Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2006-05-02REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, MAY 212006 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK PRESENT! Fred Wilcox, Chairpersons Eva Hoffmann, Member, Tracy Mitrano, Board Members Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Mem Susan Bro ck, Attorney for the Towns Mi Balestra, Planners Carrie Coates. Whitmore, FILE _ DATE _ 6 Board Members George Conneman, Board Larry Thayer, Board Members Rod Howe, ber; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; ke Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Deputy Town Clerk. EXCUSED, Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Nicole Tedesco, Planner, OTHERS Lee Shurtleff, Tompkins County Department of Emergency Response; Andrew Sciarabba, TG Miller, PC; Rick Couture, Ithaca College; George Gesslein, 118 Sharpsteen, Rd, Locke, NY; Dave Auble, 111 West King Rd; Doug Pokorney, 282 Hayts Rd; Steve Daughetee, 245 Hayts Rd. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:05 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 April 24, 2006 and April 26, 2006, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on April 26, 20068 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. Chairperson Wilcox — Before we get going, I have accolades for Kevin from Herman Sieverding. You made the suggestion to him when they were here on the East Hill Office Building about crushing some of the construction debris and leaving it on site. They did that and'Herman said to me to say thank you to you, they probably saved about $40,000. Board Member Talty — I wasn't going to say anything, but the salesman in me was thinking that. t� J, REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, MAY 212006 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK PRESENT! Fred Wilcox, Chairpersons Eva Hoffmann, Member, Tracy Mitrano, Board Members Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Mem Susan Bro ck, Attorney for the Towns Mi Balestra, Planners Carrie Coates. Whitmore, FILE _ DATE _ 6 Board Members George Conneman, Board Larry Thayer, Board Members Rod Howe, ber; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; ke Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Deputy Town Clerk. EXCUSED, Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Nicole Tedesco, Planner, OTHERS Lee Shurtleff, Tompkins County Department of Emergency Response; Andrew Sciarabba, TG Miller, PC; Rick Couture, Ithaca College; George Gesslein, 118 Sharpsteen, Rd, Locke, NY; Dave Auble, 111 West King Rd; Doug Pokorney, 282 Hayts Rd; Steve Daughetee, 245 Hayts Rd. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:05 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 April 24, 2006 and April 26, 2006, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on April 26, 20068 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. Chairperson Wilcox — Before we get going, I have accolades for Kevin from Herman Sieverding. You made the suggestion to him when they were here on the East Hill Office Building about crushing some of the construction debris and leaving it on site. They did that and'Herman said to me to say thank you to you, they probably saved about $40,000. Board Member Talty — I wasn't going to say anything, but the salesman in me was thinking that. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 Chairperson Wilcox They took your suggestion and with not having to bring in fill and not having to truck out the construction debris...so Herman sends his thank you to you. Board Member Conneman — We knew he was here for a reason. PERSONS TO BE HEARD Chairperson Wilcox' invited any member of the audience wishing to address the Board on matters not on the agenda to come forward. There was no one present wishing to address the Board. AGENDA ITEM Update on'the current review of the Town's dock regulations Chairperson Wilcox At the COC meeting last month there was information presented and I asked that that be brought to this meeting so that Planning Board members could see what progress was being made. So having said that, the floor is yours. Ms. Balestra — I don't exactly know what the board wants me to say, but in your packets you have two spreadsheets and a narrative explaining it. Basically the Town staff has been going essentially door to door to every property on East Shore Drive and also we are working on the west side of the lake as well to take an inventory of what is existing for the waterfront structures. So its docks. We were looking at anything basically extending out into the lake from the property and logging down as accurately as possible what we have seen. We have completely finished the inventory for the east shore and are about almost a third of the way through on the west shore. So the first one, the east shore inventory sheet, basically what we are giving you...it shows the address. We looked at the type of docks that are on the properties. They are either ... there is a variety of them actually. There are many different kinds that we have found. There is the straight up dock, there is the ''T" shape, the "U", the "L ", any combination of those and then we looked to see if they were temporary or permanent and permanent meaning, almost all of them are wood piling structures. There are maybe two or three that we found that have cement in them, which the Army Corps and DEC are not very fond of. So those are very, very old docks that have been falling apart. We found a couple of temporary docks and those are mostly just like metal pipe docks that you can take out of the lake in the wintertime. They don't survive very well in this lake so there have only been a couple of them that we have found. Most of the docks we have found are permanent made of wood, with the wood pilings. We measured the length from the normal watermark, meaning it was observed on the properties where the normal mark was. We looked at where the high mark was and then the lower one. Then we measured the width and the surface area. Any extensions that they had, the 'T ", the ''T ", or the °U" we noted the square footage. A good amount of them have boatlifts. Some of them are metal, some of them are wood, some of them are large, some of them are small. There really is not a big standard. Some of them have moorings and most of the ones that we have found; again this is 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May Z 2006 Approved 0610612006 mostly for the east shore. Most of the moorings are just buoys and it was really difficult to tell how far out into the lake they were. The dock ended and then in another 20 feet or so there was the buoy and we just didn't have any means to get there. Then we measure the depth of the water from 30 feet out, if their dock was at least 30 feet long, and then at the end of the dock, depending on how long it was. That is in the spreadsheet as well. Then if any of them had a deck, like instead of a dock they had a little deck structure. Some of them have a dock off the .end of the deck, and then we noted where the decks were. And that is that. Chairperson Wilcox When the Town is done collecting information for both sides of the shore, then presumably we will have the information that we need for the Town to try to come up with potential changes to the existing zoning regulations. We will have the data that we need to look at. Ms. Balestra — You will end up with an inventory of what is existing, whether the regulations are going to change or not. This is at least base information of what is already there. If you'll note, the depth of the water is different from property to property because the shoreline is different from property to property. So it is very difficult to tell. Chairperson Wilcox Again, I want everybody to be aware that research is going on to address the current zoning ordinance. Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — Two questions. docks that you inventoried? Ms. Balestra — Not so far. Did you see any floating docks among the Board Member Hoffmann — And the other question is, I forgot those papers at home, but I think you said that the water level is very low right now, exceptionally low. Are you planning to go back and measure the depth again or are you going to try to adjust the measurement when the lake level is higher? Ms. Balestra — That is sort of the plan. The idea was that we would measure the docks when the lake was at the lowest level and then either compare that to later on in the year when it is at the highest level or actually go back out and measure at the highest level. Board Member Hoffmann — You shouldn't have to measure it again. If you just know what the difference is between the lowest and the highest you can just. add that to all of them. Ms. Balestra — That is essentially what we will probably do. 3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 Board Member Hoffmann — Good. I am glad that this inventory is being done. Board Member Thayer — Good job. Board Member Talty — I have a question. On the boatlift, is that enclosed or not enclosed or were you counting them all the same? Ms. Balestra — We were just measuring the square footage and if they were enclosed then we measured the square footage for the overhang as well as the rest of the structure if !'there was any overhang. Most of the boatlifts that we found are either the metal boat hoists or a wooden form of that or some covered ones. There were only a few that were completely enclosed, where it's just like a garage on the water. The only data that we definitely have that is completely accurate is for east shore. The west side of the lake, is a little bit different. Already we are noticing that the water depths are deeper because it is a little steeper slopes there and it just extends right into the lake and the docks are generally longer. 1 Board Member Talty — I appreciate all the information. I think it is great. Ms. Balestra — Great. The COC also asked us to look into other municipal dock regulations and compare to see what was reasonable so we are still in the process of doing that. I don't have any data to report on that right now. Mr. Kanter — Since we mentioned boatlifts, there is kind of an ambiguity in the regulations that's not clear whether the boatlift should be considered part of the docks. I think Nicole and Chris came up with that observation during a recent review. So that is something that we may want to clarify during the process, too. Chairperson Wilcox Thanks, Jon. All set? Chris, thank you. SEQR Determination Tompkins County South Hill Communication Tower, Ithaca College Campus Lee Shurtleff, Director of Tompkins County Department of Emergency Response,, 92 Brown Road Rick Couture, Director of Physical Plant at Ithaca College, 104 Westhaven Road Chairperson Wilcox` — Lee or Rick, are you prepared to make any sort of presentation tonight? Mr. Shurtleff — How; much would you like, Fred? 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 Chairperson Wilcox — That is up to you. Mr. Shurtleff — I can give you an update as to where we have been since July of 2004. Chairperson Wilcox — That works fine. Then if we have questions, we can ask. Mr. Shurtleff — As you all know, we were here some time back and presented plans for construction of a communications facility on South Hill near Ithaca College that would replace the existing WICB transmitter and would be used to accommodate Tompkins County's public safety communications needs. Since we were here, we've continued to develop plans for the overall communications system and continue to have the need for that tower to be developed at South Hill. We are requesting permission to amend the site plan previously approved by this board to include a larger shelter and also to increase the height of the tower by 15 feet. With regard to the shelter, as we were developing the overall communications plans one thing that kept coming back to us as we developed was that the need to put the generators indoors rather than outdoors as previously approved, that would add 11 linear feet to the length of the shelter. This is done because of the public safety nature of the usage, not to have the generator exposed to the conditions and in some of the towns where we were also presenting similar plans, the desire to minimize the noise levels so we have adjusted that plan accordingly.; Secondly, as I think we have mentioned previously, the height of 180 feet was the height that we have used for the propagation of the public safety communications system and that continues to be a strong need. The reason that we have asked for the additional 15 feet is to place the WICB transmitter, their live antennas above those of the County on the tower so that we won't have to shut the station down every time we go up to make an adjustment to the County systems or any other co- located users that may be on there. Ithaca College has received approval from the FCC for that increased height of antenna. This will keep the height of the tower to below 200 feet, which was a goal in everything that we were working on so that there would be no lighting required. We have also received communications that no lighting is required on the tower from :the FAA. So that is the thrust of why we are reappearing here tonight and putting forth this request to the Town. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions? Board Member Thayer — I think it is pretty well hidden there so the size of the building certainly isn't important. Chairperson Wilcox — The tower that is proposed for the requested modification is the same as the tower that was approved of before in terms of its structure, its look and appearance? 9 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May Z 2006 Approved 0610612006 Mr. Shurtleff - That's a good question, Fred. Yes. We had proposed a monopole for the site. It was a desire of the Trustees at Ithaca College as well as in the discussions with the Town of Ithaca. I was nervous when we put this out to bid because of the number of antennas and the weight of the equipment that would be on it, but Motorola in submitting the bid package back to us was able to provide us with a monopole design at not a large increase in price to us. In fact, it was within the price range that we were looking at and could accommodate. We have also got, I haven't provided these to Jonathan yet, but as of today we do have signed blueprints, stamped New York State Engineer and we have also been able to get a statement from the company regarding the fall zone. So all of the requirements that the Planning Board had placed on us two years ago or had asked that we consider we have been able to meet. Chairperson Wilcox Besides the County emergency equipment and the WICB, who I lse is co- located on that tower? Mr. Shurtleff — The Ithaca Fire Department has a repeater that they now have on the present tower and the national weather service has a transmitter that would continue to be ... would be moved over to the new structure and that serves this area around Cayuga Lake. There is additional capacity that could accommodate co- locators if there were private entities that wanted to co- locate. Board Member Hoffmann — The photos that we got are very helpful in showing the tower in addition to where we can see it ourselves. I see it from the eastern part of Ithaca, which you don't have a photo of. This is a tower which is 150 feet tall that is shown in the photos, is that right? Mr. Shurtleff — No. I believe that is the 180 feet that we did two years ago in order to... Board Member Hoffmann - Oh, this is drawn in? This is not what exists? Mr. Shurtleff — The first page is what exists. The second page is what was projected with the placing of a monopole on that site at 180 feet. Board Member Hoffmann — So that is the one called alternative 3? Mr. Shurtleff — That is correct. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. And how much of that pole sticks up above the tree line? Mr. Shurtleff — Approximately 105 feet. The tree height is approximately 70 feet so you would be looking at 105 foot of monopole. So the additional 15 feet would be 1/7. D Board Member Hoffmann photographed that's why L. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 — I thought that this was the existing tower that was Mr. Shurtleff — First page is existing, then the second page is proposed, the new tower that would replace the one that is currently on the hill. Board Member Hoffmann — And the first page shows a tower sticking up above one of the residential towers. Is that what you mean? That is the existing one? Mr. Shurtleff — The one that is on the tower is the antenna that we have there now and that would come down when the new system was up. Chairperson Wilcox — It has been enhanced to show the increased height and to show ... also it shows the additional equipment that is on it. Board Member Hoffmann — I think I may have missed the meeting where we had talked about this before because it seems unfamiliar to me, but anyway, my other question has to do with flight paths and how they come in with respect to this area where the tower will be. It seems to me whenever I am in an airplane coming from the south going to the airport I go over this area, but I would like you to please tell us where the flight paths are with respect to. this tower. Mr. Shurtleff — I don't know specifically where they are, but what we do is anytime we have an application for a tower or a proposal for a tower structure we have to apply to the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, for what they call a tow air study. They determine that if this is a potential hazard to the flight and one is they may rule that the height is not appropriate or that it needs to be lit. In this case they approved it and stated that no additional lighting was needed. So it wasn't considered an obstruction to the air patterns. Board Member Hoffmann — But you don't know where the flight paths actually are with respect to this tower? Mr. Shurtleff — I don't know exactly. No. Chairperson Wilcox = But the FAA does and they said it doesn't matter. Board Member Hoffmann — Right. I still must say that the reason I thought about it was it is now increased being within 5 feet away from the limit of 200 feet when you need to have a light. Since this is concerning the county's safety system, I would have thought it might be prudent to have a light there anyway, even if the FAA and FCC don't require it. Chairperson, Wilcox Can I, before you go any farther, does anybody here want a light? 7 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 Board Member Talty — Not really. Board Member Thayer — Not if it is not necessary. Chairperson Wilcox - No. Board Member Howe'— I think the FAA and the FCC have made their... Board Member Talty — I don't really think we are going to overrule them. Board Member Hoffmann — No. Chairperson Wilcox - I think we are glad there is no light. Board Member Thayer — Eva is saying they should do it as a courtesy. Board Member Hoffmann — I'm looking at it from a safety point of view. It is true that we mostly have small planes, but as I say, it seems to me that I go over that area when I'm in a plane, but Ithaca College is right underneath there and so is the City of Ithaca a little further ahead and if I were involved in looking at safety factors I would probably not mind having one light there for safety reasons. Chairperson, — Rick, do you want to say anything? Is Ithaca College pleased that there is no light? -- - ---Mr.—Couture=—Yes.—Absolutely. Board Member Thayer — Have you been approached by any cell phone companies to use the tower? Mr. Couture— Not as of this date. Board Member Thayer — Will there be room? Mr. Shurtleff — Two could go on there using traditional wireless equipment. It is hard to imagine what may be desired in the future years as things. Antennas are getting smaller and'' the technology is changing and I would presume that some of the high- speed Internet companies would start looking for different sites. Chairperson Wilcox — Who will own the tower? Who will get any royalty income from co- location? Mr. Shurtleff — It is a partnership between Ithaca College and Tompkins County. n PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 Board Member Thayer - I'll move the SEQR. Board Member Talty - I'll second. Chairperson Wilcox - All set? Ms. Brock - Just strike the word "Further" in the resolved introduction, Now Therefore Be It Resolved. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, Susan. Board votes on motion. Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, South Hill Tower Redevelopment at Ithaca College, Danbv Road, Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30,2 MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Talty. WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Modifications to the previously approved Site Plan and Special Permit by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the proposed Tompkins County South Hill communication tower located on the Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Medium Density Residential zone._ The project involves construction of a 195 -foot self- supporting monopole tower (increased from 180 feet) and a 432 square foot (12' x 369 building (increased from 300 square feet, 12' x 259 located adjacent to the existing Ithaca Colleges 150 foot guyed tower for the County's Public Safety Communication System. The existing Ithaca College tower will be removed once the existing transmitters are relocated to the new structure. Ithaca College, Owner; Tompkins County, Applicant; Lee Shurtleff, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, and 3. The Planning Board, on May 2, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, prepared by the applicant and Part II and Visual Addendum, prepared by planning staff; a memo with updated information submitted by Tompkins County (April 5, 2006), with a survey map prepared by'T. G. Miller, P. C., dated May 9, 2005, plans prepared by SSI Services, Inc. (October 6, November 15, December 14, 2005), and photo simulations �7 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 prepared by Clough, Harbour & Associates (stamped April 7, 2006); and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special Permit; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED; That the Town of ` Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance, for the reasons set forth in the Long Environmental Assessment Form Part II and Visual Addendum referenced above, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced actions as proposed and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES.• Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NA YS: None. ABSTAIN: M/trano. The motion was declared to be carried. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of modifications to the previously approved Site Plan and Special Permit for the proposed Tompkins County South Hill communication tower located on the Ithaca Colle9e campus,_Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 =1 -30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The project involves the construction of a 195 -foot self- supporting monopole tower (increased from 180- feet) and a 432 square foot (12' x 36') building (increased from 300 square feet, 12' x 25') located adjacent to the existing Ithaca College's 150' guyed tower for the County's Public Safety Communication System. The existing Ithaca College tower will be removed once the existing transmitters are relocated to the new structure. Ithaca College, Owners Tompkins County, Applicant; Lee Shurtleff, Agent Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. and reads.the public hearing notice. Chairperson Wilcox - Questions with regard to the site plan? Board Member Talty - Tie downs for the tower? 10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 Mr. Shurtleff — This will be a self- supporting monopole structure. It has a pretty extensive foundation underneath it. We attempted to avoid any use of guy wires in order to minimize the size of the lot and other environmental concerns. Board Member Hoffmann — Guy wires apparently create a lot of problems with birds so it is a good thing they are not there. Chairperson; Wilcox — The existing tower up there, if I remember, in each direction where guy wires are placed there are three supporting the tower, high, middle and low. Then there must be probably three or four of them surrounding it. Any other questions? Board Member Conneman — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox — I've got to give the public a chance to speak. We all set over here? Gentlemen, will you take a seat? Chairperson invites members of the public to address the board. With no persons present in addressing the board, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:30 p.ms and brought the matter back to the board. Chairperson Wilcox — George? Board Member Conneman — I'll move it. Board Member Howe — I'll second. Chairperson ) %Wilcox - Susan has some changes. Ms. Brock = On page one under the first resolved clause, the last two lines have references to the Zoning Ordinance sections as they existed before codification. So I have the Town Code Section numbers. So these are referring to exactly the same provisions, `it's just that the numbers changed when the Town codified all the ordinances. So this should state, "finding that the standards of Section 270 -200 (A) through (L) and Section 270 -219 (C) of the Town of Ithaca Code have been met. More substantive change' is on page 2 of the resolution under the be it further resolved clause, paragraph 2 states that the Planning Board is waiving certain requirements of the telecommunications ordinance. The Town does not have the ability to actually waive some!; of these requirements so I want to have this entire paragraph stricken. The section "dealing "with waiving some of the requirements for the fall zone, you may have had some of these in the past, but those ... you have the ability to waive those requirements if the new facility is being attached to an existing structure. The way your telecommunications law is written, it doesn't give you the ability to waive those dimensional requirements for a freestanding tower like this that is not being attached to 11 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 another existing structure. Since the County needs to go to the ZBA anyway to get a height variance, it seems appropriate that at the same time seek the variance from the dimensional standards involving the fall zone. So when we get to page three I will stick in the language about this being subject to them getting that variance as well as the height variance. So we won't deal on this page with that issue. What is listed here under number b about the vegetative buffering, its actually not ... you have the discretion to state what vegetative buffering is appropriate. So you are not actually waiving that requirement. Instead what this should say now is paragraph 2 should state, "pursuant to section 270 -219 (H) .(5) of the Town of Ithaca Code, no vegetative buffering surrounding fence containing the equipment cabinet is required" and then the rest of the language would continue as it is. Then the last issue that was under this paragraph regarding the financial security bond to assure removal if the facility is no longer needed. I would suggest that that would become a new paragraph 3 and we state, "consistent with the original final site plan and special permit approvals, no financial security bond is required for removal of the telecommunications facility and property restoration ". Chairperson Wilcox - Let me stop you right there. Are those changes okay? Board Member Conneman — Yes. Ms. Brock — So then what is currently listed as paragraph 3 becomes paragraph 4 and under b there is a requirement for submission prior to the issuance of a building permit and of any do -site clearing of details of tree removal and at the end of that paragraph I propose that we add the following language because what this technically requires right now is simply submission of the details, but in your telecommunications law there is a requirement that no clear_ cutting_ of an_area,_.of a single __contiguous area exceeding 20,000 square feet is allowed. We want to make sure that is complied with. I don't think they are planning to clear -cut anything near that area at all. So I would just add to the end of 4b this language, "with such details demonstrating compliance with the requirements of section 270 -219 (H) (6) of the Town of Ithaca Code" and that picks up this prohibition about clear cutting that I talked about. Then on page 3, d, this will now pickup the requirement that the ZBA grant this variance regarding dimensional standards so this will now read, "granting of any necessary variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the height of the tower or attachments and regarding dimensional standards regarding dimensional standards for the fall zone prior to issuance of any building permits." And I would also suggest then that we add a new condition g that picks up a requirement from the law, which states, ''the tower shall not be artificially lit or marked beyond the requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration." Chairperson Wilcox — Those changes all acceptable? Board Member Howe — Yes. 12 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 Board Member Hoffmann - One thing under 2 or 3 b, the vegetative buffer, in the last line it says he ability of surrounded woods. That should be surrounding woods. Ms. Brock - Yes, and when I read it I actually read it as surrounding. You are right. Board Member Hoffmann - I just wanted to be sure that was caught. Chairperson Wilcox - Any further discussion? Board votes on motion. Road, Tax Parcel No. 42 -I -30.7 MOTION made by Board Member Conneman, seconded by Board Member Howe. WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Modifications to the previously approved Site Plan and Special Permit by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the proposed Tompkins County South Hill communication tower located on the Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Medium Density Residential zone. The project involves construction of a 195 -foot self- supporting monopole tower (increased from 180 feet) and a 432 square foot (12' x 369 building (increased from 300 square feet, 12' x 259 located adjacent to the existing Ithaca Colleges 150 foot guyed tower for the County's Public Safety Communication System. The existing Ithaca College tower will be removed once the existing transmitters are relocated to the new structure. Ithaca College, Owner; Tompkins County, Applicant; Lee 5hurtleff, Agent, and III 2. This'I is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead; agency in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, has, on May 2, 2006, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II and Visual Addendum, prepared by planning staff, and I 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 2, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a memo with updated information submitted by Tompkins ii County (April 5, 2006), with a survey map prepared by T. G. Miller, P.C. dated May 9, 2005, plans prepared by SSI Services, Inc. (October 6, November 15, 13 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 December 14, 2005), and photo simulations prepared by Clough, Harbour & Associates (stamped April 7, 2006); and other application materials. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED: That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the, construction of the proposed South Hill communication tower and related facilities and the installation of the County's microwave transmitters necessary for the County Public Safety Communication System, and the WICB radio transmitter antennae, finding that the standards of Section 270 -200 (A) through (L) and Section 270119 (C) of the Town of Ithaca Code have been met. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED: II 1, That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Prelim /nary & Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary & Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and z. Pursuant to Section 270 -219 (H) (5) of the Town of Ithaca Code, no vegetative jt buffering surrounding the fence containing the equipment cabinet is required to buffer the view from neighboring residences and public roads due to the isolated location of the proposed tower and the ability of surrounding woods to provide an effective buffer, and __._. __ 3. Consistent_with___the original _final site plan and special permit approvals, no financial security bond is required for removal of the telecommunications facility and property restoration, and 4. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary & Final Site Plan, Approval for the construction of the proposed South Hill communication tower and related facilities and the installation of the County's microwave transmitters necessary for the. County Public Safety Communication System, and the 1WICB radio transmitter antennae, located on the Ithaca College campus off of Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, as shown on the above- referenced plans and materials, subject to the following conditions: a. l Submission, prior to the issuance of a building permit, of a copy of the negotiated lease agreement between Tompkins County and Ithaca College, for the construction of the proposed communications tower and related facilities, 14 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 b. Submission, prior to issuance of a building permit and of any on site clearing, of details of tree removal in the vicinity of the proposed tower and the extent of the new tree -line of the wooded area surrounding the tower with such details demonstrating compliance with the requirements of Section 270 -219 (H) (6) of the Town of Ithaca Code, and c. Submission, prior to the issuance of a building permit, of final detailed tower design and foundation plans, signed and sealed by a licensed engineer, for review and approval of the Director of Engineering and Director of Planning, together with an opinion from a competent structural engineer to the effect that the tower, foundation, and all facilities related to the structure are designed in full compliance with standards applicable to the area in which the tower is being constructed, and d. Granting of any necessary variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the height of the tower or attachments and regarding dimensional standards for the fall zone, prior to issuance of any building permits, and e. If it is determined in the future that the tower is no longer needed by Tompkins County, and is not desired by Ithaca College, the County will have the tower and equipment dismantled and the area restored, and an l agreement to that effect between the College, the County and the Town, satisfactory to all three parties, is to be executed prior to the issuance of any building permit, and f �_ _ Submission of copies of all necessary permits or approvals from county, state, and /or federal agencies, and g. The tower shall not be artificially lit or marked beyond the requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED: That the Planning Board does hereby recommend that the Town of Ithaca Town Board waive all relevant Town application fees for the South Hill communication tower project because of ii the public safety purposes to be served by the proposed communication tower and facilities A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NA YS: None. 15 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 The motion was declared to be carried. SEQR Determination Babcock 7 -Lot Subdivision, Hayts & Trumansburg Roads George Gesslein, Agent for Bruce and Dorothy Babcock, 118 Sharpsteen Rd, Locke, NY' Andy Sciarabba, TG Miller Engineers, 203 N Aurora St, Ithaca, NY Chairperson Wilcox — Do you wish to make a presentation this evening? Mr. Gesslein — I can start off because I was here almost a year ago. Last summer I presented a sketch plan for three parcels of land the Babcock's have been trying to sell for 17 or 20 years. At that time we have two 70 -acre parcels and an 18 -acre parcel and we provided a sketch plan which took the 18 acres and one 70 -acre, consolidated and then subdivided to create 7 lots on Hayts Road and one lot on Trumansburg Road along with a 60 foot right -of -way on the western side of the parcel. Since that time we have spent considerable time and TG Miller's folks have done a beautiful job on it and we tried to address the issues that came up at that sketch plan hearing. Since that time to bring you up to date the northern most 70 -acre parcel has already been sold to an equestrian facility. They had no need for that 60 400t right -of- way, which would have been a very expensive proposition any way. The other 70 -acre parcel once we subdivide it again is under contract to Robert Jackman for a vineyard and winery land he is already planting grapes up there. That will close assuming we get approval for the proposal we have tonight. We have reduced the number of lots on Hayts-Road from 7 to 6_and eliminated the 60 -foot right -of -way. I will let Andy Sciarabba go over the details because they did most of the work on the hard part. I just talk a lot. They do the hard work. Mr. Sciarabba — Mainly the subdivision of for the six lots on Hayts Road, the lot sizes vary from 2.2 to 3.6 acres. The lots in that area are bound by Indian Creek on the north. There is also a tributary that runs north. There is a pond that is currently on proposed lot number 5. There are steep slopes that run in the north portion of those proposed six lots, which are wooden. The balance of the property is kind of moderately graded and �postly brush land. The proposal on the engineering side for these lots is to provide three common driveways to serve two lots a piece. We met with Tompkins County Highway Department since they have jurisdiction on the driveway cut to determine the sight distance for the driveways. They have determined that the driveways as shown, the site distance exceeds 500 feet. So they are the safest places for the three driveways. Regarding utilities, water and sewer for the homes, there is currently no municipal service out to that portion of Hayts Road. We are proposing on -site septic systems. We had submitted to the Tompkins County Health Department initially with iLo PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 this application, since then we have gotten comments from them and are awaiting a couple more standard notes that we will submit to them for final approval on those system. They will be a shallow trench type of a system, septic tank. Some of the lots will requirej pumps because of the semi -flat grades and the location of the systems. We did two test wells on the property. We dug two wells, one at 120 feet and one about 200 feet. Water quality in the deeper well was not very good, so he was recommending that any of the future wells be no deeper than 100 feet. We took a water quality sample from test well two and had that analyzed at Buck Labs and it came back as potable. That was not submitted with the original application because we just received that this week. That information will go the Health Department for their review and approval as well. But based on the quality and the pump test performed, basically we feel we should have adequate quantity and quality for the 6 residential properties. Stormwater is new. Quantity and quality controls by the DEC for this. We are limiting the disturbance of the entire 6 lots to less than 5 acres. That is the DEC for threshold for requirements for stormwater control such as the ponds and quality features. That takes care of really the engineering portions of the lots. There is no detailed development for the 70 acres that will be vineyard so we didn't provide any detail on that. Chairperson Wilcox Questions from the board? Board Member Mitrano — Any red grapes or just white ones? Mr. Gesslein — I didn't ask him what he planted. But he has already started. Chairperson Wilcox — I want to know if he spoke to Dr. Frank before he died or something like that Mr. Gesslein — Well, Alex is the wine maker at Kingferry. So he has a pretty good handle on what is necessary to make it work. Board Member Thayer — I'm sure he does. Chairperson Wilcox Though certainly not required by law, I would like to give these two gentlemen a chance to speak if they want to. Is there anything you want to say as we review the environmental impacts? You will clearly get a chance to speak at the public hearing, but if there is something you would like to add now, I will give you the opportunity,; but you will have a chance to speak when we get to the public hearing. Any other discussion with regard to the environmental review? Board Member Talty moves the motion and Board Member Howe seconds. Board votes on motion 17 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -046: SEOR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Babcock 74ot Subdivision, Hay& and Trumansburg Roads, Tax Parcel No's, 24 -1 -23 and 24 -1 -32 MOTION made by Board Member Talty, seconded by Board Member Howe. WHEREAS: 1. This I is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed 746t subdivision located on Hayts Road and Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. s 24 -1 -23 and 24 -1 -32, Agricultural Zone. The proposal is to consolidate Tax Parcels 24 -1 -23 and 24 -1 -32 into one +/- 87.6 acre parcel, then subdivide off six residential lots (averaging 2.97 acres) along Hayts Road with the remaining +/- 70 acres being maintained as one parcel fronting on Trumansburg Road. Bruce & Dorothy Babcock, Owners, George J. Gessle /n, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Subdivision. Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on May 2, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey plat titled "Final Plat - Subdivision Map Showing Lands of Bruce M. Babcock and Dorothy D. Babcock" and plans titled "Babcock Subdivision - Engineering Plan" (sheet C100) and "Babcock Subdivision Details" (sheets C200 and C201), dated 312012006, prepared by T. G Miller, P. C., Engineers & Surveyors, and other application material, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED; That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information provided in the Environmental Assessment Form Part I, and for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Part II referenced above, In accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May Z 2006 Approved 0610612006 AYES.• Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, M/trano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NA YS: None. The motion was declared to be carried. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 7 -lot subdivision located on Hayts Road and Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -1 -23 and 24 -1 -32, Agricultural Zone. The proposal is to consolidate Tax Parcels 24 -1 -23 and 24 -1 -32 into one +/- 87.6 acre parcel, then subdivide off six residential lots (averaging 2.97 acres) along Hayts Road with the remaining +/- 70 acres being maintained as one parcel fronting on Trumansburg Road. Bruce & Dorothy Babcock, Owners; George J. Gesslein, Agent Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. and reads the public hearing notice. Chairperson Wilcox - Do we have questions with regard to the subdivision as proposed? Board Member Hoffmann — Actually I had trouble figuring out which the lots were we are talking about. I heard you talking about the lot that has been sold for the equestrian facility. Chairperson Wilcox — The equestrian is not part of this evening's proposal. Board Member Hoffmann — So which are the two lots that are being consolidated? Mr. Gesslein — This lot is the 70 -acre parcel and this is the 18 -acre parcel. Board Member Hoffmann — But I thought it said there were two lots that were ... well I was confused I guess, but if those are the two that are being consolidated then I understand it. The numbers didn't seem to add up to the final when I looked at it. That's why I wanted to ask. Chairperson Wilcox - All set? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox Any other questions? Board Member Thayer — I was wondering how you were going to work the shared driveways. Is that going to be part of a deed? 19 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 Mr. Gesslein — There are a couple of deed issues. The shared driveways will be part of the deed and deed restrictions. Bruce and Dorothy are also proposing some deed restrictions on what can be built there and then for the parcel being sold to Jack there will be a limit on the number of lots that he can subdivide in the future because they have taken some off there. So he will have a restriction on his deed that he can only have a total of 6 lots over there. If you had the two together, the 87 acres, its suitable for 12 lots. We have 6 on Hayts Road, one on Trumansburg Road, which can ultimately wind up as 6 at some point in the future, if he elects to do that. Right now he absolutely will not do that because it is not in his plan. He wants a vineyard. Board Member Thayer — We do, too. Board Member Howe — What kind of restrictions on buildings are they talking about? Mr. Gesslein — We are looking at house being built, most of whict residential. We are looking at a we haven't really finalized it, construction cost of $160,000. restrictions relative to accessory buildings, the type of i are fairly close to the present zoning regulations for minimum, and again this is subject to change because it's a draft, we are looking at a minimum house Board Member Thayer — No square footage requirement? Mr. Gesslein — Well, Bruce is talking about a square footage requirement. If we did, it would probably be a minimum of 1500 square feet. Again, we are flexible on those issues. Some restrictions are positive for potential owners and some are negative so we have to' be careful. The deed restrictions will definitely include who will pay for the - -- shared - driveway_ and _how_ -they_are_maintained,____ _ Chairperson Wilcox Michael? Mr. Smith — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox `= I'm sorry. George, have you read the resolution as drafted? Mr. Gesslein — Yes. Mr. Kanter — Is this a good time to bring up... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm going to the number of additional lots that can be subdivided. I was going to go to Michael first, but I figured I would go to George because ... I will read you what it says here. Submission of deed restrictions, conservation or agricultural easement or other mechanism to ensure that no more than 3 additional residential lots could be subdivided from lot 7." You mentioned 6. Staff has determined that you get 3 more. I%i PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 Mr. Kanter — Except ... there is this email message from John Andersson from the County Health Department.., Chairperson Wilcox Which was on our table this evening when we came in. Mr. Kanter — Which we received after the resolution was done up. So there are two provisions in the Code that talk about situations where you can have lots larger than the 2 acres maximum required.by the zoning, one of which was the one we were going by, which is what we put in the resolution. The other one is that if the Health Department requires a larger lot size for septic and well purposes, and that is what we have now, we have a memo from John Andersson saying that his determination was that the lots do have to be larger than the 2 acres that the zoning talks about and when that provision was put into affect, we don't penalize the remaining parent parcel for the lots that the land area would have taken up. I believe that Mr. Gesslein's number is correct. When you take into consideration the parent parcel that 5 additional residential building lots would be allowed on that parent parcel. So we could do some adjusting to the resolution to accommodate that. Chairperson Wilcox So we have an 87.5 acres parcel. We divide it by 7, round down and we get 412, 6 now, 6 later,. potentially. Then the large parcel that remains. Mr. Kanter — It would be 6 total, 5 new building lots plus the remainder. Board Member Hoffmann — In that case there was another letter from Ed Marx of the County saying that they would prefer to see no driveways on __ parcel if it_were further _subdivided,_ but that the d__ rivew_ ays instead and of course that is not going to be very easy configuration. Chairperson Wilcox — That is true. Mr. Kanter - That was a preference, not a determination. Route 96 from that larger Should be on Hayts Road to do with the current Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but I just thought I would bring it up because I can see the point. One wouldn't want to have 5 or 6 more driveways there. Mr. Kanter — No, and because of the frontage you wouldn't have that. Chairperson Wilcox — What is the frontage on Trumansburg Road? 302 feet. Think about how many driveways you are going to get in there. Board Member Thayer - Not many. 21 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2. 2006 Approved 0610612006 Chairperson Wilcox — Not with the required frontage. Mr. Kanter — Probably one for the future winery, which would probably then have a common access point for one or more residential driveways that come off of it or perhaps a Town road. Chairperson Wilcox — Probably either a public road or a private road that will have to... Mr. Walker _ With 300 feet of frontage, you would have to have a lot of flag lots to have legal access. Mr. Kanter = Or a cluster subdivision where you could do it through a cluster provision. Mr. Walker Right, but there would have to be some kind of roadway built through there to serve it. Chairperson Wilcox Yeah, either a public road or a private road. Board Member Conneman — So it would read no more than 5, is that right, instead of 3? Mr. Kanter — Right. Chairperson Wilcox Gentlemen, if you will go back and have a seat, I will give the public a chance to speak. Thank you much. Chairperson Wilcox invites members of the public to address the board. Doug Pokorney, 282 Hayts Road I came to the first meeting and I questioned 7 lots and I see that it has been reduced and you said you were going to do a walk around, which I hope you did.. Much happier with 6 lots. Hopefully with the protection that the engineers have done protecting that watershed. So I'm really happy as long as there is enough room for septic systems, far enough to save -that creek. I -guess my only other qualm is personal. Is this how you beat the open land on the deed by putting two or three together so you can separate things out? Because I own more than one deed and if I want to play the game later I want to know how to play. Chairperson Wilcox You want a response to that? I don't know how those parcels of land were separate; I suspect that they were bought at different times. Then assuming that they are consolidated together, which is certainly a reasonable thing to do, then the zoning ordinance takes over from there, which says you divide the number of acres by 7 and round down and that is the number of lots you get. Perfectly reasonable to me. The other nice thing is that they are planting wine grapes already. It doesn't preclude further subdivision because they do get another 5 lots, but I'm happy to see a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2. 2006 Approved 0610612006 winery up there. I don't know about the residents, but it is a good use. Then if the equestrian facility comes to fruition... Mr. Pokorney — Yes. I was in my back dooryard last week and Babcock's 70 acres up behind the Babcock house is flat as this room. They have been in there with the bush hogs and stuff and its been cleared and it looks very nice. Now they can see the lay of the land as far as construction. Chairperson Wilcox — The other nice thing is that the process has worked. They came in and kind of pushed and said can we squeeze extra lots in there and we as the board and you as the public pushed back and said wait a minute, it may not be appropriate to squeeze 8 lots in there. They listened and did the engineering and they came back and said... Mr. Pokorney — Did you do a walk around on the backside of that gorge? Chairperson Wilcox - I did not do a walk around, no. Mr. Pokorney — I know when I raised the point you should... Chairperson Wilcox — We had originally scheduled one, but when they came back with fewer lots and they took out that 60 400t wide strip we decided as a group it was not necessary for us to go out. I don't know. Individual board members may have gone out there. Mr. Pokorney — That's much better. My only...your concern and the state's concern is the watershed and that does go into Indian Creek and does go into the lake as far as protecting that gorge. That was my concern. Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. and brought the matter back to the board. ` Chairperson Wilcox Any further questions? Dan, you all set? Do you have any comments to make? Mr. Walker — No. Board Member Mitrano moves the motion and Board Member Thayer seconds the motion. Ms. Brock — I just have the changes to conform to the change in number of lots that we discussed. So on page 2 under item le that should now read, "no more than 5 additional residential lots" instead of 3. Then on page 3 under the be it further resolved, we now need to change the rational for why the size of the lots can exceed 23 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 the 2 acre maximum. I will just read what the new clause should state, ""that the Planning Board hereby allows the size of all of the proposed lots to exceed the 2 acre maximum for residential lots as permitted in section 270 -34 (A) (1) (a) of the Town of Ithaca Code `finding that the Tompkins County Health Department has determined that the larger lot areas are required to provide on -site water and septic systems." Board Member Mitrano — Okay. Mr. Sciarabba - I have a question about the wording in the resolution paragraph b where it refers to record of submission of application for driveway approval from Tompkins County Highway Department. Are you looking for an actual driveway permit or are you looking for a letter from the County confirming that they have reviewed the site distances and the driveway locations as proposed are adequate? They may not actually put a driveway in there until they sell the lots. Chairperson Wilcox - That is the curb cut, right? Mr. Smith — It usually is, but if they were not doing that as part of this then it would not be necessary. All that would need to be done is part of building permit in the future anyways, so if there were something stating that these locations are okay, that would be fine. Mr. Kanter I don't think we say prior to the filing of the plat anyway. Mr. Smith - Its just a general .any permits or approvals. Chairperson Wilcox — Any permits or approvals we get a copy of. Mr. Smith — Right. Chairperson Wilcox Andy, what is your issue? Mr. Sciarabba — I wanted to make sure that that wasn't a condition of signing of the plat. Chairperson Wilcox Which it is not. Mr. Sciarabba — Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox —'Any further discussion? Board votes on motion. i, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Thayer. WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed 746t'subdivision located on Hayts Road and Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. s 24 -1 -23 and 24 -1 -32, Agricultural Zone. The proposal is to consolidate Tax Parcels 24 -1 -23 and 24 -1 -32 into one +/- 87.6 acre parcel, then subdivide off six residential lots (averaging 2.97 acres) along Hayts Road with the remaining +/- 70 acres being maintained as one parcel fronting on Trumansburg Road. Bruce & Dorothy Babcock, Owners; George J. Gesslein, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on May 2, 2006, made a negative determination of environmental significance, afterii having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 2, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey plat titled "Final Plat - Subdivision Map Showing Lands-of-Bruce- M._ Babcock_and_Dorothy_D._Babcock" and plans titled "Babcock Subdivision - Engineering Plan" (sheet CI00) and "Babcock Subdivision - Detalls" (sheets C200 and C201), dated 312012006, prepared by T. G. Miller, P. Cl Engineers & Surveyors, and other application material, li NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED; That the Planning Board hereby, approves the consolidation of Tax Parcel No. s 24 -1 -23 and 24 -1 -32 to form a single parcel of +/- 87.6 acres in order to meet the density requirements of Section 270 -35 of the Town of Ithaca Code and to permit the subdivision described as follows, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED: 1. That; the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 7 -lot subdivision located on Hayts and Trumansburg Roads, out of the consolidated Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. s 24 =1 -23 and 24- 1 -32, as shown on a survey plat titled "Final Plat - Subdivision Map Showing 25 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 Lands of Bruce M. Babcock and Dorothy D. Babcock" and plans titled "Babcock C. Subdivision - Engineering Plan" (sheet C100) and "Babcock Subdivision - Details" (sheets C200 and C201), dated 312012006, prepared by T. G. Miller, P. , Engineers & Surveyors, subject to the following conditions: a. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the revised final subdivision plat and three dark lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerks Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and b. j; submission of record of application for and approval of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, including but not limited to the Notice of Intent from NYSDEC, driveway approval from Tompkins County Highway Department, and approvals for the septic systems from Tompkins County Health Department, and c. revision of the "Final Plat" (sheet 1 of 1) to include the locations of the three shared driveways, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, and d. submission of the necessary easement and maintenance agreements for the three shared driveways, for review and approval of the Attorney for the Town and Tompkins County Highway Department, prior to the signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, and - - -- e, submission _of_deed_r_estrictions,_a conservation or agricultural easement, or other mechanism to ensure that no more than 5 additional residential If lots could be subdivided from lot 7 (Tax Parcel No. 24 -1 23) and that the remaining land shall remain as open land for agricultural purposes, for review and approval by the Town Attorney, prior to signing of the final plat by the Planning Board Chair, and submission to the Town Planning - - - Department of a- copy -of the signed agreement, - and f. revision of the "Engineering Plan" to include a note stating that the house locations shown are approximate only to show the relationship between the house, well and septic system locations, and can be modified as part of building permit application, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning ii Board Chair, and g, that copies of all design drawings (000, C2001 C201), revised as required, must be filed with the signed Final Plat in Tompkins County Clerks Office, and W PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May Z 2006 Approved 0610612006 h, revision of the "Engineering Plan" (000) and "Detail" (C200 and C201) sheets to show the modifications required by the County Health Department regarding the septic system design and location, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED; That the Planning Board hereby allows the size of all c two acre maximum for residential lots as permitted in Town of. Ithaca Code, finding that the Tompkins determined that the larger lot areas are required to systems )f the proposed lots to exceed the Section 270 -34 (A) (1) (a) of the County Health Department has provide on -site water and septic A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES .• Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NA YS.• None. The motion �Iwas declared to be carried. SKETCH PLAN Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed modifications to the Holly Creek subdivision development located south of 111 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 37 -146, 37447.11— 37 -1- 17.17, and 374- 17.19, Multiple Residence and Low Density Residential Zones. The proposal includes revising the approved plan by replacing the 20 proposed rental apartments with —l2- single-family dwellings_in_six__duplex _ stru_ctures along with threell,lot line changes involving the remaining residential lots. David C. Auble, Owner /Applicants George Frantz, Agent. George Frantz, 604 Cliff Street, Ithaca -I. am here representing. Mr. Auble this evening. Again, what we are proposing is a modification of a proposal. We are reducing the number of dwellings on the site from what were a proposed 20 apartment units along the east side of the proposed Holly Creek Lane and instead of 20 apartment units, what we, which are shown here on this particular drawing, which you are familiar with. Again, the 20 units, rental units, along the east side of Holly Creek Lane as well as 5 conventional lots for single family homes on the west side. Again, lower density towards the Buttermilk Farms State Park. Further to the east is where a new hotel has been approved by the Town as well as in the future there is going to be anticipated more neighborhood type development. What'il we have come up with is instead of an apartment complex; we are proposing 12 single- family units in 6 duplex structures on the east side of the road. They would ;Ibe setback from the right -of -way approximately 30 feet. Each unit would have a 2 -car garage. It would have its own private driveway. It would have out to the 27 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2. 2006 Approved 0610612006 rear some private space for each. of the families. All together and there would also be some homeowners and condominium type of arrangement whereby the owners of the 12 duplexes would` own in common about 3.5 acres of permanent open space, which would essentially around the eastern perimeter of the property and the southern property and then also include the two stormwater detention basins that have actually already been constructed. The open space we are proposing, actually, a very limited lawn area, which you can see on this drawing, is a lighter green areas. What we want to do actually is have the most of the permanent open space become meadowland and treed. Again, part' of it primarily, we are looking to create a deep as possible buffer between these proposed dwelling units and the commercial development to the east. We are also proposing a buffer zone along the small intermittent stream that flows to the property, 50 feet on either side of that for a total of 100 feet. As well a proposed walkway, which would extend from Holly Creek Lane towards the cul -de -sac, eastward and into the future commercial development. We show it on this drawing to the end of ''the Holly Creek property simply because at this point it is not really sure where the 'actual alignment would be between the eastern property line of the Holly Creek subdivision and Route 96B. Again because we don't know the configuration of all the commercial development in that area to the east. Stormwater facilities. We are using the facilities that were actually approved by the Planning Board with the site plan and subdivision plat in the previous round. These we anticipate should be more than adequate to accommodate the stormwater from this new proposed subdivision simply because we are proposing very significant reduction in impervious surfaces, especially if you look again at the site plan that was approved for the apartments you can see considerable parking lots were proposed as part of that, considerably larger building footprints were proposed as part of that than what we are now proposing with the duplex condominium approach. Another- change- for _m_the_or_iginal_is_ther_e_is the existing lot at 111 West_ King Road, which is now actually...we went back to the survey and it is slightly more than 30,000 square feet in area as it stands today. The survey listed it as .69 acres, which works out to about 30,056 square feet. So what we are actually doing is increasing its width alongl! Holly Creek Lane to 150 feet or more actually I should say. It will have a depth-of roughly-200 feet _and a total area of about 34,000 square feet. Okay. Now one issue of course is we will have the front of- the parcel still be neighborhood commercial, this 25 400t strip would be multiple residence. David and I have discussed one possibility would actually have this parcel, be rezoned to multiple residence and make it one contiguous MR zone in this area. That is one possibility. Again, the other possibility is large enough for at least a small neighborhood type retail operation, albeit pretty smalljjwhen you take in all the Town's setback requirements. One thing that I unfortunately forgot to put into my narrative, which the Town planning staff has pointed, the distance between building 4 and building 5 on the cul- de -sac and ';building 5 and building 6 is indeed less than 30 feet. Okay. That was actually done on purpose. I decided...it is roughly 25 feet between the buildings at the closest point and then you can see how they rapidly spread apart to be greater than 30 feet in width. The reason I did that was I, again, we want to keep the structures as PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 close to Holly Creek Lane as possible so to have these 3 structures be 30 feet from the street right -of -way line required that they be just slightly closer at these corners, the corner projections of those particular buildings. We can shift them back to meet the required 30 foot minimum distance between buildings, which is actually a cluster subdivision requirement that I believe can also be waived .by the Planning Board. It is not a matter of zoning as much as a subdivision regulation. We could meet that requirement'; but again it is a loss of 5 to 10 feet of rear yard depth and a loss of 5 to 10 feet of possible permanent open space back here. So we much prefer to keep the buildings as iclose to Holly Creek as we can and seek a waiver for that 4 to 5 or 6 feet deficiency in' distance between buildings. Just quickly. ' The 5 conventional lots, they don't meet all the dimensional requirements. Lot 1, for instance, is only about 110 feet wide on the King Road frontage, but we have insured that they all are at least 30,000 square feet in area. So they do at least... again the area dimension or the area requirements of the low- density residential zone. I think that pretty well describes what we are proposing at this point, so if there are any questions I would be happy to answer them. 11 1 Chairperson 1 Wilcox — David, may I ask you a question? In your mind, what has changed between before and now that you have gone from apartments to either townhousesllor condos? What has changed in the market? Dave Auble, 111 West King Road Since I retired and moved back here and over the period of time that I have been back, I have had several friends and relatives request condominiums. They are planning to sell their homes and that they are in the age bracket that I am and are thinking ahead about the upkeep and maintenance aspects of it and so on that are becoming burdensome and so... Then as I have looked into that a little more, I've seen that that is a very strong trend in the area and then in terms of the market. Secondly from my standpoint as I have become a little more retired, I've kind of been shying away from the aspect of managing and the responsibilities and then in researching the financing on the apartments and the risk associated with it at my age, I felt that it was a little more than what I wanted to take on. Board Member Mitrano — Hear, hear. Board Member Conneman — Dave, at one point you said that you were going to live in the development. Is that still the plan? Mr. Auble — Yes. Board Member Talty — Which lot? Mr. Auble — I was thinking of the one down in the corner where it is park on both sides. 29 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 Chairperson Wilcox — Lot 5. Put in your bid now. Board Member Thayer — Where do we stand on sidewalks? Board Member Mitrano — Oh, Larry. Chairperson ,Wilcox — George, turn around and show us where the sidewalks were on the previous 'one. Mr. Kanter — Actually, they weren't sidewalks. It was an exercise trail. Mr. Frantz — I interpreted this as being a sidewalk. Board Member Hoffmann — That's what I thought, too. Mr. Frantz —j With the change from rental units to owner occupied and what we are talking about roughly 30 people and given the amount of use that this exercise trail would actually get, I recommended to David that we not include it in the design. One of the things that I have been doing a lot of work on up on South Hill and again the idea is that all Americans are out there getting their 20 minutes of exercise every night and it is not happening. Looking at what our experience up at Chase Farm where there was a very good idea back in the 1990s, they granted the Town and extra 10 feet of easement and we did put in a pedestrian path network in Chase Farm and that has been pretty well abandoned. — _Chair_per_son_ _W- ilcox— Hold_on.. Comment,_y_oung_ lady_? ____ Board Member Mitrano — First of all, I love when you call, me young lady. I am for sidewalks in this development. _Chairperson Wilcox What about at Chase Farm where you are right now? Board Member Mitrano — Well, it's abandoned. I mean its not fully abandoned I think some people' have and some people haven't. If you. look at my property, for example, it looks abandoned. But if there was movement among some of the homeowners to be clear about a'nd this comes from spending time talking with people in the neighborhood, we would all like to maintain it. What I think that ultimately means is that we wish that we had sidewalks originally. Board Member Hoffmann — Don't you have sidewalks? Board Member Mitrano — No. 30 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 Board Member Hoffmann — It's a walkway? Board Member Mitrano — It's a walkway, but its been abandoned, but I ... maybe what I'm really trying to say is that its not really by choice. Its sort of by the stance in the failure of there being a formal community organization to pull everyone together to rehabilitate the walkway, which I think is what everyone's desire. would be given we don't have sidewalks. Chairperson Wilcox — So it has become overgrown? ,. Board Member Mitrano — It's become overgrown, but it's not the preference. Mr. Frantz —',I guess the question is are we talking about exercise path or sidewalk? j Board Member Mitrano — Fred is great in asking me to comment on that because he knows I live there, but if you are asking my opinion about this, I think we should have sidewalks. Its part of the consistency that we have .been developing over time, in particular up'! in the South Hill region. Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin? Board Member Talty — I'm all for sidewalks. I don't like people walking in the streets with their walkers or jogging or whatever. I understand that bicyclist are* going to go in the street no matter what. A sidewalk is not really the proper venue for bicycling. Board Member Mitrano — What about those French drains? Board Member Talty - We didn't get to that yet. I thought maybe somebody else would bring it up. Mr. Frantz Then we talk about a public sidewalk in the public right -of -way that the Town would maintain. Chairperson Wilcox — No. Board Member Conneman — You have a homeowners association, right? Chairperson jWilcox — Not that the Town would maintain. Mr. Walker - What we are doing in the Westview Subdivision, there are sidewalks in that subdivision and it is a sidewalk district, which means that the property owner is responsible for maintaining the sidewalk. If they do not, the Town will step in and do it, but then charge them back. 31 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 Mr. Frantz - First of all, I'm not familiar with Westview. Mr. Walker''= Danby. Road. Boris Simkin, Schickel Road. Mr. Frantz - Okay. Mr. Kanter II Something else that is a little bit new since the original Holly Creek was approved is ... what is the shopping center that Evan Monkemeyer is proposing up across ... which ultimately if that is built will be a major destination for people living here and people': on that side of Danby Road to cross over. So obviously something else will have to be done, but if sidewalks are put in up to King Road then obviously at some point sidewalks would have to be added to King Road and a safe crosswalk would have to be ,put in to cross at the traffic light. But if we do it incrementally and we do consider sidewalks as part of this development then that would start the process. Board Member Mitrano — Yes. I am in favor of that. Chairperson Wilcox David, you were here for Evan's presentation, weren't you? Mr. Auble —, Yes. y Mr. Frantz I don't know where on King Road you could actually put a sidewalk without substantial ''investment. I would think that this would be a more desirable route and then mavbe across. Board Member Mitrano — I think Jonathan meant King Road on the other side. Mr. Kanter I haven't looked at the grading and whatever would be needed to put it in, but I meant coming King Road. Board Member Mitrano — Coming up this side, Jonathan? the _ Monkemeyer .megatropolis? Or did you mean coming from Mr. Kanter I mean coming from this side to the intersection. Board Member Mitrano — Okay. I misunderstood you then. Mr. Kanter it What George is mentioning is that you certainly could also have the walkway coming into the commercial area and then make sure there is something added to Da" nby Road on that side to get to the intersection. Board Member Mitrano — I I would be fine with that. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 06106/2006 Mr. Kanter —',I don't remember to tell you the truth what we did with the Country Inn and Suites Hotel, Mr. Smith There is a sidewalk connection proposed back into this development connecting into the hotel's sidewalk system. Mr. Kanter — Does that go up to the intersection of King and Danby? Mr. Smith — It goes out their exit onto to King Road, yes. Mr. Kanter — That certainly can be an alternate means of doing it. Board Member Hoffmann — There was no sidewalk provided along Danby Road to the King and Danby Road intersection along the hotel's side. Mr. Smith — No. There is nothing along Danby Road. It is internal with their parking lots. Board Member Hoffmann — I think what we need to do is think about how to get pedestrians from the interior of this site as well as the hotel site and the other commercial development along either Danby or King Roads to get to that intersection. Because I think the crossing has to be at the intersection where there are lights. Board Member Mitrano — I agree. Chairperson Wilcox — They'll either cross for Big AI's, Mr. Monkemeyer's proposal should it come to fruition. Board Member Mitrano — Sam Peter if they need a mattress. Chairperson Wilcox - You also have the Italian Carry Out on the same west side. Mr. Frantz —'One of the benefits I think of ... why I'm attached to this also is, again, you draw people to this particular path up to Danby Road and with the Town's deep setbacks for' the commercial districts you're going to have fairly wide tree lawns between Danby Road and the parking lots of the commercial development up here and thus there is going to be room for an attractive sidewalk. Not something that is going to be right up against the road on King Road. Board Member Mitrano — When you guys were mentioning sidewalks, where were did you intend them to be? I meant within the development and then coming out. I didn't necessarily mean that the one coming out had to be along King Road. 33 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES . May Z 2006 Approved 0610612006 Board Member Hoffmann — The earlier plan had sidewalks hooking up to this walkway that went in back of the housing units, but also coming along the eastern side of Holly Creek Lane'' up to, but not all the way to West King Road. I remember afterward thinking that we made a mistake in not including that last bit up to King Road. i Mr. Kanter It was discussed. It wasn't an omissions it was a decision that was made. Board Member Hoffmann — Personally I felt afterwards that I didn't think it was the right decision not to have it go all .the way up to King Road, but that's what we decided. Board Member Mitrano — Are you thinking, Eva, that people would be taking that maybe going down' to the Park, where are they going if they go to King Road from there? Board Member Hoffmann — They can go in all directions. I mean they certainly could go down toward the park, too, but they would not go on the sidewalk most of the way there. Mr. Kanter What I was suggesting is as part of this development, the Planning Board could require a sidewalk along Holly Creek Lane out as far as West King Road. I don't think we could require the developer to build it along West King Road, not as part of this development. But then what I was saying was, if that were done, then probably the Town it some point would want to build the sidewalk on West King Road up to the intersection of West King and Danby and then get a safe crosswalk there. Board Member Mitrano — Thank you and that sounds very good to me. I support it. - -- -- Chairperson_ Wilcox — The disadvantage to what George and David are proposing is that we don't know when that parcel, the commercial parcel, will ever be, whether anything will every be constructed there. Presumably something will, eventually at some point, which means we have a sidewalk, which ends at the property line. Now, David, you control those parcels and we could require, if we like that sidewalk, we could require that there be a sidewalk extension all the way to Danby Road that might eventually be torn up. I kind of like going back out towards West King Road rather than towards Danby. Board Member Mitrano I'll support that too. Chairperson Wilcox — But I'll hear arguments either way. Mr. Auble — Having lived there for the past couple of years and walked up to Big AI's to cross that intersection. Sometimes down to Ithaca College just to get a feel of walking in that area. I'm: 68, but I'm still fairly spry and I can move across the road fairly quickly, but it very difficult to walk across Danby Road or even across King Road with the turning. What you have is people coming down Danby Road from the south and 34 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 taking a left down King Road and vice -versa going up King Road. It doesn't matter which corner you're on, you're taking your life in your hands to step off into the roadway there. i� Board Member Mitrano — I believe that's true. Mr. Auble — I have a hard time really; unless you're running, picturing people walking to li any of the nearby shopping, unless its contiguous. Board Member Mitrano — But I think they will if the megatropolis is built. Mr. Auble — Pardon ?? Board Member Mitrano — I think if the Monkemeyer development, kitty- corner, is built that there would be a greater potential for that kind of pedestrian traffic. Can they pause the lights more? Board Member Conneman — Well you can get a walkway. Mr. Walker — There's no pedestrian crossing right there now. There is a left turn light, isn't there for coming down. Board Member Conneman — No. Mr. Walker ' It is a signalized intersection and we might be able to convince the State to stop all traffic for pedestrian crossing with an actuator there. There may pedestrians every cycle,!, but when there is a pedestrian if they push it they can stop all the traffic and have it open for pedestrians crossing. Mr. Kanter That may actually be something that could be directly related to the Monkemeye "- r retail development, that they would have to do that. Board Member Hoffmann — Not to mention the rest of your development on your lands on the commercial property that you have as well as the residential development that Mr. Monkemeyer might do. There's a lot of potential for traffic on foot there at that intersection: Mr. Walker I think when the hotel gets built and opens two months ago, they're not serving dinners in the hotel, but there is big AI's across the street and then there is the Italian Carry Out across the other street. So I think there will be a lot of foot traffic especially if, as they said, they are going to be catering to a lot of the athletic events at Ithaca College. Putting teams up there. W PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May Z 2006 Approved 0610612006 Board Member Mitrano - Who is going to buy that little garage and put a restaurant in there. Chairperson Wilcox - I think the Salino family owns that corner parcel. Mr. Frantz - The only issue is the Town's excessive setback requirements. Chairperson Wilcox - ,George, do you want to make any comments about the sidewalks, besides they add to the cost. Mr. Frantz - Again, from my perspective as a planner, I don't think they are justified. I hear a lot ofd optimism about people walking up here and crossing Route 96 and the like. Again this is something I studied, this is something I researched, this is something I'll teach about up at'Cornell, and you're not going to get a whole lot of people crossing Danby or walking from here up to there because it is an extremely hostile environment. But, again if what you want us to do is a sidewalk along Holly Creek Lane out to West King Road... Chairperson Wilcox - You will, of course, consider it. Board Member Conneman - It becomes part of the price of the lot. Mr. Frantz - Well again, I'm not thinking of the price of the lot. I'm thinking in terms of public policy and density and planning and how these sidewalks are put in and never used. - - - -- Board- Member- Conneman - Ldo.ubt_ that that wilLhappen_if_all._these_ things happen which are very likely. Mr. Frantz - Well, it hasn't happened elsewhere in the country. Board Member Hoffmann - Well, the price of gas hasn't gone up enough yet maybe. Chairperson Wilcox - Kevin, sidewalk? Board Member Talty - Nothing I hate worse than walking in the street with my 4 -year- old daughter; and the cars are going around me. It's going to have a sidewalk. Chairperson Wilcox - Rod? Board Member Howe - Yes, but I want to keep that walkway as well for future connection. Chairperson Wilcox - Larry? 36 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 Board Member Thayer — Yes sidewalks. l Board Member Hoffmann - Yes, sidewalks too, but I think that walkway around the back of the lihousing units that was proposed before is something that I would be willing to give up, but the sidewalk along Holly Creek Lane I would like to see. Chairperson; Wilcox Yes, sidewalks are fine, consider it. Let's get to the other thing. The 25 feetflseparation at closest point for some of the buildings. Board Member Howe — I think that's appropriate. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, I didn't have a problem with that. It seems. to me a reasonable compromise. ,j Mr. Kanter - I think we would have to take a look at that. I think whether the Planning Board can do it as a waiver in the cluster or whether it would go to the Zoning Board. I think either ;way is doable if the Planning Board would like to support it. Chairperson!! Wilcox Based upon what George said it seems to be a decent trade off in terms of the; open in the back. Mr. Kanter '' How about the play area? I talked to George about it and it seems like with the sett up of the individual units as opposed to apartments that the play area isn't ii I as great a need as it would have been before. It still is something that could be considered somehow because I think you could have some kind of common amenities and maybe it wouldn't be a play structure, maybe it would be something else. Maybe it __ would_be_picnic_areas, or something. Chairperson Iii Wilcox — We've gone from 20 rental units to 12 condos, can I call them condos or townhouses? To me condo means something very specific. Mr. Frantz Condominiums a form of ownership. These would be duplexes but again each unit would be on its lot. Mr. Kanter — George and I talked about that too, where the lot lines through the units might go. Maybe that's something to talk about. Mr. Frantz —'The idea that we're considering actually, I superimposed it here, is to have the front lawn be part of the lot. Essentially run the side yard line through the party wall on the one side, and then have it coterminous with the outermost wall of the unit on the outside. And then give them 25 feet of private space behind each unit. If possible, if they like, they could fence that off. This is one of the reasons why I was thinking the play structure, recreational area, sort of becomes extraneous because the vast majority of parents would much prefer to have their child either playing on their 37 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 own swing 'set /play set or at least outside the window of their neighbors or friends or whatever. As opposed to having an isolated play are off in the corner. Board Member Mitrano — I like Jonathan's idea. Mr. Kanter What was that? Board Member Mitrano — Some picnic tables or something more adult oriented, fewer toddlers. Chairperson Wilcox — There are no guarantees in life, but the intent would be for these to be owner occupied. Certainly someone could buy a unit and rent it, but given that it would be owner occupied or potentially family occupied, and given the amount of space that are around them, it does change the usage from 20 apartments. One would hope that there 'would be some structure in the community area, picnic tables was one mentioned. Mr. Frantz; We're not proposing anything like a play structure or community recreation facilities, or even a path along the rear perimeter of the site, but that doesn't mean that they may not happen because, again, we're going to have a homeowners' association here. These people are going to be owning this land in common and they can certainly come together and decide we want a play structure, a communal play structure, or we want a walking path, or let's build a pavilion or gazebo up here in the corner or something. So it's not that we're saying, no, none of this can happen. It could very well happen and it could be at the option of the homeowners. ____ Chairperson Wilcox_What__price range are you targeting, David ?_ Mr. Auble —�I Well, after this meeting and I cost out some of the things. I'm updating my bids now fo'r the utilities and the road and cul -de -sac. All the construction costs, all my bids, have had to change because of redesign. So I'm still in the process. Chairperson Wilcox „— I didn't ask you for costs, I asked you for selling price. Mr. Auble — Well, selling price will be predicated on my costs. Chairperson Wilcox — Give me a range. Can you give me a range, publicly? Mr. Auble With building costs running at about $120 per square foot, you're probably looking at t I e $200] $225 range. Chairperson Wilcox — All right, so you're between 2 and 3 hundred thousand. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 Mr. Auble — Yes, depending on what options people want. I actually looked at this design. It was a project in Penfield that some friends of mine are doing and I liked their design Wand their work and they're coming at about that range. Board Member Mitrano — What's the name of it? Mr. Auble — Oakmount. Board Member Mitrano — Oakmount? I'll be up there this weekend. I'll take a ride up there. ChairpersonWilcox - Everybody Google Oakmount. I� Board Member Talty,;— I'll be there tomorrow. Really. Mr. Frantz — js that on the south side of Victor? Mr. Auble —,I'm not really that familiar. I've been up there about three times to that site, but as far as the other ... it's Penfield. Chairperson IjWilcox - Any other comments from members of the board? Kevin? Board Member Talty' — Since culverts were brought up, what type of culverts system will you have? Mr. Auble —I Drainage culverts? We have drainage swales that were approved in the i _ _ f r_st go- around, which will_ be__lined with riprap and that is all we are doing. Most of it is in place, in fact all of the swales are in place. We haven't completed the riprap part of it, but we have completed enough to control the drainage so that it was approved by the Town Engineer. We didn't anticipate any change in the drainage system. Chairperson (Wilcox — Will there be ditches along the road? Or a ditch along Holly Creek Drive? Mr. Auble — I'm trying to see where the sidewalks would fit in between the drainage swale and the road. Mr. Kanter —That might require some modification. Mr. Frantz = Actually, I believe what I did was take the approved stormwater management system, which included swales along Holly Creek Lane, So the only difference is! there is a lot less impervious surface and probably more open drainage swales in this proposal than in the previous one. 39 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 Chairperson, Wilcox - Kevin has been a standard bear for putting the drainage along the road underground, piping it underground rather than having open ditches along the side of the road, He's made a forceful case. Mr. Frantz _ Well, I've been saying that for about 15 years here. Mr. Auble —'I One drawback, I think, is the speed when you have culverts, When they are piped the water goes a lot faster and when it is rip rapped it is obviously, the idea is to slow it down. ii Mr. Kanter There will be some relooking at all that based on if sidewalks are going to go in, how; that will relate at the road system, some slight changes around the individual b ul ildings since they are a little bit different configuration. So that is all detail stuff that would need to be done. Chairperson' Wilcox - Anything else you need back from us? Board Member Mitrano — How many bedrooms on average? Are we talking 2 or 3 bedrooms a ;unit? Mr. Auble —The design is a 2- bedroom ground floor and an optional 2 "d floor and the idea is for people who want ground floor living and again, people in my bracket age wise. Them, if they want grandchildren visiting or that type of thing they have the 2 "d floor. option.I Board Member Mitrano — That sounds great. I hope I look have as good as you at your age. --- - - - - -— - Chairperson ,Wilcox — George, you're all set? I mean they're complimenting each other. Mr. Frantz No. If you don't have any questions, thank you very much and we'll be back. Board Member Hoffmann — I was just going to say that if you can come up with some other idea other than a standard sidewalk to let people safely walk and do the drainage system and so on at the same time, I would be very willing to hear that. But I would like to see a jsafe way for people to walk along the road instead of walking on the road. n Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, You can't leave yet, I was reminded that we do have one piece of1l business to do here. There is a resolution in here some place. We have a proposed resolution establishing the Planning Board as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review, .] PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 Chairperson Wilcox moves the motion and Board Member Conneman seconds the motion. Board votes on motion. MOTION made by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Conneman. WHEREAS; 1, The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering a Sketch Plan for the proposed modifications to the Holly Creek subdivision development located south of 111 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 37. -1 -16, 37. -1 -17.11 - 37s"10, 17.17, and 37 -1- 17.19, Multiple Residence and Low Density Residential Zones The proposal includes replacing 20 proposed rental apartments with 12 single - family dwellings in six duplex structures along with three lot line changes involving the remaining residential lots David C, Auble, Owner /Applicant; George Frantz, Agent, and 2. The proposed modifications to the previously approved subdivision and development is a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review, and 3. A report and sketch plan for the proposed "Holly Creek Community" (March 22, 2006) and a Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, has been submitted by the applicant for the above - described action, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed modifications to the Holly Creek subdivision development, as described above, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED; That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all involved agencies one this proposed lead agency designation, said concurrence to be received by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department within thirty days from the date of notification of the involved agencies, said notification having been sent to potential involved and interested agencies in a letter dated April 21, 2006. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: 41 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 AYES.' Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS. None. The motion was declared to be carried. PUBLIC HEARING. Consideration of recommendation to the Town Board regarding a proposed Local Law; amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding 'the definition of a hospital and regarding permitted uses in Conservation Zones. Chairperson "Wilcox opens the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. and reads the public hearing notice. Chairperson I Wilcox - Mr. Kanter, do you wish to make a presentation? Mr. Kanter - I don't think we really need a presentation. I think my memo basically outlines it. Chairperson i Wilcox 7 Very good. So we are changing the definition of hospital. I think it has to do with overnight and people, essentially,. and we are allowing hospital uses in a Conservation Zone. This was at the request of the hospital. Mr. Kanter The Town Board did rezone that area to Conservation Zone. Chairpersonll Wilcox Yes, they did. Mr. Kanter That is now in place. Chairperson] Wilcox invites the public to speak, but no one was present to speak at the public hearing. Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. Board Member Mitrano moves the motion and Board Member Talty seconds. Conservation Zones Motion made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Talty. WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee has reviewed the provisions in the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code regarding definition of "hospital" and regarding permitted uses in Conservation Zones, and 42 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 WHEREAS; Based on this review, the Codes and Ordinances Committee has drafted a proposed local law amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding definition of hospital and regarding permitted uses in Conservation Zones for the Town Boards consideration, and II WHEREAS: The above - described amendment would revise the definition of "hospital" to be "an establishment for temporary overnight occupation by sick or injured persons for the purpose of medical treatment licensed by the State of New York for such purposes" and would add "hospital" as a principal use authorized by special permit only in Conservation Zones, and WHEREAS; The Town Board on April 10, 2006, enacted a local law amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, titled "Zoning" and the Official Zoning Map to rezone certain lands along and west of Taughannock Boulevard from Low Density Residential to Conservation Zone, and portions of property owned by Cayuga Medical Center, are located within this newly enacted Conservation Zone, and WHEREAS: The Town Board has reviewed the above - described proposed local law at its regular meeting on April 10, 2006 and has referred this matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation, and WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has held a public hearing on May 2, 2006 to consider. comments from the public regarding this proposed zoning amendment, . NO_ W,_T_HEREEO_RE,_BE_IT_RESOLVED; That the Town of Ithaca_ Planning Board, pursuant to Section' 270- 236(H) of the Town of Ithaca Code, hereby finds that: 1. There is a need for the proposed zoning amendment, in the proposed locations, in particular with reference to the public purpose of hospitals, and 2. The 'existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected by the proposed zoning amendment, and in particular that the special permit process to allow. hospitals in Conservation Zones will allow the Planning Board to carefully evaluate the local conditions of any proposal for hospital use in a Conservation Zone, and it 3. The proposed zoning amendment is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town, and in particular that portions of the Cayuga Medical Center property are shown on the Anticipated Land Use Patterns Map in the 1993' Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan as "Public /Institutional' and portions of the Cayuga Medical Center property are now located within the recently enacted Conservation Zone as referenced above, and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 2, 2006 Approved 0610612006 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED; That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town Board adopt the proposed local law amending the Zoning Chapter oflj the Town of Ithaca Code regarding definition of hospital and regarding permitted uses in Conservation Zones. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES .• Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: Norte. The motlon,j was declared to be carried MINUTES 1 MOTION Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Talty. I RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopts the April 4, 2006 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with corrections. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES.• Wilcox, Mitrano, Howe, Talty. NA YS: None. 11 ABSTAIN: Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer. II The vote on the motion was carried. i OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Kanter reports that there is only or Planning Board meeting. The Board agenda items. h Board Member Hoffmann comments on She was surprised by the number of explains that the trees were removed ie agenda item scheduled for the May 16, 2006 decided to cancel the meeting due to lack of the demolition taking place at the Rite Aid site. trees that had been taken down. Mr. Kanter for the stormwater system and the sewer line replacement. She thought that the stormwater system was going to be closer to the driveway that is falling apart anyway and is now wondering if those trees remaining there will be taken down as well. I .. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May Z 2006 Approved 0610612006 Board Member Hoffmann thought the site looks like it is finished being graded, but the grade looks higher' than it was when the old building was sitting on the site. She wondered if they were going to get a building that looks taller because of that. Mr. Kanter comments that if it doesn't comply with the grade elevations shown on the plan, then it will be. discovered during inspections by the Code Enforcement Officials. Board Member Hoffmann suggested that the Board may not always realize they are approving something that might sits 5 feet higher than the previous building. Chairperson! Wilcox; states that the Board needs to make a motion to cancel the May 16th Planning Board meeting. MOTION made by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Talty. BE IT RESQL VED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby cancels the May 16, 2006 meeting and directs the Director of Planning to notify the press of the meeting cancellation. The vote on the motion resulted as follows; A YES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer; Howe. NAYS: None. u The - motion" was- declar-ed_to_be_car_r_ied. —_ _ — Mr. Kanter informs that Board that Cornell will be back at one of the June meetings to give an update on the TGEIS project. Board Member Hoffmann noticed that a sign was just put up in the last few days in the parking area of the Pew Trail.- It says, Welcome to the Eastern Heights Neighborhood ". It is outside of what she always thought was the Eastern Heights Neighborhood, but she is happy to finally be living in a named neighborhood. ADJOURNMENT Chairpersons Wilcox 'adjourns the May 2, 2006 Planning Board meeting at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully C Carrie Coates itted, Deputy Town Clerk 45 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, May 2, 2006 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. Update'; on the current review of the Town's dock regulations. 7:10 P.M: SEQR Determination:. Tompkins County South Hill Communication Tower, Ithaca College Campus. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of modifications to the previously approved Site Plan and Special Permit '!for the proposed Tompkins County South Hill communication tower located on the Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The project involves the construction of a 195 -foot self - supporting monopole tower (increased from 180 -feet) and a 432 square foot (12' x 36') building (increased from 300 square feet, 12' x 25') located adjacent to the existing Ithaca College's 150' guyed tower for the County's Public Safety Communication System. The existing Ithaca College tower will be removed once the existing'transmitters are relocated to the new structure. Ithaca College, Owner; Tompkins County, Applicant; Lee Shurtleff, Agent. �I 7:30 P.M. SEQR Determination: Babcock 7 -Lot Subdivision, Hayts & Trumansburg Roads, ii 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 7 -lot subdivision located on Hayts Road and Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -1 -23 and 24 -1 -32, Agricultural Zone. The proposal is to consolidate Tax Parcels 24 -1 -23 and 24 -1 -32 into one +/- 87.6 acre parcel, then subdivide off six residential lots (averaging 2.97 acres) along Hayts Road with the remaining +/- 70. acres being maintained as one parcel fronting on Trumansburg Road. Bruce & Dorothy Babcock, Owners; George J. Gesslein, Agent, 8:00 P.M. Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed modifications to the Holly Creek subdivision development located' south of 111 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 37 -1 -16, 37 -1 -17.11 — 37- 1- 17.17, and 37 -.1- 17.19, Multiple Residence and Low Density Residential Zones. The proposal includes revising the approved plan by replacing the 20 proposed rental apartments with 12 single - family dwellings in six duplex structures along with three lot line changes involving the remaining residential lots. David C. Auble, Owner /Applicant; George Frantz, Agent. 8:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board regarding a proposed Local Law amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding the definition of a hospital and regarding permitted uses in Conservation Zones. 9. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 10. Approval of Minutes: April 4, 2006, 11, Other Business: 12, 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 -17474 (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, May 2, 2006 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, May 2, 2006, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:10 P.M. Consideration of modifications to the previously approved Site Plan and Special Permit for the prooposed Tompkins Cou:parcel South Hill communication tower located on the Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca T No. 41 -1 -30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The project involves the construction of a 195 -foot self - supporting monopole tower (increased from 180 -feet) and a 432 square foot (12' x 36') building (increased from 300 square feet, 12' x 25') located adjacent to the existing Ithaca College's 150' guyed tower for the County's Public Safety Communication System. The existing Ithaca College tower will be removed once the existing transmitters are relocated to the new structure. Ithaca College, Owner; Tompkins County, Applicant; Lee Shurtleff, Agent, 7:30 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 7 -lot subdivision located on Hayts Road and Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -1 -23 and 24 -1- 32, Agricultural Zone. The proposal is to consolidate Tax Parcels 24 -1 -23 and 24 -1 -32 into one +/- 87,.6 acre parcel, then subdivide off six residential lots (averaging 2.97 acres) along Hayts Road with the remaining +/- 70 acres being maintained as one parcel fronting on Trumansburg Road. Bruce & Dorothy Babcock, Owners; George J. Gesslein, Agent. 8:15 P.M. Consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board regarding a proposed Local Law amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding the definition of a hospital and regarding vermitted uses in Conservation Zones, Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, April 24, 2006 Publish: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 m TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: May 2, 2006 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION j� mm q �rtu �GJ i4 M : c tE2 PC Zp 3 41 Aallon4 (10 (e II l i j� mm TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Location of Sign Board used for rosttng: Date of Posting: April 24, 2006 Date of Publi c�ation: April 26, 2006 i STATE OF NEW YORK) - -SS: -- COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) �i 1 own t. 1em wgn tsoara — L i D ivorui 1 10M 0LrOUL. Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca Sworn to and "subscribed before me this 26th day of April 2006. otary Public �ICONNIE F. CLARK Notary) Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County /_ Commission Expires December 26, 20.06 n r