Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2012-10-02TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. October 2. 2012 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed Greenways project located off Sunnyhill Lane and Strawberry Hill Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60-1- 34.2 and 60.1-1-46.22, Medium Density Residential and Multiple Residence Zones. The proposal involves the development of approximately 67 townhouse units to the west of Eastwood Commons on new roads that will connect Sunnyhill Lane and Strawberry Hill Road. The project will also include new parking areas, open space, recreation and play area, trails, walkways, landscaping, outdoor lighting, and stormwater facilities. Cornell University, Owner; Greenways at Eastwood Commons LLC, Applicant; Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP, Agent. 3. Approval of Minutes: September 4, 2012 and September 18,2012. 4. Other Business: 5. Adjournment Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273-1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street October 2, 2012 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN-IN Please Print Clearly. Thank You Name Address TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, October 2, 2012 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Board Members Present: Hollis Erb (Vice Chair), Linda Collins, George Conneman, Ellen Baer, Jon Bosak Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Dan Tasman, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Creig Hebdon, Town Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Ms. Erb called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard – No one came forward to address the Board. AGENDA ITEM Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed Greenways project located off Sunnyhill Lane and Strawberry Hill Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.’s 60-1-34.2 and 60.1-1-46.22, Medium Density Residential and Multiple Residence Zones. The proposal involves the development of approximately 67 townhouse units to the west of Eastwood Commons on new roads that will connect Sunnyhill Lane and Strawberry Hill Road. The project will also include new parking areas, open space, recrea- tion and play area, trails, walkways, landscaping, outdoor lighting, and stormwater facilities. Cornell University, Owner; Greenways at Eastwood Commons LLC, Applicant; Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP, Agent. Ms. Erb stated that this is the beginning of a long process, which begins with sketch plan, and that the Board would vote that evening on declaring the Town the lead agency for the environmental review. Mr. Conneman said that the material gives the impression that the Greenways development is at Eastwood Commons. That’s taking a name that they don’t have permission to use. When the project was presented at the neighborhood meeting, it was presented as Greenways housing development or Greenways townhouses. John Simonelli stated that he was at the meeting to represent Greenways at Eastwood Commons, LLC, which is a partnership between Simonelli Construction and INHS. Two years ago, Cornell Real Estate put out an RFP for the development of housing on ten acres of land, with the intent of build- ing housing affordable to their workforce in order to bring staff closer to campus. His employer won the bid and negotiated to form a partnership with INHS. Right now they are under a conditional option period with Cornell that is contingent on the approval of this process. Once approved, they will take possession of the land and proceed with the development. The price points of the units they originally proposed were above what Cornell considered to be the income levels of their staff, so Cor- nell introduced them to INHS to assist some of the qualified buyers get financial assistance to afford the units. He addressed the naming issue by saying they have no claim to the name. They simply tagged “at Eastwood Commons” to “the Greenways” – it has no significance to them. It’s the name of Planning Board Minutes 10-02-2012 Page 2 of 10 an LLC to proceed with the development. It’s not going to be on a sign or anywhere else. The project name is Greenways. Mr. Simonelli said that the project will be developed in three phases. Units will be sold to the home- owners, and the common property around the units will become part of a homeowners’ association. The project could take up to five years. It will be marketed for a short period of time through Cornell to its employees, then sales will open to the general public. Cornell is confident that, with the growth they are projecting over the next ten years, their employees will purchase many of the units. INHS is looking at applying their programs to one third of the units. Once the project is fully developed, the HOA will take over the management of the development, the common areas, and the required maintenance. To a question from Ms. Collins, Mr. Simonelli responded that the affordable units will not be physi- cally different from the other units. Mr. Bosak asked what price point will be affordable to the Cornell workforce as well as the general Ithaca workforce. Paul Mazzarella, executive director of INHS, explained that their mission is to pro- vide affordable housing to low- and moderate-income families. They have helped 750 families become homeowners in the past 35 years. Most of them have purchased existing homes. They have recently been building new construction projects, including Holly Creek. Many of the people they have helped are Cornell employees. Affordability is not a price; it’s the amount of money someone pays per month to live in a unit and it can be more expensive or less expensive. They have the ability to obtain both subsidy money to lower the development cost – and effectively, the purchase price – and low-cost financing to make monthly payments lower. They will employ both those tools to help low- and mod- erate-income households purchase about 30 of the units. The mid point of the units will be around $200,000; some less, some more. INHS helps a broad range of incomes. The people they believe will reside in these houses will be secretaries, lab workers, assistant professors, etc. There will be no differ- ence in the design or construction of the affordable units, only in the financing. Ms. Collins asked how affordability will be sustained over time. She wondered whether INHS will continue to be involved in the project so one-third of the units remain affordable. Mr. Mazzarella responded that they have developed the community housing trust program, which maximizes the use of the subsidy by making for-sale homes affordable to the initial buyer and all subsequent buyers through deed restrictions that place a limitation on the amount of appreciated value the homeowner can take out of the deal when they sell the home. INHS puts a cap on it, so while the sale price of homes rise, they may not rise faster than INHS’s formula allows. INHS will be involved in perpetuity in an oversight role. The low-end purchase price will be around $150,000. Mr. Simonelli said the size of the units will determine the price of the two- and three-bedroom units. Mr. Trowbridge presented a slide show. He stated that there was a phase of Eastwood Commons that was approved but not built, including a road. He explained that a 70-foot piece of the property ex- tends up to the city limits (on Eastwood Avenue). He has discussed this with the City planning staff; they will be a participant in the review process. There is steeper topography to the west and flatter topography to the east. Part of the flat topography is due to a lot of grading that was done in the 1980s in anticipation of this phase of Eastwood Commons. A creek runs along the northwest of the property, and is culvertized under Eastwood Avenue. On Eastwood Avenue, there are a few homes that have easements, but no legal frontage. Right now, the project site is two parcels in two zones; Planning Board Minutes 10-02-2012 Page 3 of 10 they recommend aggregating the two parcels into one to make the planning process easier, but they don’t plan to change the zoning. The project has a complex set of sidewalks and trails, and one pro- posed trail goes out to Eastwood Avenue. They’d like it to be a multimodal, walkable community in which people can walk over to Eastwood Avenue and school children can walk to Belle Sherman School and where there are connections to the East Hill Rec Way and out to Honness Lane to the sidewalk system and bus network. They still need to negotiate ways over private land to make these connections. A big water line runs through the middle of the site, so they will need to design around the utility easement. Regarding the creek, they have defined the setback based on their interpretation, but will set up a day to go out with the Town staff to survey an exact location. The other setbacks are specific to the two zones, and in the Town of Ithaca, there’s a setback between the two zones. Ms. Brock stated that the MDR district requires that there be a buffer between it and any residential dis- trict, and that the buffer needs to be on the MDR zone. Mr. Trowbridge said they’ve done a wetlands study and an environmental study that looked at habitat; both of those will be attached to the long EAF, as will studies on traffic and the stream. Mr. Trowbridge said that this is a phase of Eastwood Commons that is in local law. This was an ap- proved project for Eastwood Commons, and all phases were intended to be connected. In the MDR zone, the Town allows for a primary unit and a secondary unit as an attachment. It also allows for clustering, and even though it is intended for single-family homes, when there are issues of the envi- ronment, as in this case (steep slopes, a creek, vegetation they would like to retain), clustering makes sense. Their by-rights scheme allowed for a certain number of dwelling units and parking spaces. The new scheme shows clustered units on the west of the zone line, preserving as much of the regrowth vegetation as possible. In the multiple residence zone, they will build most of their density along a private road. Many of the units face onto the road. There is parallel parking, which is currently not allowed in the TOI on a public street – this is the wave of the future as they move toward greater den- sity and affordability. They also have a tree lawn and a sidewalk. Beyond are porches and the town- homes. There is a large green space, common to all units, with a playground. It provides an organiza- tional space and a common space for this project and continuous green space between the abutters and this property. The ponds aren’t open; they are infiltration areas. They are dispersed throughout the site so water doesn’t aggregate in one area. There is storm drainage as well, so if you get too much water, it will go into the storm system. The intent is to not have standing water on the site. There are no driveways along the street; there are car courts. There are units with garages and units without. They wanted to create a pedestrian-friendly street that does not have a lot of car activity. Some units have a garage with a parking space behind the garage, so there is space for two cars. Some units have walk-out basements. These homes are not one size fits all: there is lots of complexity, lots of different unit types, lots of options for people to choose from. All parking is assigned. Those units that don’t have garages will have space for two cars in their driveway. They have dumpster kiosks. They are looking into the possibility of a community center. They are looking at LEED and STAR- rated units. This is high-quality housing. Mr. Bosak commented that the common area is also an area for private gardens. Mr. Trowbridge re- plied that they’re fenced. The townhomes will have small fenced garden areas at their rear, to make semi-private areas, and a gate out into the broad public space. He pointed out that units in Eastwood Commons sit five or six feet above the green space. The townhomes will have front porches and stoops, sidewalks, and parallel parking along the street. The new urbanism model – not currently al- lowable in the Town – is a good model if you’re looking at community living, where people can walk Planning Board Minutes 10-02-2012 Page 4 of 10 on the sidewalk rather than in the street, visitors can park in front of your home, etc. There is a raised table at the intersection coming off the green space. This will slow cars down and make it safer to walk. The City has a program and they’re looking at how this project might help facilitate that pro- gram. The interior space will have gardens around the outside, a common play structure, and a large flexible lawn space easily seen from the exterior. He thinks people outside the Greenways community will see it as a public space as well. There are microwatersheds on the site created by a backbone that runs up the middle. That was a man-made high point. The DEC requires stormwater practices inside the individual watersheds that are impacted. The site is a full story lower than the surrounding Eastwood Commons. There’s a trian- gular visitor parking area. Parking on the street is not assigned. Ms. Collins asked about demographics. Mr. Mazzarella said that the demographic of our county is one in which household sizes continually get smaller – that’s been happening for one hundred years. Tompkins County has a very large number of singe-person households; that’s the fastest growing type of household over the past decade. There are many single people buying two-bedroom houses and a lot of small families – couples or a parent with a child – buying three-bedroom houses. His sense is that these units will be attractive to people with small household sizes. Mr. Trowbridge pointed out that they didn’t maximize the possible density on the multiple-family side of the zone – they’re building fewer units than zoning allows. The less infrastructure they build, the more affordable the units will be. Ms. Collins asked about Cornell control of the project. Mr. Simonelli responded that Cornell will convey the land to the developer, but will retain the right to take the project back or take it over if the developer defaults on the agreement. At the beginning of each phase, as the houses become available, Cornell will have a certain period of time to market them to their employees. Once the time period is over, Cornell will still be able to market them, but sales will also be open to the general public. Mr. Hebdon said that he had a conversation with Dave Herrick about phasing. The loop road will have to go in first. It’s okay for the main road to go in without the parking areas to start, but the as- phalt will need to loop all the way through. The utilities and stormwater practices will have to be in- stalled in their entirety before any building begins. The Town will probably take over sewer and water. He also explained the reason the Town won’t take over the road: the Town doesn’t allow parking on the side of the road because the snow plow fleet (10-wheelers with wings) physically cannot get around cars. Allowing on-street parking would require that the Town buy new equipment. Ms. Collins asked whether customers will be able to customize units. Mr. Simonelli said that allowing customization is more trouble than it’s worth. There could be some choices, such as in kitchen cabi- nets, but they haven’t gotten that far. Ms. Collins asked what kinds of elements will be under LEED. Scott Reynolds, INHS real estate developer, said in many ways these units will be like Holly Creek. All the construction INHS builds is LEED Gold or better, which includes water practices, heating sys- tems that are well beyond Energy Star certified, and nontoxic finishes. Site issues that make it walka- ble and dense also play in, as does the size of the units. Mr. Bosak asked about spots for households to grow their own food. Some of the units have them, and he likes that. He can imagine houses on the perimeter wanting to push into the wooded area. He Planning Board Minutes 10-02-2012 Page 5 of 10 asked whether they contemplate a legal structure being set up that would prevent the HOA from spe- cifically allowing the conversion of some of that wooded area to other uses. Mr. Simonelli said that could be handled through boundary lines and deed restrictions. Mr. Bosak asked whether those re- strictions would prevent the HOA, through a change in bylaws, from allowing them to develop areas that were declared forever wild. He asked whether these things are reversible to accommodate differ- ent conditions. Ms. Brock responded that it depends on how they’re restricting it. If there is a condi- tion of the Board’s approval that the land never be changed or developed, then there are mechanisms the Board can use so that can’t happen without the applicant having to come back. That kind of im- pediment would come from the Board or from the HOA. Mr. Bosak wants to make sure the Board does not put that kind of impediment or other irreversible conditions in. Ms. Brock said the Board needs to see what the environmental review shows. Mr. Conneman pointed out that there is no right of way for access from the development to the East Hill path. Mr. Trowbridge said they are negotiating an easement with a private homeowner. There’s another option that goes through Eastwood Commons. It’s going to be off site, so the Town will have to participate in that process. Such a connection is desirable, and they will try to make it happen. Ms. Erb agreed that a way to the Rec Way and a way down Eastwood Avenue and a way down Honness Lane in all directions would be lovely if it can be accomplished. The HOA will require owner occupancy. Ms. Brock asked whether will there be a provision for tem- porary renting for people going away on sabbatical. Mr. Simonelli responded that if there was any at all, it would be on a long-term basis, but that they had not gotten into the market analysis yet. Mr. Conneman proposed removing “at Eastwood Commons” from the name of the applicant in the resolution. He asked whether it was legal to take someone else’s name. Discussion ensued. Ms. Brock stated that the Secretary of State has accepted their certificate of incorporation with that name. That LLC is a legal entity. If there is a problem with the name, it is not the Planning Board’s issue. Mr. Bosak pointed out that nowhere in the materials or in the resolution is the project called any- thing but Greenways – that there’s no need of a requirement that it be called Greenways because it already is called Greenways. Mr. Tasman said the resolution contains the tax parcel number, and he doesn’t think future generations will have any doubt what this resolution applies to. Mr. Simonelli said this is the name of the corporation who will develop the project. At a certain point in time, the project sponsor will no longer be involved in the project, and the project will be taken over by the HOA. Greenways at Eastwood Commons LLC will no longer exist; it will not survive this project. Mr. Tasman pointed out that there are all sorts of resolutions for Holochuck, but ultimately when that project goes on sale, they won’t put a sign along the roadway that says Holochuck Subdivision. Mr. Erb pointed out that Belle Sherman Cottages went through several name changes. Mr. Conneman said he fears they will market it as Greenways at Eastwood Commons. Ms. Brock responded that that is not a Planning Board issue. If Mr. Conneman is speaking as a resident, that might be different, but this is a Planning Board. Mr. Conneman said that they are taking a name that is meaningful to people and essentially stealing it. Ms. Erb replied that the Board’s legal advisor has said that this is okay; it is only the name of an applicant and will disappear. Planning Board Minutes 10-02-2012 Page 6 of 10 PB Resolution No. 2012-070: Lead agency – declaration of intent; Greenways; Tax parcels 60-1- 34.2, 60.1-1-46.22; Strawberry Hill Circle Moved by Linda Collins; seconded by Jon Bosak WHEREAS: 1.The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at its October 2, 2012 meeting, considered a sketch plan for the proposed Greenways project located on Strawberry Hill Circle, Town of Ithaca tax parcels 60- 1-34.2 (±4.88 acres, MDR zoning) and 60.1-1-46.22 (±5.55 acres, MR zoning ). The proposed pro- ject is a 67 unit clustered residential development on a ±10.4 acre site resulting from consolida- tion of tax parcels 60-1-34.2 and 60.1-1-46.22 into one lot. Cornell University / Greenways at Eastwood Commons, LLC, applicant; Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, TG Mil- ler Engineering, JMZ Architects, consultants; and 2.The proposal, which requires subdivision and site plan approval by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, is a Type I action, because it includes 30 or more residential units that will be connected to public utilities (Town of Ithaca Code, Environmental Quality Review, §148-5 B 2); IT IS RESOLVED: 1.The Town of Ithaca Planning Board proposes to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed action, as described above; and 2.The Town of Ithaca Planning Board requests the concurrence of all involved agencies on this proposed lead agency designation, the concurrence to be received by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department within 30 calendar days of receipt of Part I of a Full Environmental Assessment Form completed by the applicant. Vote: Ayes – Erb, Collins, Conneman, Baer, Bosak Public comment Gentleman #1 asked the Board to consider very strongly the opening of Eastwood Commons. Pine Tree and Slaterville roads are already a problem, and this project will aggravate the situation. He thinks the fire department will have a problem with the dense parking along the road. He suggested that the developer consider opening a cutthrough to Eastwood Avenue to motor vehicle traffic. Mr. Tasman said that it’s a complicated issue and something the applicant is willing to research. Woman #1 thinks having the name Eastwood Commons in the developer’s name is very sleazy. Christa Bissell, 137 Pine Tree Road, said that even the County is aware of the traffic stress in this area and is looking at ways to alleviate it. For an environmentally friendly project, having it close doesn’t mean people will leave their cars at home. She said there are ways to get people to leave their cars at Planning Board Minutes 10-02-2012 Page 7 of 10 home, such as what they do in Boulder, where the university employers and apartment complexes provide bus passes. Maria Fitzpatrick, 1336 Slaterville Road, said that the property borders hers and has an easement for a utility right of way. She has written a letter proposing a number of impact studies that address issues such vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Several people who live around the project are concerned about their own property values and that the units in the project be affordable as proposed. She is con- cerned about privacy: how the borders of the property and how the pathways and other areas will allow them to maintain privacy. She suggested that this can be done with landscaping. Architecturally they would like to see the feel of the neighborhood maintained; the type of development, as pro- posed, doesn’t seem to do that. They would like to get a better understanding of the environmental impacts; for example, Eastwood Commons sits a full story above the site and the gradation continues downward to Slaterville Road and Six Mile Creek, and they are concerned about runoff from both the construction and the continued existence of the development. There are also impacts on the his- torical vegetation and animal habitat. As for the long-term management of the property, she would like boundary setbacks maintained in perpetuity and a clause put in related to short-term or long-term rental of the units in perpetuity. Woman #2 said she is a resident of Sunnyhill to the south. Her backyard is slanted, so she is con- cerned about runoff. Traffic is a concern. Wildlife: where will it all go? There are no units with front stoops in the existing neighborhoods, so this development doesn’t look like them. Gentleman #2 agreed with Ms. Fitzpatrick one hundred percent and opposes opening up Eastwood Avenue to traffic. It should be redirected in another direction. He opposes the walking path. Richard Glick, 312 Eastwood Avenue, is a City resident. He stated that when this project started to perk its head up, every single house in the entire enclave, save about three or four, bounded by Cor- nell Street and State Street signed a letter to Cornell expressing sympathy with the intent of the pro- ject. The letter did not specifically address walking ingress and egress, but was uniformly opposed to vehicular traffic ingress and egress to the site. The relative sizes of the streets are incompatible. The impact would be disproportionate. Some of the City representatives did express concern to Cornell about the vehicular ingress and egress issue. Mr. Glick will provide a copy of the letter to staff. Joel Harlan spoke in favor of the project. Tom Reimers, Wildflower Drive, Eastwood Commons, said his home faces this project. He has lived there for 33 years and has faced open space, so he is not in favor of the project in general. The plan is for people to walk this red line [which he pointed to on a map] to get the East Hill Rec Way. He thinks people will trespass across the Eastwood Commons property and across his driveway or his neighbor’s. He agrees that the Eastwood Commons name should not be used in the process at all because he doesn’t want the common areas of the new project to be thought to be continuous with the common areas of Eastwood Commons. He hopes they plan to preserve the weeping willow tree. Woman #3 said she wants to make a special plea about access to the walkway. Right now, people walk through Eastwood Commons past her house from Slaterville Road to get to the walkway. There is not a path, but they make a path right up to the walkway. She strongly urged the Board to find a way to help them with that issue. Planning Board Minutes 10-02-2012 Page 8 of 10 Mr. Bosak asked whether there is a legal reason the folks can’t put a fence up. Mr. Tasman responded that it might be an HOA restriction or a deed restriction, but there is no zoning that says they can’t do that. There’s no reason the new development couldn’t put a fence in. He wouldn’t want to see a huge visual barrier like a six-foot stockade fence, but there’s nothing stopping them from putting up something to keep people from cutting through. Mr. Erb noted that there will be a large stormwater protection program and plan for this project. There will be no water leaving this property as a result of the development. The Town requires that all stormwater facilities for the entire project be completed in the first phase. There will be a traffic study and discussions on architecture, landscaping, preservation of trees, habitat – these are all part of the environmental review. Her personal observations are that the left turns across traffic from Snyder Hill Road and Honness Lane onto Pine Tree Road are already awful and that the left turn at the bottom of Honness Lane will be an issue. Ms. Collins stated that there are two vehicular exits out of the larger neighborhood. All intersections that will be impacted will need to be addressed. Discussion ensued. Mr. Conneman thinks the state will look at Pine Tree and perhaps put a light in. Ms. Erb said she has a personal interest in trying to get a reasonable guess as to how many households will be Cornell em- ployees. Previous traffic studies have ended up counting total cars and the impact at individual inter- sections. She asked Board members if they would rather look at a sequence of intersections where they’d like travel-time studies. Mr. Bosak stated that he is not familiar with this area, and that this became an issue with the Holochuck proposal on Route 96 because the timing figures for individual intersections, when added up, bore no resemblance to the time it would take to get through all three intersections. Ms. Erb said the focus should be access onto Honness Lane, all the way through to Route 366. The study should determine the travel time at rush hour with the current level of traffic versus a reasonable estimate of what the travel time might be with the additional cars going to Cornell at rush hour. She also has an interest in a conservative estimate of total miles traveled in the daily commute to work: what the typical travel distance is right now and what it would be if staff purchased into this property. Mr. Conneman said what is needed is a comprehensive plan for this whole neigh- borhood, including truck traffic. Ms. Erb said that if the argument is to be made that this is a public good because it’s closer to Cornell, then the applicant should demonstrate some data that indicates typical travel time for the appropriate demographic. Mr. Bosak said the flip side is an estimate of how far they would be driving if they didn’t live there. Ms. Erb noted that she has a Cornell ID card she can flash for the bus. Ms. Erb said it would be nice to specify more about the LEED certification and what that does to the affordability of the homes in terms of monthly costs. She mentioned California-style driveways, where there is concrete for the tires but the center is a permeable strip, which is what they’re doing at the Belle Sherman Cottages. Ms. Collins returned to the comments by the speakers regarding the look and feel of the neighbor- hood. She has a particular interest in architectural details and thinks there’s a long way to go on how the development looks. She finds it very institutional and not in keeping with the look of the East- wood Commons and its surrounding neighborhood. It doesn’t connect or meld with anything there. Planning Board Minutes 10-02-2012 Page 9 of 10 Ms. Ritter and Ms. Baer disagreed with Ms. Collins’s assessment, with Ms. Baer observing that it looks more like the Belle Sherman Cottages and the Belle Sherman area – a more traditional neigh- borhood with sidewalks and front porches. Mr. Tasman added that architectural styles have changed in the past 20 years since Eastwood Commons was developed, and now we’re seeing a revival of some of the architectural styles of the 1920s. Ms. Collins wanted to make it clear that she did not want it to look like Eastwood Commons; she was talking specifically about the buildings themselves. Mr. Tas- man said that he was very glad to see that they had windows on the side elevations. You’ll often see rows of townhouses and even single-family houses where there are no windows on the side of the house – they’re blank. Ms. Erb listed some of the SEQR issues that might arise. The Board will be interested in issues like resident-owners, maintenance of the property, the processes in place to assure affordability as homes change ownership, the possible visibility of the units from West Hill or South Hill, etc. Ms. Ritter pointed out that it’s an infill of buildings. Mr. Bosak asked what the reflection will be across the lake at a certain angle of light. His hunch is that you won’t be able to see any of it. Ms. Erb responded that the issue is whether people from other areas will see roofs or sidewalls. Will the Board get excited about the roofing colors or will glare from windows in the sidewalls be an issue? Mr. Bosak suggested the applicant use the Town’s draft Scenic Resources Inventory and Analysis Report to see if the pro- ject can be seen from any of those viewsheds. Mr. Trowbridge responded that they check the impact of views only from places of significance – eve- rything can be viewed from someplace. Ms. Erb requested that they find out whether this develop- ment will be visible from any views in the report and provide a few sentences to address that. If it is going to be visible from a place, provide a color photo of what it looks like now and a CAD drawing of what it will look like with the development. AGENDA ITEM Approval of Minutes PB Resolution No. 2012-071: Minutes of September 4, 2012 Moved by George Conneman; seconded by Linda Collins WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on September 4, 2012; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, as submitted, to be the final minutes of the meeting on September 4. Vote: Ayes – Erb, Collins, Conneman, Baer Abstentions – Bosak PB Resolution No. 2012-072: Minutes of September 18, 2012 Moved by Jon Bosak; seconded by Ellen Baer Planning Board Minutes 10-02-2012 Page 10 of 10 WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on September 18, 2012; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, as submitted, to be the final minutes of the meeting on September 18. Vote: Ayes - Erb, Collins, Conneman, Baer, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Other Business Mr. Hebdon stated that the Tutelo Park playground is nearly finished. The Northview tank is up; they will start filling it in another week and finish it in a couple weeks. AGENDAITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Jon Bosak the meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra DeAugisHne, Deputy TowX Clerk