Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2014-02-04TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. February 4. 2014 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. SEQR Determination; Heritage Park Townhouses 2-Lot Subdiyision, 249 Coddington Road. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdiyision approyal for the proposed two-lot subdiyision located at 249 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54-7-40, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal inyoWes subdiyiding the 24,634 +/- square foot lot into a 13,583 +/- square foot lot (Lot 1 - new house under construction) and an 11,051 +/- square foot lot (Lot 2 - containing exiting bam and shed). Heritage Park Townhouses, Inc., Owner/Applicant. 3. Demonstration of seyeral public mapping websites that can assist the Planning Board with the reyiew of projects in the Town. 4. Persons to be heard 5. Approyal of Minutes: January 21,2014. 6. Other Business 7. 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 MEETING Tuesday, February 4, 2014 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Board Members Present: Hollis Erb, Linda Collins,Joseph Haefeli (Alternate), John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty, Paula Wedemeyer,Jon Bosak Staff Present: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Mike Smith, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Thaete, Civil Engineer; Susan Brock,Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Ms. Erb called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. AGENDA ITEM SEAR: Heritage Park Townhouses 2-Lot Subdivision, 249 Coddington Road Ms. Erb stated that discussion of this application began at the last meeting, but the time got late, so it was postponed it until tonight. Larry Fabbroni, engineer and surveyor for Heritage Park Townhouses, said there's an implied ease- ment for property owners along the unopened portion of Pennsylvania Avenue. This was an opinion that Ms. Brock provided to Guy Krogh. Everyone who owns the old 1897 lots on the unopened street have access because the plat that was filed has an easement to their land. He handed out a letter ad- dressed to Guy Krogh from Mahlon Perkins, Mr. Ronsvalle's attorney. He also handed out a survey map that is different from what's in the packet. He said they reached out to Mr. Roberts and offered to deed him the 3000 feet that's hashed off and landscape that area. Mr. Roberts also spoke to Mr. Fabbroni about the problems they have with drainage coming down onto his property, and the appli- cant has offered to put in a diversion ditch below the second house and the parking area that would have a second culvert under the road to divert water. The waterway that drains the area is north of the unopened street. The applicant also offered to improve the driveway for the full length. Planning staff suggested that they expand the parking area to accommodate parking for both houses; his new map shows this. Mr. Fabbroni said that Mr. Roberts has spent his own money over the years maintaining the uno- pened road. The improvement they propose would be crusher run or stone for the full length of the road, even though they would only use the portion up to the parking area. Regarding the letter they received from another neighbor, Mr. Fabbroni said he knows it to be true that they're experiencing a lot more water from IC since the ponds were built up above, but doesn't know what that has to do with the project before the Board. That resident is up the road. If they build the diversion ditch, it will protect Mr. Roberts from subterranean drainage. The rock isn't very deep.When they dug for the first house, the basement floor is on rock, so it's within three or four feet of the surface. It's possible that with the two big ponds,water is finding its way along the top of the rock to the neighbors to the south. Ms. Collins asked how many parking spaces there will be on the lot. Planning Board Minutes 02-04.2014 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Fabbroni responded that there will be eight parking spaces: four unrelated people are allowed in each dwelling. Mr. Bates added that there could be more people in each dwelling if they're rented to families. Ms. Collins asked about outdoor lighting. Mr. Fabbroni responded that they weren't intending any- thing but lights on the corners of the buildings - there will be no lights on the side facing the Roberts property. Mr. Beach said one of his big concerns is how to keep some kind of guarantee that the driveway will remain accessible to the Roberts family, and that it won't get clogged up with visitors parking there. Ms. Erb stated that that would be her concern also. She wonders whether eight parking spaces are enough when you factor in visitors. Mr. Bates pointed out that Town code requires only two parking spaces per unit. Mr. Fabbroni said that it has been sufficient for the three prototypes on Kendall Avenue, where he has never observed cars parked all over the place. There are a lot of people who walk to school/work. Mr. Bates stated that from what he sees, not everybody parks in the designated spots; they park where it's convenient. Ms. Collins said that after living in an area with a terrible parking problem, she wondered whether restrictions could be placed on the unopened Pennsylvania Avenue. She considered that there might be a problem with people parking there and walking to school for the day. Ms. Brock responded that it's not a Town road. Mr. Fabbroni said that right now, the stone parking area has been there since the house burned down and he's never even seen anyone park there. Ms. Collins said that she's concerned it will become an attractive nuisance once two new units are built there. Mr. Beach asked whether the Board could consider it a shared driveway. Mr. Bates responded that it would be up to the people along that road to seek legal counsel as to what rights they have to the road. It's something the Town can't control or mandate. It has to be agreed upon by those people who have a right to use it. If there is a disagreement regarding who has the right to use it, then it will be up to a court to determine. We have no jurisdiction.That property right now is no man's land. Mr. Beach is concerned that when the people living in those units have friends over, they'll be park- ing on that driveway. Having a shared driveway with someone you get along with is one thing, but having it between a family and a group of students is different. Planning Board Minutes 02-04.2014 Page 3 of 5 Mr. Bates said the ideal situation would be for the property owners to work out an agreement. In the agreement, there has to be some legal recourse if one of the parties doesn't follow it. Mr. Beach asked whether the Planning Board could stipulate in their approval that the two parties reach an agreement on the usage of the road. Mr. Fabbroni responded that they would be happy to post no-parking signs. Ms. Balestra pointed out that this could be completely avoided if the Board took staff's suggestion to require that the shared driveway be between the two parcels off Coddington Road. Mr. Fabbroni said he didn't particularly object to that idea except that it's a much steeper entry and exit off Coddington. It goes straight down from the road, whereas the unopened road follows the topography. Ms. Fogarty pointed out that the other road has a big slope as well. Ms. Erb said that easements would be required in either scenario, and Mr. Bosak added that using the unopened road would also entail some complicated agreement to keep unwanted people off the driveway. Ms. Collins said she thinks we're working toward a nice solution. She asked if they would still be will- ing to work out the piece of land in the back even without the shared driveway. Mr. Fabbroni responded that they would. Ms. Erb said even though the SEQR review doesn't include public comment, she invited the public to speak. Mr. Roberts said he appreciated what everyone is trying to do to make this work. He wishes he had known a month ahead of time so he could have gotten together with Mr. Fabbroni and Mr. Ronsvalle. He and his wife feel this is all so last minute. He was really happy to have had a couple occasions to talk to Mr. Fabbroni since the last meeting. He initially felt Mr. Fabbroni was an adver- sary, but that communication has helped him feel better about a lot of things. He said they get quite a bit of water. The have lots of loud people around them so he wants to hold on to a bit of peace while they can. Things have changed from the neighborhood setting that it used to be. He knows Mr. Iacovelli tries to encourage his students not to party too hard. He hopes Heritage Homes tries their best to keep toxic runoff from running downhill; it hits rock very early. Ms. Erb personally wanted to hear from Mr. Roberts. She listed the three alternatives that could go forward with the subdivision; two alternatives face Coddington Road. She asked Mr. Roberts whether either of those alternatives appeal to him and his family. Mr. Roberts responded that the one that appeals to him the most is bringing the driveway between the houses. He appreciates the compromises that the applicant has put forth. He commented that the drainage issue on the new driveway coming down and off the parking lot will still need to be ad- dressed. Planning Board Minutes 02-04.2014 Page 4 of 5 Ms. Erb said that in theory, the builder is not allowed to increase the off-flow of water from the prop- erty. That's part of the building process. Mr. Roberts would like to be consulted and be satisfied about knowing what's happening. He would like to coordinate a shared expense. Ms. Erb said the shared driveway between the properties would be the best option. Mr. Thaete said they've had complaints in the past from residents. Those drainage ditches that run from IC are private. They tell the residents that they have to maintain their ditches. Mr. Roberts does have ponding down by the trail and since that's Town property, the Town will go in and maintain it. Mr. Bates asked about the property being deeded over. Ms. Brock said that the Board can't vote on that tonight; that would be a 34ot subdivision. Mr. Fabbroni suggested reserving it as an easement for landscaping, and then he'll come back with it as a third lot. Ms. Brock said there could be a deed restriction that no building could be built there. Mr. Bates suggested that the applicant go back and redraw the driveway, readvertise the plan, then come back with a 3-lot subdivision. We need to advertise the variance tomorrow and we have not yet received the information from the applicant to do so. Ms. Erb said the cleanest way to do it is to come back with a clean plat - show the new proposed driveway and a 3-lot subdivision. The applicant has been very gracious in trying to work something out. Mr. Fabbroni agreed to Ms. Erb's suggestion. Ms. Brock said it would have to go back to the County if it shows the stone parking area. Mr. Fabbroni responded that they'll remove it. Mr. Thaete said he noticed that Mr. Roberts's electrical service will be relocated. He requested that Mr. Fabbroni include on the next plan how that will happen. Mr. Roberts asked about the timeline for the project going forward. Ms. Ritter responded that the revised plan will have to be sent back to the County and follow the 30- day notification period. Ms. Brock agreed that the Town is legally required to send it back to the County because there's a substantial change to the proposal. Planning Board Minutes 02-04'2014 Page 5 of 5 At the request of the applicant, a motion was made by Hollis Erb and seconded by Jon Bosak to ad journ the meeting until the applicant submits a new application for a 3-Iot subdivision or requests that the Planning Board resume consideration of its current proposed subdivision, with the Planning Board's consideration of either of the selected alternatives to be scheduled for the next available date that is convenient to both the Town and the applicant. The motion passed unanimously. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - Nobody came forward to address the Board. AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Mr. Bosak, the meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ra DeAugktine, Deputy T? pierk