Wilcox — Gentlemen, comments? Board_ Member Howe Eva has covered most of my concerns about landscaping. Board Member Hoffmann — Did you want to talk about the landscaping in more detail? Board Member Howe — No. I'm actually happy to leave it the way that it is written in the resolution right now where it would come back to planning staff. I don't know if they are comfortable with it.. Mr. Kanter. — I think that as long as we have a clear understanding ... (not audible). Then the issue of the fence, the buffer between the two lots... Chairperson Wilcox - Comments with regard to landscaping in terms of what...if we should go ahead and grant final approval tonight, with conditions, Eva has spoken to some extent of what we would like to see. What is the purpose of the landscaping? The purpose of the landscaping is to beautify the property and serve as a visual buffer. So given that, we are looking for evergreens because they serve that purpose both in the summer and the winter rather than deciduous trees. We are looking for... Board Member Hoffmann — Except I like a mixture, actually, of deciduous and softwoods. Chairperson Wilcox — Because? Board Member Hoffmann — Because that looks more natural. Chairperson Wilcox — We want trees that are more than 2 or 3 feet tall when they are planted, generally, so that there is some height to them. They have some reasonable caliper to them. Board Member Talty — And they survive. Chairperson Wilcox — And they survive, too, yeah. Anything else? We want them to serve as a visual barrier. They have to be dense enough in some way to form a visual barrier. How are we doing, Jon? Mr. Kanter - Sounds good. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — I think for the sake of the residents it is nice to have trees planted in such a way that there can be shaded spots in their yards. Mr. Thorne — Mr. Auble and I talked about that today. Again, it is in Dave Auble's best interest to do a nice job on the landscaping. He wants to attract tenants. He wants to have a nice development. Board Member Hoffmann — I feel there needs to be more trees than indicated on the plans. Mr. Thorne — We do, too. Again, we wanted to see what the issues were. Chairperson Wilcox — Lets talk about the fence, or the buffer on the north side of lot 37. -1 -16. That has to get ... (not audible) ... in my opinion. I think Jon Kanter stated it very eloquently. It clears up any issues in terms of any ownership and maintenance and responsibility. That would be contrary to the draft resolution in the very last resolved clause. Again, to put the screen with the proposed development from lot 37. - 1 -16 and also provide something that is pleasing to the eye for the general public who may drive by and to the renters who occupy those couple of units on that side. Any other issues before I give the public a chance to comment? Anything else you would like to say at this point? Mr. Thorne — Not at this point. Chairperson Wilcox — We may ask you to come back and clarify a few issues, but for now if you will just have a seat, thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this Is a public hearing if any of you wish to address the Planning Board on this particular agenda item, I ask you to step to the microphone and we ask that you give us your name and address and we will be very interested to hear what you have to say this evening (7:33 p.m.). There being no one, I will close the public hearing at 7:34 p.m, and bring the matter back to the board. Board Member Thayer — Surprise, surprise. Chairperson Wilcox—. Surprise. Board Member Thayer — I guess they settled the property that was controversial. Chairperson Wilcox — There were some other members of the neighborhood who were here before. Any other questions or comments? Mr. Kanter? Mr. Barney? Mr. Kanter — Just in regard to the buffer between lot 7 and the adjoining lot, Mike and I had talked about the one possibility would be to actually install a fence basically on the property line, that is technically on lot 7, but basically right up against the property line. The fence would work. How much other additional plantings could go in that buffer area 10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED -- FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - APPROVED without revising the layout of the grading because there is a drainage swale that is pretty much right up there then there is a walkway and then there is the retaining wall. The only way of really squeezing in more room for plantings there, I think, would be to somehow shift it all over, which really is a change in the layout. Chairperson Wilcox — I think that with the use of a lattice fence with minimal openings and some sort of a clinging vine that will act as a vegetative buffer, but more to screen the fence. I think that is where we have kind of gone. The fence really should block the view of the units from lot 37.-1 -16. Then the vines or something, i don't know. Ivy seems to work pretty well around here. I don't know whether that is an invasive species and therefore maybe inappropriate, but certainly there are vines that can screen in the fence and use the lattice within the fence to grow and secure itself. Board Member Hoffmann — Do we know the height this fence would have? Chairperson Wilcox — It is up to us. There is a six -foot limitation. Mr. Kanter — I think also with the topography it does go down. A six -foot fence might not totally block out the view of the apartments. What is your take on that, Mike? If a six - foot high .fence were built right, on the property line, how much of the apartment buildings would be visible from the adjoining house? Mr. Thorne — It does drop down. There is a change in elevation between the property line and where this building will be. I believe it is about six feet and so with the six -foot fence that will be 12 feet, but the buildings are going to be 28 feet or so. There are no windows on the side of this building. I don't think the residents of these apartment units are going to see anything over here any way. The people in this lot are not going to be able to see much of the apartment building, maybe the piece of the roof or something like that. Chairperson Wilcox — Because of the berm that is there? Mr. Thorne - Yeah, again it would have a six fence and then another six foot drop so it is... Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, not a berm. Board Member Hoffmann — Wouldn't the foundation of the building be raised up a little bit in order to get drainage? Mr. Thorne — Well, we've got drainage coming around the property line to catch anything running into the backyards.. Then, the backyards are going to be relative flat, but they are graded to drain out and away from the units. Chairperson Wilcox — I cannot sit here and say that a five foot fence or a five and half. foot fence or a six -foot fence is appropriate, so my inclination is to go with six foot. 11 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED = FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - APPROVED Board Member Thayer — That is what I think. Board Member Conneman — If you want to see a lattice fence, I.have one in my yard, which has got small holes. I can tell you who puts it up, but that would probably be inappropriate, but there is a fence company that does do that and its looks pretty good. We are not growing anything on our fence and neither are our neighbors because we keep the fence pretty enough so that we don't need anything. On the other hand, this is a different issue. We are only screening the other person's plantings so that is a different issue. I am still concerned about the fact that I don't know what Mr. Auble is going to do with the property. If he is going to rip the house down against them then I'd feel good, but if he is going to rent it out then it seems to me that he doesn't have to protect it, he can rent it to anybody. Therefore, the worst view you have from that house the more likely .it will be rented to people who would care less about the house. That is a concern. I still say whatever you do is okay, but that is on the record. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want me or you to acknowledge for the record your memo of January 16th? Mr. Walker — That's your job. Chairperson Wilcox — Its your job to write them and my job to acknowledge it. For the record, we have a memo from' Dan Walker, Town Engineer, dated January 16, 2004, which indicates that he has .reviewed the materials provided for the drainage details and storm water management plan and the draft easements for the drainage system allowing the Town of Ithaca to have access and he has no issues with them. Thank you, Dan. So the fence goes on lot 7 and six -foot lattice fence should have minimal spaces and the vine that improves the view. Then we will also have the issue with the revised elevation drawings to reflect actual building heights. Having said that... Mr. Kanter — I have one detail revision that we came across. Dan in reviewing the street cross section didn't quite meet our current Town standard in terms of the materials in the cross section, so we are going to ask that detail number 4 on detail sheet giving the street cross section be revised to meet the current Town standard. Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the resolution as drafted for final site plan and final subdivision approval? Board Member Howe — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Rod Howe, Board Member Thayer — I'll second it. 12 Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by Larry under the further resolved for the final detail number 4. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - APPROVED Thayer. We have one revision. This would be site plan approval, which is. a modification of Mr.- Kanter — Well, actually we are removing the and further resolved because that was the special situation. Chairperson Wilcox = The first thing is to remove the be it further resolved, which has to do with the fence on the neighboring lot. Is that acceptable? Attorney Barney —Yes. Insert anew subparagraph ford depending what Jon has to go in there, but it read construction of a six foot high lattice fence with vines on lot 7 to act as a visual barrier between the buildings on lot 7 and the residence on tax parcel number :37. -1 -16, subject to submission of a plan showing the location,. height, design detail of said fence for review and approval by the Director of Planning prior to the issuance of a building permit ... {inaudible }. Chairperson Wilcox — Is that fine with you? Board Member Howe and Board Member Thayer - Yes. Chairperson Wilcox - Mr. Kanter? Mr. Kanter — I just mentioned the one about the street cross section. Chairperson Wilcox — Right. Do we know what sheet that is that needs to be revised? Or is it. sufficient just to say detail number 4? Mr. Kanter- It is detail number 4 on the detail sheet. It is not really numbered. Chairperson Wilcox — Detail number 4 on the detail sheet to be revised to meet or be in conformance with Town standards. Mr. Kanter - To meet current Town. of Ithaca standards, subject to' the review and approval of the Town Engineer, prior to the issuance of any building permits. Chairperson Wilcox — We also need to add another one, which are revised elevation drawings to reflect the actual building heights. Mr. Kanter — 1 don't think I have anything specific on the revision of the - drainage easement, per se, that we talked about that needs to be adjusted. I mentioned some: of the other easements. Chairperson Wilcox — The one about the one referencing the Town of Ithaca as a party to an agreement seemed kind of odd, but it looked like the agreements were just drawn up Bing, Bing, Bing and that they had a little template for them. 13 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY-17, 2004 -APPROVED Mr. Kanter The intent was really to give the residents of all the lots in the subdivision access to these facilities, not other people outside the subdivision. Attorney Barney —.In reviewing that, I think I would probably consolidate that one with the next one. Chairperson Wilcox — The advised easement agreement language in the resolution calls for review and approval by the Attorney of the Town, not the Town Engineer. Attorney Barney — The Director of Planning needs to be involved, too. Chairperson Wilcox — So that would be 1 b and c. Is that change acceptable? Board — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else Jon, John and Dan? Mr. Walker — In condition d there, it basically says no building permits until the drainage and roadway is transferred and we get the easements. Chairperson Wilcox — You're comfortable with that? Mr. Walker — Yup. Chairperson Wilcox — John and Jon, you're all set? Mr. Kanter —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Carrie, you will do the best you can either from what they are writing or from what we have spoken clearly into the microphone. All right. Anything else? With that, all those in favor please signal by saying aye. Board — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox - Is anyone opposed? No one is opposed. The .motion is passed unanimously. Thank you all. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -001: Final Site Plan Approval, Final Subdivision Approval, Holly Creek Subdivision, Danby Road and West King Road MOTION by Rod Howe, seconded by Larry Thayer WHEREAS: M11 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - APPROVED 10 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering Final Subdivision Approval and Final Site Plan Approval 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 District, Business District "C'; and R -30 Residence District. The proposal is to subdivide the 15 +/- acre parcel into 5 lots for single- family residences (zoned R- 30 Residence), two lots totaling 4.63 +/- acres for 20 apartment units in four buildings (zoned Multiple Residence), and reserve the remaining 5.0 +/- acre lot along Danby Road for future commercial development (zoned Business "C" in its entirety). David C. Auble, Owner /Applicant; Gary L. Wood, P.E. and Mike Thorne, Agents, and 2. The Planning Board, after holding a public hearing at its May 6, 2003 meeting, issued a negative determination of-environmental significance with regard to the proposed rezoning, Site Plan Approval and Subdivision Approval for the Holly Creek proposal, issued. an affirmative recommendation to the Town .Board to rezone the property as requested. by the applicant, and granted Preliminary Subdivision Approval and Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the Holly Creek proposal, and 3. The Town of Ithaca Town Board, in Resolution No. 2003 -069,. dated June 9, 2003, has enacted a local law amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to rezone portions of the David Auble premises at the corner of West King Road and Danby Road to Multiple Residence District, Business C District, and Residence District R -30 in connection with the proposed Holly Creek Subdivision project, and 4. The Town of Ithaca Town Board, in Resolution No. 2003 -070, dated June 9, 2003, accepted the concept and location of the proposed public road, public utilities, and drainage easements for the Holly Creek Subdivision, and 5. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on January 20, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as. adequate final plans for the Holly Creek Subdivision, entitled "Site Plan," "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," "Grading and Drainage Plan," "Site Utilities," "Profiles," and three sheets of "Details, all prepared by Gary L. Wood, P.E. and Reagan Land Surveying and dated December 31, 2003, three sheets of building floor plans and elevation drawings, prepared by Northern Design and Building Associates, LTD., dated 12130103, and a report prepared by Mike Thorne, dated December 31, 2003 containing additional materials regarding the Holly Creek proposal, NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED; 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Subdivision, Approval for the proposed subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 37 -1 -17.1, totaling 15.0 +1-.acres, into eight lots, including Lots 1 — 5 for single- family residences consisting of 4.25 +/- acres, Lots 6 and 7 for 20 apartment units consisting of 4.63 +/- acres, and Lot 8 15 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - APPROVED for future commercial development consisting of 4.82 +/- acres, with Tax Parcel No. 37 -1 -18 (0.17 +/- acres) to be consolidated with Lot 8, as shown on the drawing entitled "Holly Creek Subdivision — Site Plan," dated December 31, 2003, prepared by Gary L. Wood, P.E. and Reagan Land Surveying, conditioned upon the following: a. Submission of a mylar and four dark line prints of the final subdivision plat, signed and sealed by a licensed surveyor or engineer, with the required surveyors certification, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair; and b. Submission of revised easement language providing access and use for all residents of Lots 1 through 7 in the Holly Creek Subdivision to the Play Area on Lot 6 and the exercise trail on Lots 6 and 7 for review and approval of the Director of Engineering, Director of Planning, and Attorney for the Town prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair; and c. Submission of revised easement language of the pedestrian easement between Lots 7 and 8 allowing pedestrian access for all residents of the subdivision to get to Lot 8 when it is developed with commercial uses, for review and approval of the Director of Engineering, Director of Planning, and Attorney for the Town prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, and d. Completion of the road and required utilities to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and Town Highway. Superintendent, and acceptance by. the Town Board of Holly Creek Lane, sewer and water facilities, and drainage easements, for dedication to the Town prior to the issuance of any building permits for construction on Lots 1 through 7, unless a bond or .other security satisfactory in form and amount to the Town Engineer and Town Highway Superintendent with the advice of the Attorney for the Town is provided to the Town prior to the issuance of any building permit; and e. The driveway for Lot 1 shall connect to Holly Creek Lane rather than to West King Road, as noted on the final site plan; and f. Consolidation of Tax Parcel No. 37-1-18 with Lot 8 within . six months of this approval, and submission to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department of evidence of such consolidation; and g. Review and approval by the Attorney for the Town of language to be incorporated as deed restrictions specifying that no construction or other disturbance shall occur within designated buffer areas on Lots 3, 51 6 and 8, as well as additional deed restrictions relating to the establishment and maintenance of a natural buffer on both sides of the stream that traverses Lots 4, 61 7 and 8 to ensure the preservation of existing natural vegetation 16 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 -.APPROVED to the extent practicable on both sides of the stream, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair; and 2. That the Planning Board hereby confirms the use of the cluster regulations pursuant to Article V of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations in recognition of the fact that the surrounding State Park land was subdivided .off of this original tax parcel and that there is a need to preserve the open space character of the surrounding State Park land, and the following cluster requirements and waivers shall apply to Lots 1 — 5: a. A 30 -foot wide no- disturb buffer shall be required on Lots 3 and 5 adjoining the State Park land as shown on the final plan, and b. Lot 1 is permitted to be 0.64 +/- acres (27,878 sq. ft.) which is less than the required min. lot size of 30,000 square feet in the R -30 District, and C, Lot 4 is permitted to have a depth of 193.85 +/- feet which is less than the required minimum lot depth of 200 feet required in the R -30 District. d. Lot 5 is permitted to have frontage of 49.71 +/ feet on Holly Creek Lane, which+ is less than the required lot width at the street line ,of 1.00 in the R- 30 Residence District, and lot width at the setback line of approximately 140 +/- feet where 150 feet is required in R -30, and e. Typical house layouts are shown on Lots 1 — 5 with building setback lines shown. Houses and other buildings and structures on Lots .1 — 5 shall meet the normal setback requirements of the R -30 Residence District. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Holly Creek Subdivision and Site Development as shown on final plans for the Holly Creek Subdivision, entitled "Site Plan," "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, "Grading and Drainage Plan," "Site Utilities," and three sheets of "Details, all prepared by Gary L. Wood, P.E. and Reagan Land Surveying and dated December 31, 2003, three sheets of building floor plans and elevation drawings, prepared by Northern Design and Building Associates, LTD., dated 12130103, and a report prepared by Mike Thorne, dated December 31,. 2003 containing additional materials regarding the Holly Creek proposal, conditioned upon the following: a. Submission of a revised landscaping plan and planting schedule for Lots 6 and 7, for review and approval of the Director of Planning prior to issuance of any building permits for Lots 6 or 7, including additional plantings in the buffer area between Lots 6 and 8, around the gravel parking areas, as foundation plantings around the buildings, and around the play area; and 17 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - APPROVED b. Obtaining the necessary curb- cutlhighway work permit from the Town Highway Superintendent prior to construction of Holly Creek Lane; and C, No development shall take place on Lot 8 until a detailed site plan for such development has been reviewed and approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board; and d. Submission of one original or mylar signed and sealed by a licensed building permits; and e. Conveyance to the Town of Ithaca easement as shown on the final site of the Town Engineer, prior to issua for Lots 6 and 7, and f. Construction of a six -foot high lattice visual barrier between the buildings copy of the final site plan drawings, engineer, prior to issuance of any of the 20 foot wide sanitary sewer plan, subject to review and approval nce of any certificates of occupancy fence with vines on Lot 7 to act as a on Lot 7 and the residence on tax parcel 37-1 -16, subject to submission of a plan showing the location, height and design details of said fence for review and approval of the Director of Planning prior to issuance of .any building permits for Lots 6 and 7, and said fence to be constructed prior to the earlier of either of the following events: issuance of any certificates of occupancy for Lots 6 and 7, or conveyance of Tax Parcel No. 37-1-16 to any other owner or entity, and g. Submission of revised street cross - section in Detail #4 on Detail Sheet to conform to current Town standards, to be approved by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of any building permit; and h. Submission of revised elevation drawings to show actual heights, subject to approval by Director of Planning prior to issuance of any building permit for Lots 6 and 7. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Tally, NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board regarding an Inter - governmental Agreement with Tompkins County to exclude certain IN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 -APPROVED municipal planning and zoning actions under New York State General Municipal Law. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:48 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — As you can read from Jon's cover letter, this was something this board had discussed previously. I had the common sense not to take what they sent me at home and simply sign it and send it back and commit the Town to doing this. Mr. Kanter — Right. Interestingly, the Zoning Board had the same conversation at one of their meetings. It worked its way back to the Town Board and the Town Board looked at it and said that it should really be coming through the Town Board. It is possible the Town Board, if it goes back to the Town Board, the Town Board could authorize you as chair to .sign it on their behalf or the Supervisor to sign it on their behalf. So that is where we are with that. Chairperson Wilcox - The County is drawing up a set must do the review. Essentially, their hope is to lessen submitted for review under the General Municipal Law. it will have an impact on us. of requirements for when they the number of projects that are Your take is that you don't think Mr. Kanter — I don't think it will have a real big impact on our procedures because we pretty much send everything. I think it is just as easy to keep doing that. It almost takes more effort to go through the checklist and say this one we'll send and this one we won't send. As a matter of course, we send them all. Chairperson Wilcox — From an operation perspective, do you have an issue with what the County Planning Department is proposing? Mr. Kanter — No. I think we are all in pretty much agreement. This was reviewed with a number of municipal officials. It actually came to the planning coalition, which is a subgroup of the municipal officials association. I think these people are concurring that these actions would pretty much have no countywide impact. It seems pretty straightforward. Board Member Conneman — Will it change how we operate? Mr.. Kanter — It won't change how we operate. The County feels that it will reduce their staff's hours in reviewing municipal projects that come into them because they are hoping it will reduce the actual number of applications. Board Member Conneman — So they. won't meddle in what. we do? Is that what you are saying? 19 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - APPROVED Attorney Barney — When they review what we do, they are under Section 239 -10 and if they disapprove of an action, then before the local municipality can adopt the action, it has to be adopted by a vote of majority plus one by the applicable board. Board Member Conneman — They do that now and they can still do that? Attorney Barney — Yes.. This is basically saying that certain actions they are not even going to look at. We are not giving them any more authority. Board Member Conneman — Thank you. Mr. Kanter — They are actually asking for less. Board Member. Conneman — That's what it says. I just want to be sure that is what the meaning is. Attorney Barney — Jon is going to submit everything to them anyway. The letter that we get back that says it doesn't have any impact, it'll say this is not something we review anymore. Mr. Kanter —They may go through the checklist and not send us back a letter to those items. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other discussion, comments? The chair will move the resolution as drafted. Board Member Conneman — I'll second. Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by George.Conneman. All those in favor? Board - Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — Anyone opposed? There are no abstentions. The motion is passed. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -002: Inter - governmental Agreement for Tompkins County Review of Local Planning and Zoning Actions Recommendation To Town Board I . MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George Conneman RESOLVED,. that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board supports the attached proposed inter - governmental agreement regarding Tompkins County review of local zoning and planning actions under New York State General Municipal Law, and be it, 20 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 -APPROVED FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town Board authorize the appropriate Town official(s) to. sign the above - referenced inter - governmental agreement on behalf of the Town Board: A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Tally. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Nomination and Election of Vice Chairperson of Planning Board for 2004. Chairperson Wilcox — Discussion? So moved by the chair. Seconded? Board Member Thayer — Seconded. Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by Larry Thayer. It is appropriate for me and also I need to say that I'm glad that you are back for another seven years. Board Member Hoffmann — Thank you. I'm glad too. Chairperson Wilcox - I can't hold a candle to you sometimes with the depth in which you look at some of these projects and proposals. Board Member Thayer — Nobody can. Chairperson Wilcox- I certainly can't. I'm glad to have you here and glad to have you sitting next to me. Having said that, all those in favor? Chairperson Wilcox, Board Member Conneman, Board Member Thayer, Board Member Howe, Board Member Talty — aye Chairperson Wilcox — All those opposed? Abstentions? Eva abstains. The motion is passed. Thank you. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 =003: Nomination and Election Planning Board Vice Chairperson 2004 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer RESOLVED; that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board does hereby nominate and elect Eva Hoffmann as Vice Chairperson of the Planning Board for the year 2004. 21 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - APPROVED FURTHER RESOLVED, that said election shall be reported to the Town Board. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Tally. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Hoffmann. The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: Persons to be heard None present. AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Minutes: December 16, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox - So moved by the chair. Board Member Hoffmann — I wrote a comment on here. I really meant to take up this situation with the microphones when we talked about the minutes, but really the fact that you are now writing down what you can't hear is very good. It brings home the problem that we are having. Chairperson Wilcox — We need a.second, by the way. Board Member Talty — Second. Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by Kevin Talty. These are tough minutes, by the way. We had people speaking for a long period of time. Board Member Thayer — Three pages worth. Mr. Kanter — There was actually a situation with the tape machine. We have a new tape machine. Chairperson Wilcox — I noticed we have a new tape machine. Board Member Hoffmann — I think that happened at another meeting. I seem to remember seeing that in another set of minutes. Chairperson Wilcox — We had a set of minutes where the cables were improperly connected and we weren't recording anything at all as I remember. When Overlook at Ithaca comes back... Board Member Thayer — Which will be when? 22 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - APPROVED Mr. Kanter — February 3rd. Next meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — If we can get to getting an environmental. determination, one of the things that will guide me are the various comments here. As I go through the comments made by the applicants and all the comments made by the various members of the public. This will serve me very well in making sure that I address all.the ones that I feel need to be addressed. Some of them I think don't need to be addressed necessarily. Board Member Howe — I will be out of town. Board Member Conneman - I cannot be at the meeting or the next one. I am going to have surgery and I may be at the 17th. 1 can't help it about the 3rd Chairperson Wilcox — So we.are down at least two. Mr. Kanter — It is an important meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — It is an important meeting, yes. Board Member Conneman — I realize that. If it had been the Remington it would have been easy for me. Mr. Kanter — We actually don't have those plans back in. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other comments about the minutes of the 16th of December? Eva submitted her changes and with those in favor please signal by saying aye. Board — aye Chairperson Wilcox — Anyone opposed? Any abstentions? The minutes are approved. Thank you. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -004: Approval of Minutes — December 16, 2003 MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Kevin Talty RESOLVED, that the Planning Board .does hereby approve and adopt 16, 2003 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning said meetings as presented with corrections. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Tally. the December Board for the 23 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - APPROVED NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: Other Business Chairperson Wilcox — Let me start with the letter from the Community Foundation of Tompkins County, Jonathan, I can speculate that you provided ... I don't know why we got copies of this. Did we all get them? Mr. Kanter — Apparently it was sent to a number of individuals, except you. I put a copy of the one that I got for you. Chairperson Wilcox — Am I the only one that didn't get a personalized copy? Mr. Kanter — Maybe there was some intent there. Chairperson. Wilcox — Knowing Jean McPheeters, you are probably right. Okay, so that solves my issues. I didn't know whether by passing this along you were offering an invite to members of the board or to me. Mr. Kanter — We had actually heard from other.members that they had received it, but you had not. Chairperson Wilcox — Today is the last day to RSVP. Board Member Conneman — I called them and asked since I couldn't be there whether they would send the materials. Whoever answered the phone said absolutely, .positively, no problem, we will do that. Chairperson Wilcox — My understanding is that RSVPing on Tuesday, January 20th at 5:00 p.m. is just like.RSVPing Wednesday morning at 8:30 a.m. .I was interested in going, I just wasn't sure. Mr. Kanter — I responded that I would be going. It should be a pretty good program. Chairperson Wilcox — We all received an invitation to view the Aris Investments properties up in Lansing. I didn't respond to the invitation directly. I thought that I would like to goon my own, is the way that I would like to go. Board Member Thayer— That was my response. Chairperson Wilcox — Was anybody else interested in sort of a group led, formalized tour? 24 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - APPROVED Board Member Talty — (not audible) Board Member Hoffmann - I might be interested in going with a group, but I don't know when I could do it. Board Member Conneman — We could call them to set that up individually? Chairperson Wilcox = Yes. Board Member Thayer — Can you just go and walk through? Mr. Kanter — You can just go and walk through. If you want to know more about their management structure that would obviously require talking to somebody and setting up an appointment. Chairperson Wilcox — If you believe that their management of properties is .an issue, then I would encourage you... Board Member Conneman — Have you been to the site, Jon? Mr. Kanter — I haven't actually seen it, no. I'll go up before the next .Planning Board meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — That is all the items I have on my list of other business. Mr. Kanter, anything on yours? Mr. Kanter — As a follow up to the Overlook project, February 3`d that was originally scheduled for a public hearing at the February Stn Town Board meeting, but we are now going to change that to a special meeting specifically for the Overlook public hearing on February 26tH Chairperson Wilcox — At the Town Board level? Mr. Kanter — At the Town Board. That was for several reasons. One was the timing issue, the fact that it was originally going to come here January 20th, but that got delayed. But also I think some of the Town Board members thought it would be better to just have a single purpose meeting and focus on it. It probably will be a pretty long public hearing. Board Member Conneman — That is February 26 th? Mr. Kanter —Thursday, February 26th at 5:30 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — We also have three new board members and members of the public who would like to address the Town Board on this issue as they have addressed us. 25 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - APPROVED Board Member Thayer — So when we are down two people, do we still need a majority of three? Chairperson Wilcox — Four. Mr. Kanter — With the earlier submission, we got a County general municipal law letter responding that there were no.lntermunicipal or countywide issues of concern. So that would not require a majority plus one vote. We did resubmit the revised package and I would expect basically the same project with. some follow -ups on it. Pretty much the two items that were remaining, traffic and turning lane as being one and the grading on the upper part of the site with the hill spoil. Board Member Thayer — Did you say that they worked out the turning lane? Mr. Kanter — Yeah. The applicants prepared some revised traffic analysis. They also are reducing the number of single - family homes in that second phase development from 25 down to 10. So that reduces somewhat the number of vehicles that would be generated. They did some additional traffic analysis. The traffic generation numbers were adjusted because of the type of project it is, they went back to the Linderman Creek Phase I traffic analysis after Phase I was in and they actually did real world studies of the traffic being generated from the project. They revised the trip generation rate. somewhat based on that. They were working with State DOT. DOT came back now with a letter, which we just got, saying they will not require the traffic turning lanes based on the revised studies. They are going to ask for a reservation of a strip of land on the applicant's property along Route 96. for future road improvements if they are needed at some point in the future. Board Member Conneman — The traffic study does not include buildings those other houses. Mr. Kanter — It did, but they are reducing the number by ten. Board Member Conneman — No, Phase 3, the upscale housing or whatever you call it. Chairperson Wilcox The traffic study included the entire project. Board Member Conneman — It did? Okay. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Just as the drainage has been prepared for the entire project. I will ask, if possible, that staff get those materials out to us as soon as they can. I assume it is going to be ... we have the materials from before, plus we are going to have the revised materials. Whatever you can do to get those out to us. It gives us an extra day or two to review them. I would appreciate it. Mr. Kanter— We will certainly try. 26 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Do what you can. Thank you. All right. Anything else on your list of other business? Mr. Kanter — Nope. Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else on the February 3`d agenda? Mr. Kanter — No. That will be the one item. Chairperson Wilcox — We have to advertise two public hearings. Mr. Kanter —Yes, Chairperson Wilcox — If we can get through them, then we will continue with the environmental review. If we. can make a negative determination of significant impact, then if we have time, we'll see how it goes, we could have the opportunity to get to the actual review of site plan and subdivision. Mr. Kanter - And if not, then we can, do it the next meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — Big project, complicated project, controversial project. Anything else? There being nothing else, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. . I.. Board Member Hoffmann = I so move. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved, we are adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Thank you very much. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the January 20, 2004 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted pr, ,y J` flit Carrie Coates Whitmore 27 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, January 20, 2004 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed 8 -lot Holly Creek 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, Residence District R -30, Multiple Residence, and-Business District "C ". The proposal is to subdivide the 15 +/- acre parcel into 5 lots for single- family residences, two lots totaling 4.63 +/- acres for 20 apartment units in four buildings, and reserve the remaining 5.01 +/- acre lot along Danby Road for future commercial, development. David C. Auble, Owner /Applicant; Mike Thorne, Agent, 3. Consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board regarding an Inter - governmental Agreement with Tompkins County.to exclude certain municipal planning and zoning actions under New York State General Municipal Law, 41 Consideration of Nomination and Election of Vice Chairperson of Planning Board for 2004. 5. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 6. Approval of Minutes: December 16, 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 -17470 (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, January 20, 2004 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, January 20, 2004, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval and Final Site Plan Approval. for the proposed 8- lot Holly Creek 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, Residence District R -30, Multiple Residence, and Business District "C The proposal is to subdivide the 15 +/- acre parcel into 5 lots for single - family residences, two lots totaling 4.63 + /- .acres for 20 apartment units in four buildings, and reserve the remaining 5.01 ±/- acre lot along Danby Road for future commercial development. David C. Auble, :Owner /Applicant; Mike Thorne, Agent. Said: Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance 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, January 12, 2004 Publish: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 The Ithaca Journal i 1 yednesday, January `14 2004 f' .TOWN OF, ITHA'CA, C: P INNING BOARD NOTICE OF • s "'Y PUBUC'HEARINGS' tTuesday,'January 20 2004 (By. directi6w-a .the "Chair person `6" of'a;the, : Ploniiing' beheld; by. "the Manning d oEthe: Town-own Tuesday, . January' ;20; 4i at 215 }North Tiooggo it, :)thac at, N;Y.;' ofjlhe wing times and on thel wing'mattersr17t'' of Final',,- Subdivision.. 'Road, - lowrt�ot Ithaca 'lax Parcel N6.,S437-J-17.11 and 37.1` - -18 Residencer,Diiwkt IR -30, ,MultipleCi Residence,' :arid: Business <Dishiet`s - - "C ": The proposal is to subdivide /-' the: 5 +'acre-ppaarcel intd iSJots for single-family iesF 1' deuces ;: two, : lots' total irigg F4:63. f +/- acres:; ;fob . 20 'apartment .units in ,. our buildings, _and reserve 'the remaining :5:01 - +/. ='acre lot ialong DanbyRoad for future commercial :. ?'development :. thereto: 'PersonsC'inoy'ap:- ppearby.agentor in persohr ilnd vidu& t %4ith ,visual im-. pai!Tnents •'hearing;:.impoir- meets w'ot or `,her•' special .'needs; ill:be'provided_witfi ingyassistance: must,.make such'asrequest not less thou 48 hours prionto the'.time.of .the. public hearings.;. Jonathan- Kanter;'AICP Director:of Planning - 2731747 'Dated Monday January 1,2 2004 ?: January T4, 2004 ' ` TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGWIN SHEET DATE: January 20, 2004 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION ` IV I ut..i Z D 2 �z L w1 ce4 !� i✓ S ��Z s- �G ws* . :N94 s ►� �a ?mot nGfA tZo Vas 461 f TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION L. 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, January 20, 2004 commencing _at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town C1erk:Sign Board — 215 North Tio agL Street. Date of Posting: January 12, 2004 Date of Publication: January 14, 2004 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th day of January 2004. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No.01CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 0 6