Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2014-07-01TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. July 1. 2014 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: Coddington Road Community Center Temporary Classrooms, 920 Coddington Road. 7;00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approyal and Special Permit for the proposed temporary classroom building located at the Coddington Road Community Center, 920 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47-1-11.3, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal inyolyes installing a 2,820+/- square foot modular classroom building on an existing blacktop pad located on the west side of the existing Coddington Road Community Center building for up to three years. Coddington Road Community Center, Owner/Applicant; Heather Mount, Executiye Director, Agent. 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: St. Catherine of Siena Church 2-Lot Subdiyision, Blackstone Ayenue and Siena Driye. 7;15 P»M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdiyision Approyal for the proposed two- lot subdiyision of the St. Catherine of Siena Church property located at the intersection of Blackstone Ayenue and Siena Driye, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-1-10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal inyolyes subdiyiding off a 29,869 +/- square foot lot from the larger church property to be sold as a building lot. St. Catherine of Siena Church, Owner/Applicant; Ellen Morris-Knower, Agent. 7:30 P.M. SEQR Determination: YMCA Y Wilderness Club House, Mecklenburg Road. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed YMCA Y Wilderness Club House project located on Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79), west of 1345 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28-1-20.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal inyolyes constructing an 800 +/- square foot open sided payilion structure to be used by participants of outdoor actiyities on the property. YMCA of Ithaca and Tompkins County, Owner/Applicant; Ryan Allen, Outdoor Education Director, Agent. 7:45 P.M. SEQR Determination: Greenways, Sunnyhill Lane and Strawberry Hill Road. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approyal 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 inyolyes the deyelopment of 46 townhouse units west of Eastwood Commons, fronting on priyate roads that will connect Sunnyhill Lane and Strawberry Hill Road. The project will also include new parking areas, open space, recreation areas, trails, walkways, landscaping, outdoor lighting, and stormwater facilities. Cornell Uniyersity, Owner; Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Seryice, Applicant; Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP, Agent. 9. Persons to be heard 10. Approyal of Minutes: May 20, 2014 and June 3, 2014. 11. Other Business 12. Adjoumment 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,July 1, 2014 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox(Chair), Linda Collins,John Beach,Yvonne Fogarty, Paula Wedemeyer,Jon Bosak, Hollis Erb Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Dan Tasman, Planner; Chris Balestra, 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 Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and accepted the secretary's posting of the public hearing notices. Mr. Wilcox announced that consideration of the St. Catherine of Siena subdivision had been postponed. The Director of Code Enforcement determined that it is a three-lot subdivision, not a two-lot subdivision, as was advertised in the public hearing notice. AGENDA ITEM SEQR: Coddington Road Community Center Temporary Classrooms, 920 Coddington Road Heather Mount, executive director, said they are proposing the addition of a temporary structure on a piece of blacktop behind the current building, where they would house their after-school program. The structure will allow them to double the size of the after-school program and move it out of the building; this will allow them to restructure the preschool program and increase their revenue in an- ticipation of a long-term growth plan. Traffic was discussed. Ms. Mount said they currently have 70 children enrolled, 20 of which are in the after-school program. Children are picked up between 5:00 and 5:30 p.m. The current parking lot meets the requirements as far as the additional spaces needed for the additional children. They don't expect a large increase in traffic flow because not all families arrive at the same time, so pickup times are staggered. The parking lot has one-way traffic flow.While there is parking on both sides of the lot, staff members park on the side closer to the street, so families generally park on the field side. They walk along the grass to their cars, not through the parking lot, so there isn't a problem with cars back- ing out of the spaces while children are crossing the lot.Their long-term planning will address addi- tional parking and traffic flow. Regarding water and septic, Ms. Mount explained that they will have a portable water source. The company that they will lease the building from contracts with a service that will bring water for hand, washing and toilet facilities, and there will be a tank that's pumped on a weekly basis so they don't have to overload their current system. That's a short-term, temporary solution as they plan for a per- manent structure. Potable water will be also delivered. Once they move the after school-program out, the preschool program, which currently has 18 chil- dren,will be able grow to a maximum of 36, although they only intend to add 8 children at this point.At least two full-time positions and three to four part-time positions will be added. Planning Board Minutes 07-01.2014 Page 2 of 20 Ms. Mount said they do not plan to have sprinklers in the temporary structure. They are on the ZBA agenda for a sprinkler variance. Ms. Erb commented that, as a Planning Board member, she has experience with other modular struc- tures - and applicants who argued to avoid sprinklers - that are now in their third decade. Ms. Mount responded that the timeframe they have set is for three years, during which time they will fundraise for a permanent structure. The Office of Children and Family Services, which does CRCC's licensing,will not allow them to use the temporary structure long term. She stated that there's an exit on either side of the building,which means there's a primary exit out of each class- room. They don't need approval of the County Health Department. According to the company they're working with and Avalon Homes, delivery will not require a lane closure on Coddington Road. The structure will come in four pieces, none of which are oversized load pieces. There is noth- ing currently on the asphalt pad. The children use it for riding bicycles, there's a basketball hoop to the side, and they use it for chalk drawing. The additional building will take up a large portion of paved space, but a portion at the front will still be available for riding bikes; the playground space is also suitable for riding bikes. New York State has to approve this, so they have an application ready and waiting for Town approval. The temporary sewage tank will be located in back of the building and in front of the pavilion. PB Resolution No. 2014.037: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, Coddington Road Community Center Temporary Classrooms, Tax Parcel No. 47--l-11.3, 920 Coddington Road Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Linda Collins WHEREAS: 1. This action involves Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Per- mit for the proposed temporary classroom building located at the Coddington Road Community Center, 920 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47.4-11.3, Low Density Residen- tial Zone. The proposal involves installing a 2,820+/-square foot modular classroom building on an existing blacktop pad located on the west side of the existing Coddington Road Community Center building for up to three years. Coddington Road Community Center, Owner/Applicant; Heather Mount, Executive Director,Agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting in an uncoor- dinated review with respect to this project; and 3. The Planning Board, on July 1, 2014, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environ- mental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Town Planning staff, a narrative, a site plan titled "Site Plan Showing Proposed Improvements for Cod- dington Road Community Center, Located at 920 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., dated 5/8/2014 and revised 6/9/14, an eleva- tion drawing labeled "2," prepared by Penn Lyon Homes, Inc., dated 8/15/2001 and revised 8/30/2001, and other application materials; and Planning Board Minutes 07-01.2014 Page 3 of 20 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental signifi- cance with respect to the proposed action; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty,Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed temporary classroom building located at the Coddington Road Community Center, 920 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47-1-11.3, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves installing a 2,820+/-square foot modular classroom building on an existing black- top pad located on the west side of the existing Coddington Road Community Center building for up to three years. Coddington Road Community Center, Owner/Applicant; Heather Mount, Execu- tive Director, Agent Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Wilcox commented that on the survey map, CRCC's address is 920. The property to the south is 922: both even. The property to the north is 915: odd. He asked how there are both odd and even street addresses on the same side of the road. Mr. Bates responded that back when 911 numbers were originally addressed, several agencies - the fire department, the town, 911 - issued house numbers, so there are numbering problems all over town. Generally when we find errors, we try to fix them. Some roads have been completely renum- bered. Under the Next Generation 911, more will be changed. Mr. Wilcox asked whether anyone was concerned about the proposed lack of sprinklers. Ms. Erb said she's concerned that there won't be sprinklers, but there are multiple doors and it's a single story. No one will be there late at night. She hopes there's fair notice to all parents and guardi- ans. Nevertheless, a variance that continues for 20 years has an accumulated hazard that would bring her closer to warranting sprinklers. Mr. Wilcox pointed out that it has to meet building code. Ms. Mount said that cooking occurs in the permanent structure. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:35. Planning Board Minutes 07-01.2014 Page 4 of 20 PB Resolution No. 2014.038: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, Coddington Road Community Center Temporary Classrooms, Tax Parcel No. 47.-1-11.3, 920 Coddington Road Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: 1. This action involves Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Per- mit for the proposed temporary classroom building located at the Coddington Road Community Center, 920 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47.4-11.3, Low Density Residen- tial Zone. The proposal involves installing a 2,820+/-square foot modular classroom building on an existing blacktop pad located on the west side of the existing Coddington Road Community Center building for up to three years. Coddington Road Community Center, Owner/Applicant; Heather Mount, Executive Director,Agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting in an uncoordi- nated environmental review with respect to the project has, on July 1, 2014, made a negative de- termination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Town Planning staff., and 3. The Planning Board, on July 1, 2014, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a narrative, a site plan titled "Site Plan Showing Proposed Improvements for Coddington Road Community Cen- ter, Located at 920 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., dated 5/8/2014 and revised 6/9/14, an elevation drawing labeled "2," pre- pared by Penn Lyon Homes, Inc., dated 8/15/2001 and revised 8/30/2001, and other applica- tion materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby finds that the special permit standards of Article XXIV Section 270- 200, Subsections A - L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, specifically that: a. the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, in harmony with the general purpose of Town Code Chapter 270,Article XXIII,will be promoted, because the proposed use fills a neighborhood or community need by expanding the pre-school and after-school opportuni- ties for children in the community, and b. the proposed structure will be located behind an existing structure, adjacent to vacant land, and the structure will be placed on an existing blacktop area, with no loss of vegetation involved, no negative impacts to any waterways, no significant increase in traffic, and otherwise not impacting the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, and c. the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, given that the premises already contain a building with classrooms used for the same purpose as the proposed use, and Planning Board Minutes 07-01.2014 Page 5 of 20 d. the proposed use and the location and design of any structures are consistent with the character of the district in which they are located, for the reasons noted above, and e. the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devalue the neighborhood property or seriously inconvenience the neigh- boring inhabitants, for the reasons noted above, and f. operations in connection with the proposed use will not be more objectionable to nearby proper- ties by reasons of noise, fumes,vibrations, illumination or other potential nuisance than the op- eration of any permitted use in the particular zone, for the reasons noted above, and g. community infrastructure and services, including but not limited to, protective services, road- ways, garbage collection, schools and water and sewer facilities, are currently, or will be, of ade- quate capacity to accommodate the proposed use because the use is a minor expansion that will not exhaust the infrastructure services that currently exist on the site, and h. the proposed use, building, design and site layout comply with all provisions of Chapter 270, Zoning, and, to the extent considered by the Planning Board, with other regulations and ordi- nances of the Town,with the Building Code and all other state and federal laws, rules and regu- lations, and with the Town Comprehensive Plan, and i. the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safely designed and the site layout provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, and j. the general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole, including such items as traffic load upon public streets and load upon water and sewer systems, is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, for the reasons noted above, and k. the lot area, access, parking, and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed use; and access, parking, and loading facilities are adequately buffered to minimize their visual impact, as there are no proposed changes to the existing parking facilities and the existing facilities will accom- modate the classroom expansion, and 1. natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good engineering prac- tices and in accordance with any applicable Town local law or ordinance, and existing drainage- ways are not altered in a manner that adversely affects other properties, for the reasons noted above, and m. the proposed use or structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Town Code Chapter 270,Article XXIII. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having de- termined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant altera- tion of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board; and Planning Board Minutes 07-01.2014 Page 6 of 20 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed temporary modular classroom structure for the Coddington Road Community Center, as described in the materials listed in Whereas #3 above, subject to the following condi- tions: a. Submission of one original large-size (24 x 36-inch or similar size) copy of the approved site plan, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor, engineer, architect or land- scape architect who prepared the plan, prior to the application for any building or electri- cal permits, and b. All outdoor lighting shall conform to the requirements of the Town of Ithaca Outdoor Lighting Law, and c. All signs, including the proposed decorative banners, shall comply with the requirements of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination:YMCA Y Wilderness Club House, Mecklenburg Road Ryan Allen stated that a few years ago, the YMCA was given 110 acres of wooded property. They've been steadily developing this property into an outdoor education facility the whole community can benefit from. This is the first major building project on the property. They received a Lowe's Heroes Grant. Lowe's has donated materials and labor for a 20x40-foot pavilion that will be used as a meet- ing place for programs, a place for campers to get in out of the weather, a gathering place to start all the activities for the day, etc. Mr. Bosak asked why this is an Unlisted Action. Ms. Balestra responded that when staff originally looked at the project and were trying to figure out what category of the zoning code it would meet, they determined that a use variance might be needed, which would make it an Unlisted Action. Since then, staff determined that it needed a special permit, and not a use variance,which kicks it into the Type II list. So there's actually no SEQR because it involves the "construction or expansion of a primary or accessory/appurtenant non-residential struc- ture or facility involving less than 4,000 square feet of gross floor area and not involving a change in zoning or a use variance and consistent with local land use controls, but not radio communication or microwave transmission facilities." Ms. Balestra said that when they determined that it needed a spe- cial permit, they didn't go back and see whether it still needed the SEAR. It doesn't. Mr.Allen explained that they contract with a local company that brings in port-a-potties. Thy Y brings in water bottles for drinking. Potties are located just off the parking lot, just outside the tree line. Ms. Erb said that this means the port-a-potties are sitting out for months, visible from a public road. Planning Board Minutes 07-01.2014 Page 7 of 20 Mr. Allen responded that they've done this for the last two summers with no complaints. AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed YMCA Y Wilderness Club House project located on Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79), west of 1345 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28-1-20.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves constructing an 800 +/-square foot open sided pavilion structure to be used by participants of outdoor activities on the property. YMCA of Ithaca and Tompkins County, Owner/Applicant; Ryan Allen, Outdoor Education Director,Agent Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. Peter Trowbridge said he lives immediately adjacent to and east of the YMCA property. In fact, the address for the YMCA property is referenced by his property: 1345 Mecklenburg Road. He's very happy with the YMCA as a neighbor. He appreciates Frank Towner always being in touch and en- gaged and everything the Y has done over the last two years. They have created trails within eyeshot of the Trowbridge property and he likes having the kids there in the summer.All their programming is terrific. This pavilion is consistent with their programming. His only comment is that things keep coming one piece at a time. If they have an overall vision of what they plan to do, it would be great to understand that in its totality. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:57. Mr. Wilcox said that Mr. Trowbridge raised a good point, and the next time the Y comes back with another proposal, that would be a good time to look at the entire parcel and get an idea of what they're thinking about 15 to 20 years down the road. Ms. Balestra said she's made the applicant aware that the Board will want to see a sketch plan or some sort of vision for the future. Ms. Collins said she is not a fan of big box stores and is not familiar with the Heroes program, but it looks like Lowes in our community is donating about$1500 to this project. She wanted to recognize the contribution they're making to our community and our children. Ms. Brock said she is a member of the YMCA, but that doesn't pose a conflict of interest. She asked how garbage collection will be handled. Mr.Allen responded that it is taken out daily by the staff member running the program; they are not utilizing garbage collection. Mr. Bates said that their specifications for the building call for a mulch floor in the pavilion. It can't have a flammable floor even though the walls are open. They can use dirt, gravel, etc. Water might be an issue that will limit what the building can be used for because this is still is a commercial setting, and under the building code, anything that isn't residential is commercial. They have to provide po- table water. He has talked with the state about a possible variance. More discussion will need to hap- pen between Mr. Bates, the applicant, and the state. It will probably be limited to the YMCA's per- Planning Board Minutes 07-01.2014 Page 8 of 20 sonal use only, so they won't be able to have events not related to Y activity; i.e., they can't rent it out for another event. They need to control everything coming in. These are all building permit issues. To a question from Mr. Bosak, Mr. Bates explained that the floor in a garage can't be a combustible material. This is for commercial use,which has a different standard. Some may argue that mulch has moisture, but once there's a roof, it's going to dry out. He corrected the term non-combustible and said that it has to meet a flame-spread rating.A wood floor could be used. The flame spread of mulch creates a burn time faster than a single board would. PB Resolution No. 2014.039:Special Permit, YMCA Y Wilderness Club House, Tax Parcel No. 28.4-20.2 Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed YMCA Y Wilderness Club House project located on Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79),west of 1345 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28.4-20.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves construct- ing an 800+/-square foot open-sided pavilion structure to be used by participants of outdoor ac- tivities on the property. Frank Towner, CEO, YMCA of Ithaca and Tompkins County, Owner; Ryan Allen, Outdoor Education Director, Agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in the environmental review with respect to the project, has, on July 1, 2014, made a negative de- termination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 pre- pared by Town Planning staff; and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 1, 2014, has reviewed and accepted as ade- quate, a narrative, a drawing titled "Club House/Pavilion," date-stamped June 19, 2014, a sketch of the proposed structure on S.R. Sloan Inc. graph paper, date-stamped June 19, 2014, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed YMCA Y Wilderness Club House project located on Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79), finding that the standards of Article XXIV Section 270-200, Subsections A- L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, and specifi- cally that: a. the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, in harmony with the general purpose of Town Code Chapter 270,Article XXIII,will be promoted, because the proposed use fills a neighborhood or community need by expanding the pre-school and after-school opportuni- ties for children in the community, and Planning Board Minutes 07-01.2014 Page 9 of 20 b. the proposed structure will be located behind an existing structure, adjacent to vacant land, and the structure will be placed on an existing blacktop area, with no loss of vegetation involved, no negative impacts to any waterways, no significant increase in traffic, and otherwise not impacting the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, and c. the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, given that the premises are already being used by the YMCA for the purpose of educational outdoor activities, and d. the proposed use and the location and design of any structures are consistent with the character of the district in which they are located, for the reasons noted above, and e. the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devalue the neighborhood property or seriously inconvenience the neigh- boring inhabitants, for the reasons noted above, and f. operations in connection with the proposed use will not be more objectionable to nearby proper- ties by reasons of noise, fumes, vibrations, illumination or other potential nuisance than the op- eration of any permitted use in the particular zone, for the reasons noted above, and g. community infrastructure and services, including but not limited to, protective services, roadways, garbage collection, schools and water and sewer facilities, are currently, or will be, of adequate ca- pacity to accommodate the proposed use, as the use will not utilize water, sewer, garbage collec- tion or other community services, and h. the proposed use, building, design and site layout comply with all provisions of Chapter 270, Zon- ing, and, to the extent considered by the Planning Board,with other regulations and ordinances of the Town,with the Building Code and all other state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and with the Town Comprehensive Plan, and i. the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safely designed and the site layout provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, and j. the general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole, including such items as traffic load upon public streets and load upon water and sewer systems, is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, for the reasons noted above, and k. the lot area, access, parking, and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed use; and access, parking, and loading facilities are adequately buffered to minimize their visual impact, as there are no proposed changes to the existing parking facilities, and 1. natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good engineering prac- tices and in accordance with any applicable Town local law or ordinance, and existing drainage- ways are not altered in a manner that adversely affects other properties, for the reasons noted above, and m. the proposed use or structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Town Code Chapter 270,Article XXIII. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb Planning Board Minutes 07-01.2014 Page 10 of 20 AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Greenways, Sunnyhill Lane and Strawberry Hill Road Ms. Ritter said there was some confusion surrounding whether the Greenways project is a site plan, a subdivision, or both. So the public hearing announcement went out as a request for a site plan.As it turns out, there is a subdivision element to this project also. The resolutions say subdivision review. As staff studied the regulations, they determined that this is a site plan and a subdivision, but didn't advertise it as such. She explained that the Board will go through the review of the project this even- ing as if they were going to consider approvals, but will not actually give any approvals. Everything can proceed as it normally does, including giving the public a chance to speak.When the project comes back, there will be a public hearing notice that says it is a site plan and a subdivision. There will be a subdivision plat in the materials. This was well noticed; the public is here for the review of this pro- ject. Whatever questions are raised at this meeting, any additional materials the Board might want to see would come to the next meeting. The entire thing won't need to be rehashed at the next meeting. Mr. Bosak asked what is being subdivided. Ms. Brock explained that the Town subdivision chapter defines subdivision as "the division of any parcel of land into two or more lots ..." Lot is defined as "a parcel of land or volume of space." This project is being proposed so that the ownership of the structure is being separated from all the land under it because the community trust will own all the land, including the land under the structures. That's consistent with what the County does on the tax map. They don't consider them separate tax parcels per se, but they give them separate numbers so they can bill the owners of the units. This is consistent with what was done for the Holly Creek Townhomes: subdivision and site plan. Normally you don't do both because town law says that if you're doing subdivision approval, you don't also do site plan approval, but Ithaca Town code says that all multiple residences need site plan approval. Apparently, at some point, the Town, using its municipal home rule law, must have superseded the town law, so in this situation, you do both. Mr. Wilcox stated that there is a defect in the public hearing notice. It does not state that subdivision approval is needed. Therefore,what is proposed is that the Board begin its normal review - have the applicants do their presentation and the Board review the environmental impacts - but take no ac- tion. The public hearing will be readvertised with the correction, and at the next meeting, the Board will continue the discussion and, if appropriate, take action. Scott Reynolds reiterated that this was a 67-unit townhouse project; they were co-developers with Ci- minelli Construction. They came through sketch plan, Ciminelli left, they are now sole developer, and this is now a 46-unit townhouse, affordable housing project for owner-occupied, first-time home, buyers. Like most of INHS's projects, it's designed to be heavily sustainable in many ways. It's finan- cially sustainable using their community housing trust,where INNS owns the land and they sell the structures. The units will be certified at the high Gold level under the LEED for Homes program. Mr. Trowbridge provided information that is new since sketch plan.There are 46 units grouped in three-or four-unit townhouses. It will be built in three phases. the units to the south will be built first, then the units to the north, and Phase III will comprise the units to the west side of the zone line, which also approximates a major water line. The drive is a private driveway that will be constructed and maintained by INHS. There are clusters of parking at both the north and south ends and some Planning Board Minutes 07-01.2014 Page 11 of 20 small distribution along the private drive. The parking areas along the drive will be of a different ma- terial and a different color than the drive.All of the sidewalks are medium-or heavy-duty concrete. They will use mostly native large-canopy trees along the interior of the laneway, which will be spaced roughly 35 feet on center. There is a green area at the center of the site: a mound and tread track that is connected to the walkway system. They feel that adventure play is an appropriate direction to take. About half the area of the site is undisturbed: that will be one way in which children and families can explore the site. Trails will be developed to provide access to the overall site. Regarding the issue brought up at the last meeting about community gardens, they thought it appropriate for this project to have doorstep gardens, so everyone can have their own gardens if they choose. There are also zones around the townhomes where people will have the ability to develop the site as they see fit. Every unit has either a patio or a deck and also a storage unit associated with it. Lighting will be dark sky, sharp cutoff, and will conform to the Town lighting requirements. Depending on the grade, some of the units have full walk-out basements, so those units will have storage underneath. Mr. Bosak pointed out that the sidewalk is flush with the street and that people will park on it: people who are visiting, people who just want to run in - they will park there. Mr. Trowbridge agreed, saying even on Route 79 where he lives, people park on the street. He thinks it will be a management issue. People park illegally in lots of conditions. In this case, they're trying to minimize parking in that central core. There are some ADA parking spots, there are some parking spaces that relate to the units that are central to that area, but what they're trying to do is create a more pedestrian-first zone. If they put in curbs, they will clearly create a street and more conventional suburban development, which they were told they should move away from. They're trying to create something that's multi-purpose in nature, that straddles vehicles and pedestrians, and that minimizes parking. Even though it's not a convention for the Town of Ithaca, it's not a designated Town road. Mr. Bosak said non-conventionality doesn't bother him, but the more that parking is located at the ends, the more antisocial people will be drawn to park in the middle. Mr. Trowbridge responded that it's an issue of management - if people start parking in someone else's front yard, it will be self-policed. Ms. Erb suggested addressing the issue in the HOA document with some wording that talks about expectations of the public spaces not being used for parking. Ms. Collins asked about snow removal. Mr. Trowbridge responded that snow removal will occur differently on this private road than at the two ends associated with Town-based roads at Eastwood Commons. The HOA will have a snow re- moval service. The Town will not be involved in snow removal on the private drive. They're in discus- sions with staff. Ms. Fogarty asked why they didn't choose a community garden.A lot of communities that have a home-ownership association have rules and regulations on what people can plant and whether it can be seen. She thinks that having a community garden as part of this community would get around that issue, and there is plenty of space to do that. Planning Board Minutes 07-01.2014 Page 12 of 20 Mr. Trowbridge responded that it has been his experience with community gardens that someone needs to take authority. Sometimes they look really bad. People will take more responsibility with a doorstep approach,where gardens are immediately adjacent to the units. They may choose not to participate. A zone will be set aside associated with each unit that will allow them to garden and will be part of the language of the HOA. They're called doorstep gardens, but they're probably more than most people typically would garden. Mr. Reynolds said that this is similar to what they did at Holly Creek. INHS will continue to own the land in perpetuity. They sell the structure and give the people who buy the structure the rights and responsibilities as if they're a landowner. The dotted line on the plat for each parcel is their area to use as they see fit. Claudia Brenner, architect, said the townhouses are grouped together in threes or fours. In the build- ing code, townhouses are single-family houses. There are end units and middle units.The smallest is a two-bedroom with around 1000 square feet of living space; the largest three-bedroom unit is just over 1300 square feet. These are modest houses that are very compact and efficiently designed with lots of natural light; even the interior units have a lot of natural light.All have half baths on the first floor and full baths on the second floor with linen closets and washer-dryers. Inset porches create a lot of privacy; the middle units have slightly larger porches to provide them a larger outdoor space. There are decks and patios and storage sheds. Many of the floor plans of the units are similar, but various architectural features and rooflines vary the exterior look. Building materials are very well thought out in terms of energy efficiency: there's cement board siding, triple pane windows. The expectation is that they will be sprinklered like Holly Creek. Mr. Tasman said that at Holly Creek, each unit - even in the same structure - has a different color, but this project will have a different color palette. Ms. Brenner agreed that this project will have a different thematic approach. There will be two colors in every three-or four-unit module and the definition of where you go in the door will be defined by the porches and the gables over the porches so that it's clear that there are four separate units. She expects there will be a common roof color for the entire neighborhood. Mr. Tasman added that a resident brought up the issue of architectural compatibility with the existing neighborhood. Part of that involves color. It's his opinion that the colors are architecturally compati- ble because, although they're not brown, they're muted. He requested that the applicants bring sam- ples next time. Ms. Collins asked why the front doors of the end units don't front onto the street. Ms. Brenner responded that it had to do with where they were going to locate some of the half baths and whether they were entering into living rooms or into an entry area with a closet. There's a lot to fit into 1100 or 1200 square feet. The inset porches have a lot to offer - they're great for lighting and for privacy. Mr. Reynolds said that a similar design is located at 313 and 317 South Corn Street downtown; it has similar buildings and you can see how those doors function. Planning Board Minutes 07-01.2014 Page 13 of 20 Mr. Bosak said his concern is with architecting the buildings to make the addition of PV and solar heating easier in the future. He asked whether any thought had been given to try to maximize that. Mr. Reynolds said that this project is laid out along the topography, and unfortunately the topogra- phy happens to run in the wrong direction. They struggled with trying to make buildings that look different, that don't repeat too often, and that still optimize all these things, and this is the best com- bo they came up with. At Holly Creek, they ended up with a much more compatible solar design. Mr. Bosak asked whether the plumbing is set up in a way to add solar heating in the future. Mr. Reynolds responded that there is a central mechanical room, which not only minimizes the amount of water use in the building, but also allows for direct access to where the hot water is pro- duced vertically through the middle of the building. Ms. Erb added that it would be nice for the HOA bylaws to touch on some issues like there isn't go- ing to be a blanket opposition to roof solar features or the small pocket gardens, so no one down the road tries to ban them. Mr. Reynolds said that the homeowners association can change their bylaws and declarations. INHS does retain some veto power as the landowner. Because the HOA maintains and controls the outside of the buildings, it will be virtually impossible to separate that from the gardens. Ms. Erb said that if it starts out by saying it's desirable to have gardens, maybe it will change the mindset. David Herrick, T.G. Miller, addressed the utilities, snow removal, and the stormwater management concepts. The property has both a property division and a physical interruption from the transmis- sion main that runs between Phase III and Phases I and 1I. It also coincides with the division in wa- tershed boundaries. The presence of the water main helps define some physical watershed bounda- ries. In Phases I and II, there will be the traditional extension of 8 4nch water main and 8 4nch sani- tary sewers, many of which will be dedicated to the Town in easements. Some infrastructure will be privately maintained, primarily to serve Phase III. For Phase III,we will propose a private, small- diameter collection system, our own sewage pit with its sanitary lift station, and we'll force the sewage from Phase III back into the gravity systems that are built as part of Phase 1.The water system will connect to current dead ends at the end of Strawberry Hill Circle; there's a current dead-end pipe and we'll extend that through and connect it to the Town's pipe at the intersection of Wildflower Drive and Strawberry Hill Circle. That will create a loop. We've discussed snow removal on the Town road with the Public Works Committee.At the intersection of Strawberry Hill Circle and Wildflower Drive, the Town does not have to, for any purpose other than ours, drive down that short stub to remove snow.The concept is that the Town can go around the intersection and fulfill the obligation for the homes that do have driveways out to Strawberry Hill Circle or Wildflower Drive.At the south end,we're still in the process of working out what would be an acceptable alignment for the Town's operators without creating a situation that leaves the front door of our project with what could be unsightly additional paving like hammerheads. For stormwater management, the Phase I and Phase 11 projects fall within a watershed that parallels to the Bolton Point transmission lane, passes across private property, ends up at Slaterville Road, then Planning Board Minutes 07-01.2014 Page 14 of 20 runs in front of Mr. Herrick's house. The management of stormwater for Phases I and II is conven- tional: a combination of filter practices,where we've worked them in with the houses' landscaping - bioretention filters that resemble lawn settings. The wetland practice and the pond practice will be linked; they'll be the extension of the driveway to Phase III. These two stormwater wetland cells will be linked with a large diameter pipe beneath the driveway. The full grading and stormwater volume requirements for Phases I and II will initially be built in those two cells. What is appropriate to stage are the treatment practices. They'll be nestled in among the units and won't need to be completed all at once, but only as the units are completed in groups. Phase III falls to the west of the transmission main, and all that land slopes to the west toward Slaterville Road. There is no defined drainage ways through the brush and woodland area.All the neighbors are dealing with the runoff in their own way. The State does have a closed system under Slaterville Road that either discharges water directly to the west or takes it down to a stream that defines the city-town boundary. To replicate the sheet flow conditions of the current setting is going to be extremely difficult to do for Phase 111, mainly because there are fairly steep slopes down to the west, and there's not a considerable amount of space between our units and the property lines to help spread that flow out over a long, broad area. So the best strat- egy for that phase is to provide a conventional dry detention practice, limit the flow out of the prac- tice with an outlet control structure, and take the pipe and extend it down to the existing stream at the city-town border and co-locate that pipe with the pedestrian trail. This should alleviate concerns from the neighbors, it is less disturbance by co-locating with the trail, and they don't have to disturb additional lands in trying to connect the pipe from the detention practice down to Slaterville Road. Mr. Wilcox commented that there are drainage issues along Slaterville Road. He asked whether,when the state came through there and made some changes, there were improvements in the area of the 1300 block and whether the state is handling the water coming off that hill better than they used to. Mr. Herrick responded by pointing out where there is a structure that collects runoff from Winners Circle on the east side of the street. There have been issues on Slaterville Road, but more with the inability of the structures to accommodate the debris,which has plugged up the catch basins. So there is a lot of flow that bypasses down the street - mostly associated with leaf, litter, branches. The low areas and hedgerows are commonly used for disposing lawn clippings, so a lot of material that shouldn't be in ditches is left there and ends up being caught up on the grates. DOT is responsible for cleaning those structures. In some cases, they've taken the grates out of the recesses within the concrete structure and welded on metal legs in order to raise up the grates so the debris can flow through and into the catch basin. When asked for an opinion, Mr. Hebdon said he didn't want to make comments because he got the full SWPPP that afternoon at 1 p.m. and hadn't had time to go through it. It's possible that some of the stormwater issues people are experiencing to the southwest will be improved because the new regulations call for a 30% reduction from what they bring in; that's why all the biodetention practices are coming into vogue. Mr. Herrick pointed out that there is some infrastructure that was built on what was the Eastwood Commons Phase III project - catchbasins, storm manholes, piping - that's already in place and that they will tie into. Mr. Bosak asked whether there was a specific level of catastrophic event they are designing to handle. Planning Board Minutes 07-01.2014 Page 15 of 20 Mr. Herrick responded that the Town's local law and the State's current SPDES permit requirements are to the worst-case, 100-year storm event, peak flow attenuation. In the world of stormwater design- ers, there is now what's called an "extreme precipitation event." For the more frequent storm events, there hasn't been much of a change in the rainfall depths in the models, but for the 50-and 100-year storms, they're looking at larger numbers.You have to plan for greater capacity. Ms. Erb said that the 2-incher that falls in 40 minutes is still going to inundate us. Mr. Herrick responded that you wouldn't be inundating these practices; what's getting surcharged are the catchments (pipe, catch basins) that are located throughout the street and are generally not de- signed for that kind of intensity. If you get that total depth in a short period of time, these stormwater practices will fill up as they're intended to. It's the localized inability of gutter, downspout, small pipe. Mr. Bosak asked what their backup would be for the sewer pump. The last time the Board did this for a privately owned system, they required a generator to be standing by, and that's not part of this plan. It's not set up for a one-week ice storm. Mr. Herrick said someone would have to come and pump out the wet well during a long power out- age; they would have the average day's capacity.A portable generator is something they can think about. They use them in the municipal world for their pump stations. Ms. Fogarty asked whether people would have running water when the power is out. Mr. Hebdon explained that the water system would function just as it does now without any power - all our systems are completely backed up. We have two mega-generators and quick hook-ups on each of our pump stations.All of our tanks have a three-day storage. You wouldn't be able to run your dishwasher or washing machine. If you have a gas water tank,you'd still have hot water. Ms. Collins said that she lived in Commonland, and when the pump station failed or was getting full, it let out a piercing alarm. She suggested that if they have that kind of system, they inform residents about it so they understand the system and know how to proceed. Mr. Hebdon explained that Commonland does not have a generator on their pump station. There's a float inside and once it gets to a certain point, it sets off an alarm so someone notices and has to come over and pump it out.With generators, once it hits a certain point, the generator would start running and you wouldn't hear an alarm. It's usually set up with a landline that calls someone and alerts them that the generator is on. To a question from Ms. Fogarty, Mr. Reynolds said there will be 16 units in the first phase with a two, to three-year lapse before the second phase. Think of this as more of an urban setting rather than a suburban setting. They plow along the street, so the people parked in those spots will have to dig out their cars. There are places in the design to push snow off the end. Mr. Herrick added that they're hoping that some of the stormwater practices can be the repository for snow loading.All our water treatment practices will handle the snow; it will all drain into one of our practices. Mr. Trowbridge pointed out low points all along the drive where water can drain. Planning Board Minutes 07.01.2014 Page 16 of 20 Mr. Hebdon said that from a public works perspective, there are only two phases. For the water and sewer, the loops will have to be in before construction starts. The water and sewer for the second set of buildings will all be in place and accepted by the Town; we'll have the easements. Normally we say they have to run the road all the way through, but this is a private road. The stormwater management facilities for Phases I and II will be built as part of Phase I. Since Phase III is independent from the other two phases,we allowed them to hold off on the utilities for that phase until it happens. Mr. Wilcox asked if there is the potential for a Phase IV, given the amount of land that would be undeveloped to the north and west. Mr. Reynolds responded that they have not contemplated a Phase IV. Mr. Bosak asked about the legal situation at the western end of the walkway. Mr. Wilcox said that there are two properties in the Town of Ithaca that do not front on a town or city road, something known as East Avenue Extension. Mr. Reynolds said they've finally finished researching this issue and gotten the maps together and are going to schedule a meeting with the neighbors soon to talk about what the exact easements are and what their and INHS's rights and responsibilities are. They'll explain how the trail system that will go through there will work. He thinks there are four properties that share an ingress and egress ease- ment. It's a mess for INHS, but not for anyone else. Mr. Wilcox noticed that one neighbor is mowing a substantial piece of land that is owned by Cornell. Mr. Reynolds said that it's very difficult when you're standing there to see the legal situation versus the practical situation. INHS has prepared some photographs and maps that will really make it clear to people. Ms. Brock pointed out that it looks like a portion of that area is in the City of Ithaca, and the Plan- ning Board can't approve a site plan that's in the city. It's fine to show it to us. Mr. Trowbridge said that there is a short section of the trail in the city. He spoke with city staff, and they didn't want to engage. But, yes, a short piece of trail will not be in the town's jurisdiction. Mr. Reynolds said that Cornell owns that parcel and is conveying it to INHS. There's also a section to the left of the stream that's in the city that is being conveyed. INHS is improving only the parcel con- nected with the trail. Ms. Erb said that when she walked the site, she got very confused as to where the trail was coming out of the woods. She asked if the trail could be marked. Mr. Wilcox said he was concerned because he didn't know whether he was on private property or Cornell property. He didn't know if it was because of the homeowner who was mowing. Mr. Reynolds responded that that's a concern for them also. He said flagging is a good idea, and once they've met with the neighbors, they will do that. Planning Board Minutes 07-01.2014 Page 17 of 20 Mr. Wilcox gave the public the opportunity to address the board. Steve Beyers, 1328 Slaterville Road, said the back end of his property abuts the right-of-way. The whole end of the right-of-way is paved, so he's not sure they'd develop it as a trail. He's very much in support of a lot of aspects of this project, especially the housing, which he thinks is very appropriate for the area. He's glad that a good local firm that knows the issues is working on the stormwater. He doesn't have flooding problems, but he has neighbors who do. He's very happy this will be pedestrian friendly because this whole upper end of East Hill is isolated from the path and trailway. He's very excited about that connector, but is fearful that it will happen later in the project and he would like it to happen earlier.A lot of people walk up and hit the dead end and have to walk back down.A lot of his neighbors don't have cars and like the idea of a good pedestrian access. He applauds the Town for the way they maintain the trail. He thinks it's a good project that will make good use of the parcel. Roger Freeman, 241 Strawberry Hill Circle, commented that regarding the four homes that don't have road access yet, that's part of the charm of Ithaca. He hopes the Town slows the process down a bit. There's no developer hovering over the Board for development quickly. He thinks there's a lot yet to be considered. He would like Mr.Wilcox to invite Solar Tompkins to review the project and get their take on if it would be affordable to make this a solar project. Because INHS is nonprofit, he thinks it's a good opportunity for the Planning Board to use the project as a template for what they expect from these kinds of developments: that you want them to be solar, that you want them to be LEED certified, that for the future, there's a standard that has to be met.You can do it with this pro- ject so that when a private developer comes,you can point to these requirements. He commented that the Board has information the public hasn't seen. Mr. Wilcox interjected that all the information is on the web site or the public can visit Town Hall. Mr. Freeman didn't hear in Ms. Brenner's presentation any mention of context. He was looking for context with the surrounding development. He asked to be educated about the thought process - how it complements what's already there. He didn't think Mr. Trowbridge's response was sufficient about parking. He said that in Holly Creek, the first and last units had parking in front. There's plen- ty of space to create parking and have lots of green space. Ms. Erb commented that Holly Creek in the final approval looked nothing like the original sketches - there was considerable give and take. Mr. Wilcox said that the draft resolution for preliminary site plan and subdivision approval already had 16 conditions attached, and he wouldn't be surprised if the Board added another 5 or 10 or even more conditions.And it would not surprise him if it took the applicant team six weeks to a few months to fulfill all the requirements substantially enough to come back to request final site plan approval. He doesn't think the Board is in a hurry. Mr. Bosak commented that the assertion that because this is a not-for-profit, it's easier to load up de- sirable features is exactly wrong, because one of the points of this project is to get the price point down as far as possible. So when we're talking about solar, for example, which he is just as eager as anybody else to see, it's a tradeoff between that and the affordability. So it's not as if this represents some special opportunity to do that. Planning Board Minutes 07-01.2014 Page 18 of 20 Brian Chabot, 511 Strawberry Hill Circle, said his wife and he are fully supportive of the project. They like the way the site will be developed and the values it brings to this particular community. They hope it will eventually be approved. He asked whether Strawberry Hill Circle will ever be a cir- cle. Some years ago, they all faced having to change their addresses because the 911 standards wanted it to be a circle. This causes problems for people trying to find locations and will probably continue being a problem if the other part of the circle has a different name. Mr. Bates said names will often try to stay within a framing for a particular area because it directs emergency services somewhat where to go. It's pretty easy when there's a fire because there's smoke coming out.The problem arises when there are medical emergencies. Emergency services people aren't necessarily from this area, so they don't know the streets.When you go to the Next Generation 911, there may be some name changes and address changes. It will take time because of the cost.Yes, there have been problems up there with the addressing, and eventually, that will be resolved inde- pendent of this project. Mr. Chabot said you've created a circle by creating this road, but you haven't solved the problem if it has a different name. It's an easily solvable problem. Mr. Bates responded that the name will not change in the middle of the street. Whether there has to be a compromise between the two neighborhoods as to what this road gets called,we'll figure that out.When all else fails, Mr. Bates gets to make the decision. Dan Tasman said online maps show all sorts of different names for different parts of Strawberry Hill Circle. There is no street that is officially called Sunnyhill Lane. There used to be. County tax records still show some land on Sunnyhill Lane. Mr. Chabot said that changed 10 years ago. They're still the Sunnyhill Lane Homeowner's Associa- tion for that historical reason. Mr. Tasman said the developer is suggesting calling their portion Greenways Lane. Mr. Chabot said that makes no sense. Joan Carlson said they have planned for 1.5 cars per unit and that doesn't seem like enough. She lives at 341 Strawberry Hill Circle, that short dead-end piece, and she sees people parking there all the time. She also sees a lot of increased traffic on Wildflower Drive. She hopes they will address the parking facilities available for the residents. Everyone knew this land would be developed, and as this is a much better project, she has no objections to it. She heard Mr. Herrick say that they won't do plowing on that dead-end section. It's right in front of her and another woman's unit. They use it in the winter; they have guests who park there and they sometimes park there. Ms. Brock said the road will not remain dead end - the road will connect through - so it will get plowed. The only question is whether the Town plows it. The proposal has been made that Green, ways might do it for the Town. She has to figure out whether that's legal. Planning Board Minutes 07-01.2014 Page 19 of 20 Mr. Wilcox said they can ask the applicant team to provide statistics for the number of vehicles per unit at Holly Creek so the Board can get a better idea of the expectations for this project. Jack Booker, 308 Eastwood Avenue in the city, said he's been a walker to Cornell for 40 years, so he's very much in favor of the project. He hopes this doesn't inadvertently open the walkway up to motor- ized things with two wheels, etc. Mr. Trowbridge said that when they came up with the parking ratio, INHS determined it based on statistics from places like Holly Creek. It wasn't a random set of parking requirements. They will bring the data next time. There are no motorized vehicles allowed on town trails, and this will hold true on this trail system also. The city has a series of sidewalk projects that they're envisioning and when INHS approached them with this project, they were looking at the possibility - since there are no sidewalks on Eastwood Avenue - of this being one of their future sidewalk projects. Dan Tasman said that staff does look at architecture when these projects come in. Eastwood Com- mons was proposed in 1973 - 41 years ago. The architectural style of Eastwood Commons is some- thing called shed style; it's most popular in the Pacific Northwest. It was a fad of the 1970s and was tied in with the ecology movement of the times because it was seen as rustic, more natural. But it's really a product of the 1970s, and there are not many examples of shed style after the 1970s. So when we look at architectural compatibility for a development,we're not necessarily looking for specific style; for example, there are a lot of subdivisions in Ithaca that were built in the 1950s, and if an infill project came in, we're not going to be asking for mid-century modern that has to look like it was built in the 1950s. The idea is to respect what's there and to put in quality architecture, but not necessarily duplicate that specific style.As planners, we're acutely aware that many previous multi-family projects do take on a complex look when you have parking in front of the units. People really want to live on a street now. Increasingly,you want to have a streetscape - homes fronting on a street, there might be parallel parking, but people don't want to live next to a parking lot.When people come in with a project,we tell them to try to avoid the appearance of that complex with a lot of units fronting on parking lots, parking spaces, so on - to try to corral the car, hide it a little bit more, provide a more natural streetscape rather than the appearance of homes fronting on parking lots. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - Nobody came forward to address the Board. AGENDA ITEM Approval of Minutes PB Resolution No. 2014.040: Minutes of May 20, 2014 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on May 20; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, as amended, to be the final minutes of the meeting on May 20. Planning Board Minutes 07-01-2014 Page 20 of 20 Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Beach, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb Abstentions: Collins PB Resolution No. 2014-041: Minutes of June 3, 2014 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Flollis Erb WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on June 3; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, as amended, to be the final minutes of the meeting on June 3. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Linda Collins, the meeting adjourned at 10:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra DcAugistrrrc, Deputy/To^i Clerk