Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2005-08-16FILE DATE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 APPROVED TOWN OFITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2005 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, August 16, 2005, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, 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; David Dubow, Attorney; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner. EXCUSED Tracy Mitrano, Attorney for the Board Member; Jonathan Town; Christine Balestra, Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Planner; Nicole Tedesco, Planner. OTHERS Doris Stein, 164 Troy Rd; Florence Wrisley, 202 E; Neil Howard, 309 King Rd E; Ralph lacovelli, St; Mr. & Mrs. Ron Ronsvalle, applicant. Troy Rd; Dana Williams, 218 King Rd 164 Troy Rd; George Frantz, 604 Cliff CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:04 p.m., and accepts for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on August 8, 2005 and August 10, 2005, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on August 10, 2005, Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. PERSONS TO BE HEARD Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:05 p.m., and asks if any members of the public wished to speak. With no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign variance to allows a 72 +l- square foot illuminated freestanding sign with a copy- change section for the Courtside Racquet & Fitness Club located at 380 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62. -1 -5, Community Commercial Zone. Courtside Racquet & Fitness Club, Owner; Tom Murray, Applicant. 1 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 APPROVED Tom Murray, 380 Pine Tree Road, Owner of Courtside Racquet & Fitness Club The sign has been up since 1995. The reader board was changed over the course of that time period and now here we are. I guess maybe we slipped through the cracks ten years ago with regard to the sign size that I have. Chairperson Wilcox — Would you speculate that the proposed development next door to you might have had something to do with the sign being noticed as this point as not being consistent? Mr. Murray — No. I would like to think that it is a beautiful sign and it got the attention as opposed to the old ratty one,that I had up there. Chairperson Wilcox — The sign has been there ten years? Mr. Murray — I think back in '95 was when we put up the old sign. So yeah, it's been there, I'm going on recollection now, but it has been there for a while. Chairperson Wilcox — And that includes the section in the middle where you can change the...? Mr. Murray — When it originally went up there were two other businesses located below the marquee and then since then those businesses have faded away and I put a reader board up there and I currently have Fingerlakes Physical Therapy as the center section, like an 18 -inch wide panel that they will be putting in, not in place at present. Board Member Conneman — That was my question. I went over today and the middle was not there. Mr. Murray — Right. I just signed a lease with them. They are in process of putting it up there. I did have prior, maybe about a month ago; the Pilates room has a sign up in that location. I had some air - conditioning problems, they packed their bags and cut and ran and so now I have another tenant that is renting space in there. Board Member Conneman — It looks great without the middle. Mr. Murray - Hard to do business without a sign. Board Member Conneman — There is a sign for your business. Mr. Murray — For mine yes. I'm talking about my tenant. Chairperson Wilcox— Michael, any comments? Mr. Smith — I was just going to answer a question that Eva asked earlier today. She asked about the previous sign and we didn't have any pictures of what the previous sign looked like. I did find the sign application from 1991, which is the most recent one and 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 APPROVED the only thing that we had was a drawing of it from the original sign permit and the area that I kind of highlighted in yellow is what the sign was originally approved as. As you mentioned, there are two lower panels here, which were not approved or not part of the sign permit, only the area in the yellow that I highlighted is what was originally there. Board Member Hoffmann — And what was the size of that original sign? Does is it tell? Mr. Smith I'm not quite sure. The original sign application said it was 7 by 8, but that included the two lower panels so once these two were taken off, it was less than 50 square feet and it could go without any variance or anything else. So it was legal once they got rid of the two lower panels and it didn't need any approvals, just the sign permit. Board Member Hoffmann — And what about the height of the poles? Are those the same poles that were there from the beginning? Mr. Murray — It is all the same from 1991. Board Member Hoffmann — So the difference now then compared to that drawing is that the sign sticks up above. Mr. Murray — Well, the original sign if you notice had the circle portion of the logo that also stuck up above the original posts. Board Member Hoffmann — It doesn't look like it in the drawing. It looks like it comes to the height of the poles. Chairperson Wilcox — The way that we measure signs is now that that area in the middle, below where it says it Courtside there and below where it ... the fact that it now has a copy- change section there that changes the way that we measure the sign. Right? Is that my understanding? Mr. Smith — We measure the over all size. The rectangle around it. Chairperson Wilcox — If we measure the rectangle around it, then how have we gone from less than 50 feet to the proposed 72. Mr. Smith I don't believe originally that the copy- change part in it for the original sign permit. Chairperson Wilcox — That hasn't changed the envelope, if you will, that... Mr. Smith — There was nothing down below here. The copy- change is now down below. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. The posts don't count as part; it's just the text portion at the top. 3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 APPROVED Board Member Conneman — And the middle counts as a copy- change? Chairperson. Wilcox — The middle is the copy change portion where they can change the text, if you will, in the sign. Board Member Thayer — On the bottom. And the whole sign is backlit? Mr. Murray — No. Just the top portion. Board Member Thayer — Just the top Courtside part? Mr. Murray — Yup. Board Member Hoffmann — So the original sign was 7 by 8... Mr. Smith — That is what was originally asked for including the two lower panels, which were never done. This top portion was under the 50 allowed. Board Member Hoffmann — I guess what I am trying to find out is was the heights of the two posts 7 feet and the width 8 feet? Mr. Smith — That is just the sign portion. I am not sure how far it was off the ground or the height of the poles. The poles are the same. Mr. Murray — I provided a drawing in your packet there. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but it isn't very clear and it says approximately 10 feet high and the arrow that goes with that approximate 10 feet stops sort of in between the line and the top of the posts. So it is, a little hard to know how tall the sign is. Mr. Murray — I agree. There is also landscaping down below that, which raises the ground up two feet and I don't know if you go from the top of the bushes and the posts goes three feet into the ground, so approximately 10 feet. Board Member Hoffmann - Well that is the type of thing that staff is very good at giving you advice on, how to measure it. Did you ask them? Mr. Murray - I didn't realize that... Mr. Smith — I believe in the zone that you are allowed up to 20 feet so he is well below. . Board Member Thayer — I was going to say that height isn't a problem. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but the height times the width is what makes... 51 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 APPROVED Board Member Thayer — But he said the posts didn't count anyway, right? Mr. Smith — Well, the area of the sign whether the sign is sitting on the ground or raised up it is still the same area, just open space underneath it. You are still only measuring - the panel size or the size of the sign. Board Member Hoffmann — So the open space underneath is not counted, but the total width has to include the posts where the signs are, right? Mr. Smith — I'm not sure. Board Member Talty — I don't think so, Eva. Mr. Dubow — I don't think that's the case. It's just the sign itself and not the post. Board Member Thayer — So we can't tell what the actual width of the sign is then. Chairperson Wilcox — Which is why we get to the plus or minus 72 square feet. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, the basic problem that I have with this is that it is bigger than what is allowed and that it came up that it was changed this way without coming in to get approval. I don't like the fact that it is too big and I don't like the possibility of it setting a precedent for the other businesses coming in. The only other business, according to the memorandum that we got that has a bigger sign than what is allowed is the Citgo gas station that has one sign that exceeds the size limit. I remember when we talked about the Citgo station, we as well as some of the signs at the Ides Bowling Center, we were very careful to make sure that they weren't oversized, that they weren't lit more than absolutely necessary. I remember the Citgo station wanted backlighting on the facia board that goes around the station and we didn't permit that and they wanted other things as I remember, too. They wanted bigger letters, which we didn't permit. I guess we did permit that one sign that includes the prices of the gasoline because that seems to be a standard with gas stations and I don't remember if the franchise owner didn't budge on that or what was the reason, but I am very, very hesitant. In fact, at this moment I don't really want to approve the sign because it is too big. Chairperson Wilcox — I remind us that we are not here to approve. We are here to recommend. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, Board Member Conneman — I reason. We have asked Rite Ai sets a precedent. They'll come to do it, why not us. They will but in the recommendation I would not approve. have some strong feelings against that sign for this d to make their signs as small as they can. To me this back and say that it is okay. You'll allowed Mr. Murray come back and use that as an argument. Mark my 5 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 APPROVED words. I don't know ... we have asked them as we did Burger King not to make those... make the signs on the Rite Aid very... Mr. Murray - So are you telling me that the posts that have been there for 14 years, that the space between them cannot have a sign? Because that is the way that it has been for 15 years. So I don't see where ... the air space or what the viewshed needs to be -- - between - the - posts.-- -- - - - - -- _ - -- - -- Board Member Conneman - I didn't say anything about between the posts. The top sign, as far as I am concerned, is probably okay, but the board below and all that stuff below it is not very good. Mr. Murray - I find that interesting. Board Member Conneman I'm pleased that you find it interesting. Board Member Howe - I don't have a serious problem with it.. Board Member Talty - I don't have a problem either. Board Member Thayer - I'm not seriously against it, but I wondered if you took the little sign in the middle out and put it on the actual door or window or whatever of that particular studio, would it be legal? Mr. Smith = I think with the top sign and the copy- change you are at 56 square feet. So you would be over by 6 still. Chairperson Wilcox - Closer, though. Board Member Thayer - I'm just curious because you could take that over and put it on the door of the studio. I'm not sure where it is. Mr. Murray - I guess if I wanted to get carried away with the signs based up on the square footage of the building, I could put a huge one up above based upon the codes. I could put a nice big sign up there. I think a compromise is what is currently up. I don't want to have a bunch of signs up all over the place either. It doesn't seem, from where I'm sitting, a big stretch with regard to current codes. Plus you consider since 1991 that reader board has been there since I took down the Steer's Catering and the Coconut Cafe sign: Board Member Hoffmann - But the point is that the permit that you got to put up the original sign was within the size limit. If it then grew and got bigger, it was something that we didn't know about and now you have put up a sign that's above limit in size. It is 72 square feet where 50 square feet is allowed. So it has grown unbeknownst to us and I think it is your responsibility to make sure that the sign fits with the regulations that are valid for everybody. 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 APPROVED Mr. Murray — I tried to make the sign look better. I put a new, modern sign up there. Aesthetically it is 10 times better than it was. I think that the fact that the reader board and the old sign have been up there since ...that space has been blocked with signage since 1991. Everything is in place. ___Board__Member_.Hoffmann — .Did_y_ou_ hear- what_I__tried to say? Maybe I didn't express it clearly. What you are permitted to put up there with the sign permit that you got in 1991 was a sign that was 50 square feet. It seems that you then put up additional signs so even if they have been up there for a long time, those additional signs were not included in the permit. Mr. Murray - I didn't realize how particular the sign permit process was. I didn't realize that putting a new sign up there required your blessings. Obviously, because I went ahead and did it without filling out these forms. I am trying to run a business. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but since you have been here before for a sign permit it is too bad that you didn't remember that one does need a permit. Mr. Murray — 14 years, I'm sorry but sign permits are not even on the list of priorities. Board Member Hoffmann — That maybe, . but we are here not to be contrary to you or any other applicant, but to try to make sure that the rules that are on the books are followed. Mr. Murray — And that is where the variance comes into play. I don't think that what I have in place is a problem. I really...I don't see it as a problem. Board Member Thayer — Staff seems to think its compatible with the neighborhood. I would go along with that. Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. and invites members of the public to address the board. With no one wanting to speak, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Board Member Hoffmann — I have an addition that I wanted to make to the EAF, actually there are two things on the Short Environmental Assessment Form, Point 8 has not been filled out. It says will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions, yes or no, and it has not been marked. Either one. Then is says if no explain or describe the conflict briefly. Then point 10. There is another use besides commercial there and that is the cemetery, which is just adjacent to the north so that should be marked under other. Chairperson motion? Wilcox — Any further discussion? Would someone like to move the rA PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 APPROVED Board Member Howe moves the motion and Board Member Thayer seconds the motion. Chairperson Wilcox calls for a vote on the motion. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -081: - Courtside Racquet & Fitness Club Sign, Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals, 380 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel No. 62. -1 -5 MOTION made by Board Member Howe, seconded by Board Member Thayer. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board, hereby recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the request for a sign variance for a freestanding sign on the east side of the Courtside Racquet & Fitness Club property, located at 380 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -1 -5, with a sign area of 72 +1- square feet and a height of 10 feet, where signs in commercial districts area limited to 50 square feet in area, be approved with the following condition: a. that the total sign area shall not exceed 75 square feet. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: Hoffmann, Conneman. ABSTAIN: None. The vote on the motion was carried. SKETCH PLAN Consideration of a revised Sketch Plan for the proposed cluster subdivision located on the northeast corner of Troy Road and East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 49. -1 -26.3, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the +/- 6.4 -acre parcel for 14 single - family dwellings along Troy Road in two five -unit buildings and one four -unit building. Heritage Park Townhouses, Inc., Owner /Applicant; George R. Frantz, AICP Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:25 p.m. George Frantz, 604 Cliff Street We were before the board last fall for a seven -lot subdivision and after some consideration really came to the conclusion that it wasn't doing justice to the site. It wasn't doing justice to the mature woodland and so we looked at it again and came up with a 14 -unit townhouse community. Again, comprised of beginning on the southern end of the property near East King Road, a 5 -unit structure and a 4 -unit on a circular driveway, which is off Troy Road. Then towards the northern end of the parcel there is another 5 -unit structure, actually directly opposite of Whitetail Drive with its own private roadway off Troy Road. What we have been able to do going to this layout as opposed Feel PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 APPROVED, to the conventional subdivision plat is condense the development on about 2.2 of the 6.25 acres of land and essentially preserves over 2/3 of the site as permanent open space, which would be jointly owned by the 14 owners of the townhouse unit either in condominium or homeowners association. Again, what we are trying to do is preserve as much of the natural character of the site as possible and so we have really pushed the units as close to Troy Road, actually up to the 60 foot setback line along Troy Road -as -- well -as- along -- East King Road.--Again,--we are using two private roads as opposed to a public road to service the 14 units. Maintenance of the two circular roads would. be the responsibility of the homeowner's association and not the public. Looking at the topography of the site, one of the things we realized is that we can use, as opposed to the traditional retention detention stormwater basins, it appears that we can actually drain all the water from the rooftops of the buildings and driveways and the like westward towards Troy Road into two bioretention basins here where the water would collect from 25 year, 100 year, whatever storm, and then infiltrate into the ground there. And these would be planted as in the case of many bioretention basins; they would likely evolve into miniature wetlands, which would be great as far as we are concern. Here on the right you can see some preliminary designs for the units. There are essentially in front of the unit, the brown sections here on the map would be two car garages with an entry on the side of each garage and then a 30 -foot wide, 36 foot deep dwelling unit, two stories with a full basement with a walkout to the rear. The total height would be within the 36 foot maximum within the zoning ordinance. I think, and I'm not sure where it came from, but the subdivision regulations have a 34 -foot height limitation on buildings. I am not sure why that is there, but it is there, but I think, too, if we can also meet that restriction. If not, we will stick within 36 feet and as I understand the subdivision regulations we could possibly get a waiver from the Planning Board on that as opposed to an actual height variance. So I guess that, again this is the front facade. We are actually looking right now at arts and crafts style architecture for the buildings. This is the rear facade and you can see the lower level would be the walkout basement. You can also see here a typical end elevation and we are looking right now at 3 or 4 different models. One is a three - bedroom model that happens to have a master bedroom suite on the. first floor. One is a three- bedroom model with all the bedrooms on the second floor and then our architect has possibly come up with a four - bedroom model. But what he also has done is on the end units he is proposing to us to have windows so instead of your typical end view of your typical suburban townhouse what you would actually be looking at is something more like a single family detached home from the end. Of course it is going to bring a tremendous amount of light into the end units. There is on the site this stream across the southeastern corner and we have been made aware of several concerns with that. The southern most structure is about 25 feet, we estimate, from the centerline of the stream. This actually, we have arranged to have a full -blown topographic survey of this sight that will also map exactly where this D PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 APPROVED stream is located. In response to concerns about proximity to the stream, we have already started looking at ways of shifting this building back from the stream. One way to do it, the radius of this circular drive that serves that building is 85 feet. Simply reducing the radius of this curb to 75 feet can actually; we can pull the building back so that it is 40 feet from the stream. So within this site plan I think there is room for us to move the buildings about at least a little bit in order to pull it back from the stream. - Another- issue- is -up- at the northern end there is.-a--small drainageway which begins at the 18 -inch culvert pipe under Troy Road and flows in a northeasterly direction and at this time we believe that we are missing it in terms of the siting of the northernmost building. But again, once we get the detailed survey done of the site, we can then adjust the location of the building to make sure that we are not impinging on that particular drainageway. Another possibility, too, which again, I'm not sure we would have to do it, but I .considered that the Town has a minimum setback in the cluster subdivision regulation there is a requirement that all buildings be at least 30 feet apart and I think in this case it may be worthwhile to, especially the two southernmost buildings maybe bring them together a little more, lets say 20 feet apart again in order to conserve at least a little more open space on the site. I guess probably the best thing to do is open it up to questions. Board Member Conneman — I looked at the site, George, and if you look at a map, a topo map and a soil map, it is wet and steep. In fact, I was surprised at how steep it was and that certainly doesn't show up on the topo drawings from before. And you described that the slope as being 10 to 15 degrees... Mr. Frantz — Percent. Board Member Conneman — It is actually according to the topo map that I have.between 15 and 25 percent so I was surprised at how much it sloped off. I got on top of the pile at the corner and it really slopes off there. Mr. Frantz — It slopes off. I have actually gone out and done spot elevations on the site just to make sure that these building would work. For instance, if you do a cross section, we are talking about the northernmost structure here from the Troy Road side of the driveway approximately, through the building to the opposite end and this particular area the drop there was about 7.5 — 8 feet. So that actually from our standpoint is perfect. Board Member Conneman — What about the other end? Mr. Frantz — The other end here?. There is from the point, lets say about the:..this is the southernmost building and this would be southwestern corner of the building, roughly along the rear of the facades of the building and parallel to the stream, I did another shot and that is actually the upper portion closest to the corner of Troy and King is about 10 percent. It actually flattens out to about 6 percent as you go further east. 10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 APPROVED Board Member Conneman — I would like to see them on a topographic map. Mr. Frantz — Well, absolutely. Board Member Conneman — As well as a soil map, okay? Mr. Frantz — Absolutely. For preliminary approval, we have to go into far deeper detail and again... Board Member Conneman — I realize that. I have another question. I looked at that, you said there was a little stream opposite Whitetail. I know there is no water because we don't have any water Taughannock Falls either; if you haven't been up there you should really go see it because it is really spectacular to see it. That looks like one whale of a stream because of the way it is cut. It is tremendous amount of water. Mr. Frantz — The one opposite Whitetail? Board Member Conneman — Yes. It looks to me like it would go right through those last two units. Mr. Frantz — Well, again, this is something that I have to confirm, but right now my mapping puts it about the edge of the last unit. On site mapping. This waterway to me, yeah, its about ... the channel is about 3 feet wide and in places it is 2 or 3 feet deep. The water is coming out of this 18 -inch culvert here at the bottom of Whitetail Drive. The drainage for that creek is essentially the swale on the south side of Whitetail Drive and the swale running up or starting at the intersection of King and Troy and going down the west side of Troy Road. There is, I imagine, yeah, there is going to be a lot of water in that drainageway. There is no evidence, though, of any stream further up stream. This appears to have been caused by just the roadside, the water from the roadside swales. It is also indicative too, I think, that we are in an area where some of the soils are highly erodable. Board Member Conneman — Those are the three questions that I would like answered if you come) back in again. Mr. Frantz — Yes. Absolutely. Board Member Howe — I just want to say that I am pleased to see a cluster approach for a change. Board Member Hoffmann — I think it looks good, too. I have some questions about details. On the southern most unit there is a line indicating what I suppose is a retaining wall for the stream there and those 5 units are built at a different angle with the slope than the other two. The other 2 sort of follow the slope in a natural way. Did you try to put this 5 unit building in the same direction as the other two? 11 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 APPROVED Mr. Frantz — Yes, and it just, it really you start getting way deep into the woods and just, this is probably the toughest of-the buildings. And by the way I can go into some more details here. This is a retaining wall in the preliminary design that is about 3 feet high. And actually it is there because this end unit is lower than the existing grade. We needed the retaining wall to create the walkout. Now since then we have done some - more -- thinking as- far -as- the - design of the--building-and--we-can--probably eliminate that, but this is the one building also that ... the northernmost building and the central building are actually, all the units are on the same level. So this building, actually, the two westernmost units are one level then it drops down two feet so this building steps down and it is actually bothersome to us, but I think it is the best way to address the site. Board Member Hoffmann — I am just wondering, did you consider putting 5 units in the 4 unit building and maybe just have 4 units in the southernmost one. Mr. Frantz — Actually, that is certainly a possibility. Again, it may give us more leeway to pull the building farther away from the creek and certainly we can see about fitting the 5e unit building in the middle and 4 unit building in the southernmost portion of the site. Board Member Hoffmann — I would also like to drainage, which comes off Whitetail Drive there bit more. You describe these as one family regulations it mentions that the Planning Board live in a unit in this kind of clustering situation. have thought about how many occupants there see how you are planning to handle the I would also like to hear you talk a little units and in rereading the subdivision can put limits on how many people can Could you talk a little bit about what you might be in these units? Mr. Frantz — What I can say is that these units are for sale and the cost of putting them on the market is such that they are high -end units. They are going to be sold to possibly empty nesters; retirees who no long want to maintain a house. They are going to be marketed to young professionals and also, possibly, to younger families. Board Member Hoffmann — I would say that for younger families 4 bedrooms would be a useful thing to have, but for the other 2 categories it seems that 4 bedrooms might not be so useful. Mr. Frantz - I agree, but again, we are not even sure if we are going with the 4 bedroom because currently the architect and myself are in a disagreement over the size of the rooms that could result and there are other interesting design debates that we are having. For instance, there is a possibility to have 2 story cathedral ceilings in the living room in lieu of that forth bedroom. The market for 4 bedrooms is fairly limited and again, maybe if we decide to go with them be ideal to have them on the end units as opposed to the inside units. Mr. Smith — The restriction isn't on the number of persons. It is on the number of unrelated persons. 12 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — Right. I'm sorry I meant to say that. The question, obviously like it always is in Ithaca, whether students are going to live there. You said that these units are for sale. Do you know anything about the price range at this point? Chairperson Wilcox —.Put a range around high -end, George. Mr. Frantz — They are probably somewhere in the vicinity of, its tough at this point to say but $250,000 to $300,000 perhaps. Board Member Howe — There was some question about the driveway and whether you could do one looped driveway rather than having a third access point. Mr. Frantz — There is actually, one of those steep areas on the site, there is actually a series of ledges on this site and one of them actually runs between this northernmost unit and the middle unit. So it really precludes a driveway connection. One possibility that I am going to explore with the Ithaca Fire Department would be to possibly, instead of having this southern driveway circle around and come back out on Troy Road, perhaps just terminate that so we end up with just 2 driveways. We are not talking about 9 townhouse units might generate 60 to 70 vehicular trips per day.. It maybe better to simply limit this to one access point and have the same sort of cul -de -sac as the northern driveway, but again I want to run that by the Fire Department and see what they say. Then The what we can also do is actually have at least a walkway out instead of the driveway to Troy Road or something so that lets say if God forbid there happened to be a fire one of our scenarios is that the Fire Department trucks could pull up and they would at-least have an opening that they could run their hoses through to get to the fire. Chairperson Wilcox — You are sensitive to the fact that we like to keep curbcuts to a minimum. Mr. Frantz —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — In fact, you could even, you know that there are ways you can not pave the road all the way out to the road, but put a hard enough surface where emergency vehicles could get across it and have some sort of a chain barrier or something. So it's available in case of an emergency access. Mr. Frantz — That's another option. A beauty of this option and the arrangement is actually that the farthest units are only about 120 to 140 feet from the edge of the road. Board Member Thayer — A couple of things. We talked about sidewalks before... (not audible) ... between the units. Mr. Frantz — Between like walking from here to here? Board Member Thayer — Instead of going on the road or the driveway. 13 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 APPROVED Mr. Frantz - Well, actually, no. Not really. I think the amount of walking between units wouldn't be that great. Certainly, since you mention it, it would be worth it to at least have a walkway connecting the two areas. Again, we are talking about very low volume driveways. Board Member Thayer - But kids would like to run back and forth maybe to friends from -one end -to -the other rather -than being in -a -driveway. It would--be better, to be on a sidewalk, perhaps. Mr. Frantz- We could take a look at it. Another issue, to, is you start adding sidewalks you start adding impervious surface and so... Board Member Thayer - The back looks so much nicer than the front in my mind that it would -be nice to maybe -have a sidewalk back there. The front door is next to the garage, I assume. Mr. Frantz - Yes. This is, yeah, the garage is here and then the front doors are set back to the side of the garage. There will be an entry court. The problem is in America, its tough to sell a house without a two -car garage. Board Member Thayer - Gotta have it. Right. Mr. Frantz - We looked at not having garages. We looked at having single car garages, but then you need a place to park the second car and then you get into the visitors. So really what we are looking at for each unit is two cars in a garage and two cars in the driveway. It's just something that you have to have in this country. I agree, yes, that the rear of the townhouses is probably going to be a lot more attractive. One of the things that we are trying to do here, too, also is as far as any sort of cultured landscape, we are really planning on limiting it to the yards in front of the individual units. The rear people, the residents, will be walking out into the woods. We want to limit the amount of tree cutting to the point where you don't have problems with trees overhanging the houses and such. So really we want to try not to remove any trees that are more than 20 feet from any of the buildings and there are some magnificent trees in there. Board Member Hoffmann — I see, Larry, the point you are making about a sidewalk and I think it is a good idea, but I'm not sure that putting a sidewalk in the back of the building is the best because when you live like that you want a certain amount of privacy and having a walkway there... Board Member Thayer — There will be homemade footpaths anyway back there between friendly neighbors. I wonder if Dan had anything more to say about the drainage. Mr. Walker - Its just that it is a pretty big gorge on the south side, which when we get the topo we will see how close they can get. Then that drainageway on the north side from Troy Road is carrying all the water out of that subdivision so that's why it is part of 14 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 APPROVED the drainageway and it probably does go through the second unit at the end up there. If you notice, there are no trees behind that unit; it's probably because there is gorge back there. Mr. Frantz — Actually no. There are no trees here because it is very wet back there. -Mr. Walker — That's—what—I'm—saying.—That's—where the_water drains to. Mr. Frantz — The water comes down through this miniature gorge and then it flattens out here and its wet, but it is actually quite a nice view over Six Mile Creek Valley. Chairperson Wilcox — You, of course, will need lots of detailed drawings. Mr. Walker — We will. We are going right to the wire on fully designing the earthwork and everything on the subdivision. All the requirements of the subdivision will be adhered to. Board Member Thayer — With all the windows on the end units, it's going to be tough to sell a middle one won't it? Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else at this point? I would like to give the public a chance to speak. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not a public hearing. Nonetheless, this board has always valued receiving public input as early in the process as we can, therefore, we give you an opportunity to speak tonight and should the applicant and their agent come back and begin the formal process, there will be a formal public hearing and you will of course have a chance to speak at that time. So given that, we ask that you keep your remarks concise and to the point. We tend to not place time limits, but if you really start to ramble on, I might interrupt. So having said that, name and address please. Neil Howard, 309 King Road East I live across from this development. I have a lot of problems with it, but not only can the road not handle it, but there are a lot of ifs ands or buts. Now we are going up two feet more than what you require. We are pushing the buildings closer together. The traffic circle on ... off of Troy Road would be 10 feet instead of the 85 or 65 feet. I can't understand why this would be with four bedrooms per unit an empty -nest syndrome because I have seen Mr. Ronsvalle across the street from this, putting students in the houses across the street from this, which he told us that would not happen. I have a lot of problems with this. The other thing is I am really concerned about the well system we are on because we don't have the luxury of city water. We are-across the on Troy Road has it, lower on King Road has water. However, we don't have water. I have three houses on East King Road. Out of the four houses, none of us have water so I am concerned about all of the digging, disturbing the veins of the water. I guess that is about it. Thank you. 15 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 APPROVED Dana Williams, 218 King Road East own and reside at 218 E King Rd, which is almost at the corner of Troy and King. There has since been a two unit, a two -story building built directly on the corner right next to me. I purchased my home in 2003 and since I have been there, massive construction has gone on in the neighborhood. I find it ironic that in this listing it says low- density residential zone. Anybody who lives in my neighborhood doesn't feel like it is low- density -any - more. -_ Ton ight_on__my_ way_ home from work I did an unofficial new house count since 2003. 1 started it at Southwoods and I ended up at the top of Saunders. I counted 31 new constructed homes since 2003. That does not seem like low density residential. That is my opposition. There is far too much traffic on the road. There are many people in the neighborhood that like to walk along the road. It is becoming .more and more hazardous. There is far too much traffic. People are driving way too fast and that is primarily is my opposition. It's just becoming too congested. Thank you. Florence Ripley, 202 Troy Road live on the corner of East King and Troy. I have been there for 53 years and have enjoyed the home there and the land. We brought our family up there. My husband was in the service and my son was in the Navy and now with Deerrun there and now this Heritage Houses with all their buildings and now to have this, the traffic is unbearable. The cars ... the roadmen said they even should put a traffic light out there; there are so many cars. I counted 7 cars before I could back out of my driveway and I take a chance just going. to the mailbox and getting my mail now we will be having more traffic. Correct? With all this development. I think that there really should be something done about it. And the trees are beautiful and it's a beautiful spot. We used to see Cayuga Lake, but we don't see that anymore. We used to get a good view of Cornell University and we don't have that anymore. So all of these things that we have enjoyed living in our home have been taken away from us. These unit buildings that they are going to build, I don't quite understand all that, but there is one on the corner right near me and then one up the road. So I don't approve of it and that's why I am here. Thank you very much. Ralph lacovelli, 164 Troy Road I would just like to know, he said he is going to sell these. They are not going to be rental. 1. Chairperson Wilcox — That's what he said. Mr. lacovelli — So it is strictly that he is going to sell them. Chairperson Wilcox — That is what we have been told tonight. Yes. Mr. lacovelli — And how are we going to verify that he don't rent them? 16 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — If you ask this board, this board is not in charge of enforcement. So I don't know how to answer you. George, I see your hand raising, I'll give you a chance later. Okay? George will give you a response after everyone speaks. Mr. lacovelli — I don't mind what he has got there. That's the only problem that I have thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? Okay. Thank you all very much. George, I'll give you a chance to speak in just a second. Let me just respond to a couple of questions. Low density residential. Let me just start with that. Zoning in this area: allows lots of 30,000 square feet, which is about 2/3 of an acre roughly. A conventional subdivision has been laid out and we have the plans, which would fit 7 lots on this parcel. Board Member Thayer — Legally. Chairperson Wilcox — Legally. And given the layout of the land it would be difficult probably to fit more lots on there, probably. That is how we come up with the 14 units since 7 lots with a 2 -unit structure on each lot gives you 14 units. That is where that comes. from so it complies with the existing zoning that is in effect right now. Mr. Smith — I would also like to mention that on the west side of Troy Road is the medium density so a lot of the houses and things that were being talked about aren't in the low density residential zone. Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, they are in the medium density where it is 15,000 square feet, where it is a 1/3 acre zoning. Thank you very much. Everything that we have heard so far with regard to zoning requirements, the only issue that has come up so far is the possible height -of the units and -what the exact limitation is of the zoning.ordinance and whether the proposal will be at or under that limitation and you might have to go the. Zoning Board for a variance depending upon the pitch of the roof and other architectural designs. Mr. Frantz — The question regarding the height, there is actually an inconsistency between the Zoning Ordinance, which permits 36 feet and the subdivision regulations, which limit the height of buildings in a cluster subdivision to 34 feet. We may have to go back in history, but I recall in my prior life the Town actually modified the zoning ordinance in the early 1990s to raise the maximum height of structures in the Town from 34 to 36 and 38 feet. Maybe what happened was nobody noticed the 34 -foot restriction of the subdivision regulations. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to address the issue of water and sewer just briefly? Mr. Frantz — Public water and sewer are available to the site. I believe they are both on the west side of Troy Road. Again, we are bringing engineers on board, but certainly we would have some sort of sewer main serving the buildings and then heading off in the northwest direction following the lay of the land to tap into the Town's sewer line. I PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to address the owner occupancy? Mr. Frantz — Again, I think the economics prevent rental, but we have been operating under the assumption that the Town will treat this cluster subdivision as it has treated Deerrun and Commonland and other ones and have that occupancy requirement of What owner occupied for 3 years out of 5 years or whatever it is. So we have been looking at this as strictly for sale units, number one because of the economics and number two, our knowledge of the Town's regulations. Board Member Conneman — Would you want to comment on the traffic, George? That is always a concern in the neighborhood. Mr. Frantz — Well, um, I should layout my bias. I live on Cliff Street. We have now 20,000 vehicles a day going up and own our street. We have a nice neighborhood there, but seriously, right now I believe Troy Road has somewhere in the range of 700 to 800 vehicles per day, even maybe 1,000 vehicles per day and these 14 units will add somewhere in the range of 80 to 100 new cars per day onto Troy Road. Roughly... rule of thumb its about 7 vehicular trips per day per dwelling unit. Board Member Conneman — You can have some data on that when you come back? Mr. Frantz — We can contact the County Highway Department and get those numbers for you yes. Chairperson Wilcox — It is surprising that for a residential structure that the average number of trips. I actually think it is closer to 9 trips per day for a residential structure. It is surprisingly high. Mr. Frantz The single family detached is up around 10 or 11 per day. That is based on the ITE. Garden Apartment Townhouses, because they tend to not have has many families and children playing soccer, football, baseball, whatever, have a lower trip generation potentially. Board Member Thayer — Can I ask Dan about the water for Neil Howard's houses? He said there are two houses that there is no water. Is he on a well system? Mr. Walker — He is on wells. The Town water main comes up Troy Road and then heads west on King Road, basically along the R -15 zone that was why that was designated medium density residential. There is no water going down East King Road to the east. Board Member Thayer — No prospect of it? Mr. Walker — Um, the water main was construction up King Road from Coddington Road and then Southwoods extended the watermain into their subdivision. So there is water at Southwoods and there is water at the intersection with King Road. I have not PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 APPROVED had requests for water to be brought all the way down King Road at this point, but I do remember one request about 12 years ago for the house across the street right below: this subdivision wanted water at one point, but that was only one person requesting it. Board Member Thayer — Do you think the digging.as a result of this project will bother a vein across the street? Mr. Walker — I would doubt that because of the gradient. You will see there are two big streams the come through if you look at the aerial photo. The gradient is ..generally coming from the southwest across to the water. If they were going to be digging along Troy Road south of King Road, I would be more concerned about it in that area. It's definitely feasible to bring water down to that point to serve those properties. It looks like those lots have fairly wide frontages so that the cost per unit would be relatively higher than what the Town Board usually approves to serving 2 or 3 or 4 residences versus serving 15 or 20 or 30. The cost of unit goes up pretty quickly. But if there was a serious request for it, the Town Board would look at it and they would have to make an economic judgment on it. Chairperson Wilcox — Larry, you all set? Board Member Thayer —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — George? Board Member Conneman — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you have all the feedback you need from us, George? Mr. Frantz — Yes, we do. Thank you very much. Chairperson Wilcox — Very good. Thank you all. Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 8:10 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None available at time of meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Chairperson Wilcox gives the board a copy of an ad in the Ithaca Pennysaver advertising that Manley Mart/Big AI's would be open 24 hours per day. Chairperson Wilcox thinks that there was restrictions passed with the Planning Board and /or Zoning Board of Appeals resolutions limiting their hours of operation. He asks that staff pull the resolution to check on the limitations. 19 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox expresses an interest in attending the Planning Federation Conference in the fall. He asks staff to see if there was money in the budget, if not he would pay his own way. Ms. Ritter gives the board a preview of what will be on the September 6 and September 20, 2005 Planning Board meetings. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Wilcox adjourns the August 16, 2005 Planning Board meeting at 8:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, jf' I I z /u, L4J Carrie Coates hitmore Deputy Town Clerk 20 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, August 16, 2005 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign variance to allow a 72 +/- square foot illuminated freestanding sign with a copy- change section for the Courtside Racquet_ & Fitness Club located at 380 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -1 -5, Community Commercial Zone. Courtside Racquet & Fitness Club, Owner; Tom Murray, Applicant. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of a revised Sketch Plan for the proposed cluster subdivision located on the northeast corner of Troy Road and East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 49 -1- 26.3, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the +/- 6.4 -acre parcel for 14 single - family dwellings along Troy Road in two five -unit buildings and one: four -unit building. Heritage Park Townhouses, Inc., Owner /Applicant; George R, Frantz, AICP, Agent. 4. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 5. Approval of Minutes: August 2, 2005, 6, Other Business: 7. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY 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, August 16, 2005 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, August 16, 2005, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign variance to allow a 72 +/- square foot illuminated freestanding sign with a copy- change section for the Courtside Racquet & Fitness Club located at 380 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -1 -5, Community Commercial Zone. Courtside Racquet & Fitness Club, Owner; Tom Murray, Applicant, 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, August 8, 2005 Publish: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: August 16, 2005 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION Lb r i s J-t al TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION 1, 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, August 16, 2005 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ag Street. Date of Posting: .Date of Publication: August 8, 2005 August 10, 2005 600444" � (3 e t,e Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 10th day of August 2005. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New.York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 Mo l