HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2014-07-15TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday. July 15. 2014
AGENDA
7:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: St. Catherine of Siena Church 3-Lot Subdiyision, Blackstone
Ayenue and Siena Driye.
7;00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdiyision Approyal and
a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a Sign Variance for the
proposed three-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.
7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Greenways, Sunnyhill Lane and Strawberry Hill Road.
7;15 P»M, PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approyal and Preliminary
Subdiyision 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 Service, Applicant; Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape
Architects LLP, Agent.
5. Persons to be heard
6. Approyal of Minutes: (none ayailable)
7. Other Business
8. 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, July 15, 2014
215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox(Chair), Linda Collins,Joseph Haefeli, 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 7:02 p.m. and accepted the secretary's posting of the public
hearing notices.
AGENDA ITEM
SEQR Determination: St. Catherine of Siena Church 3-Lot Subdivision, Blackstone Avenue and
Siena Drive
Ms. Morris-Knower stated that St. Catherine is applying to subdivide in order to put the parcel up for
sale to raise money for a new community center.
Mr. Wilcox said that according to the County's Imagemate system, it is one parcel with a total size of
12.01 acres. If the applicant gets approval to subdivide out Parcel A, they will essentially cut out the
middle and create a three-lot subdivision. The large parcel the church sits on is parcel C. The one
they want to subdivide out and sell is Parcel A. Parcel B is in two pieces separated by Blackstone Ave.
PB Resolution No. 2014.042: SEAR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval and
Recommendation to ZBA Regarding Sign Variance, St. Catherine of Siena Church 3-Lot
Subdivision, Intersection of Siena Drive and Blackstone Avenue, Tax Parcel No. 71:1.10
Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Fred Wilcox
WHEREAS:
1. This is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval and a Recommendation to
the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a Sign Variance for the proposed three-lot subdivision of
the St. Catherine of Siena Church property located at the intersection of Blackstone Avenue and
Siena Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71:1-10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The
proposal involves subdividing 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; and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the lead agency in the
environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval; and
Planning Board Minutes 07.15.2014
Page 2 of 11
3. The Planning Board on July 15, 2014, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environ-
mental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by the
Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Survey Map, Showing Portion of Lands of St. Cathe-
rine of Siena Church, Located on Blackstone Avenue and Siena Circle, Town of Ithaca, Tomp-
kins County, New York," prepared by T. G. Miller P.C., dated 7/11/2013, revised 7/3/2014, and
other application materials; and
4. Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance
with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval;
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 action 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, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
Vote
Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb
AGENDA ITEM
Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval and a Recommenda-
tion to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a Sign Variance for the proposed three-lot subdivision
of the St. Catherine of Siena Church property located at the intersection of Blackstone Avenue and
Siena Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-1-10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The pro-
posal involves subdividing 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
Mr.Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m.
Mr.Wilcox said he doesn't like subdivisions that use water course boundaries for two reasons: 1) the
surveyor can't put pins in the creek, and 2) 20 or 30 years from now, the creek may have moved but
the boundary may not have moved,which could lead to disputes between owners.
Ms. Morris-Knower said Parcel B will always be retained for signage.
Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:20.
PB Resolution No. 2014.043: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval and Recommendation
to ZBA Regarding Sign Variance, St. Catherine of Siena Church 3-Lot Subdivision, Intersection of
Siena Drive and Blackstone Avenue, Tax Parcel No. 71:1-10
Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Linda Collins
WHEREAS:
Planning Board Minutes 07.15.2014
Page 3 of 11
1. This is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval and a Recommendation to
the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a Sign Variance for the proposed three-lot subdivision of
the St. Catherine of Siena Church property located at the intersection of Blackstone Avenue and
Siena Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71:1-10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The
proposal involves subdividing 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; and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency
with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on July 15, 2014, made a negative determination of en-
vironmental 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 the Town
Planning staff-, and
3. The Planning Board on July 15, 2014, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map enti-
tled "Survey Map, Showing Portion of Lands of St. Catherine of Siena Church, Located on Black-
stone Avenue and Siena Circle, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T.
G. Miller P.C., dated 7/11/2013, revised 7/3/2014, and other application materials;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivi-
sion Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined
from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration of neither the
purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board; and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the pro-
posed three-lot subdivision located at the intersection of Blackstone Avenue and Siena Drive, as
shown on the survey map entitled "Survey Map, Showing Portion of Lands of St. Catherine of Si-
ena Church, Located on Blackstone Avenue and Siena Circle," subject to the following condition:
a. submission for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board of an original and three
dark lined prints of the final subdivision plat, revised to show the correct label for Parcel C
and to change "Siena Circle" to Siena Drive" in the above-referenced survey map's title block,
prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing
to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board, acting as the Sign Review Board, recommends to the Zoning Board of Ap-
peals that the request for a sign variance for the existing the St. Catherine of Siena Church,which
will be considered "off-premise" as a result of the subdivision, be approved.
Vote
Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb
Planning Board Minutes 07.15.2014
Page 4 of 11
AGENDA ITEM
SEQR Determination: Greenways, Sunnyhill Lane and Strawberry Hill Road
Ms. Ritter made a clarification about the Greenways project. Two years ago, the applicant decided to
rescind the project; it was not denied by the Town, as the Ithaca Journal reported. It hadn't gotten that
far in the process.There were no approvals on the table.
Mr.Wilcox requested that the Board and applicant cover only new material.
Scott Reynolds said that this project, like all of their homeownership projects, is part of their com-
munity housing trust. Under the housing trust, INHS owns the land in perpetuity and only the struc-
ture itself is sold. From a tax point of view, they grant the people who buy the structures all the rights
and responsibilities that normally run with the land, including the tax burden for the piece of land.
Under this type of situation, the taxes are bound up with the structure and are not part of the land
value itself. Each unit sold will have a separate tax parcel number to help the assessment department
determine where the bill goes.
Mr. Herrick talked about drainage and phasing. He said that all the permanent stormwater practices
needed for Phases I and II will be constructed in Phase 1. They won't complete all the water quality
practices in Phase 11 during the construction of Phase I because they're not needed until the im-
provements are constructed. The stormwater wetland practices will be constructed because they pro-
vide some water quality improvement and also the full detention storage required and the peak flow
attenuation. Phase III is roughly 1.2 disturbed acres they also have to provide permanent water quali-
ty practices and permanent detention storage practices for. The issue he has for Phase III is that after
they provide the detention in a dry detention facility, there will need to be an outlet for some of that
flow since all the flow collected from the 1.2-acre area will not be completely stopped. He suggests the
outlet be connected into an existing watercourse this property has access to on Eastwood Ave to
which they can provide a direct physical connection. They will not have to disturb additional neigh-
bors and undisturbed property to get to Slaterville Road.The piping improvement can be co-located
with the construction of the sidewalk and run adjacent to or under the walkway. They metered the
flow out of their current detention basin down to such a limited amount in the 100-year event that
it's a matter of 100 gallons per minute at the peak rate of discharge. The stream that they're tying
into, right at the city-town line, has capacity significantly greater than that. They're providing so much
detention storage in their practice that when they throttle that flow out, it's literally what can be car-
ried through a 4 4nch pipe. Phases I and II are consistent with pre-developed and post-developed miti-
gation of stormwater impacts. Phase III is a little odd in that they want to provide the pipe connection
to the existing stream that they have access to at Eastwood Avenue. They are mitigating those peak
flows out of that practice to such an extent that it's literally half of a cubic foot per second, which is
238 gallons per minute at the peak of the 100 year rainfall event. For more conventional rainfall
events, it's more like 100 gallons per minute to be the discharge from this practice.
Mr. Bosak said that he remembered from the last meeting that the 100-year flood has been upgraded
to 5.9 inches in 24 hours.
Mr. Herrick responded that 5.9 is what they consider to be the extreme precipitation event. He's us-
ing 5.5 inches in his hydrology.
Planning Board Minutes 07.15.2014
Page 5 of 11
Mr. Bosak requested that at a future meeting with a light agenda, Mr. Hebdon give a presentation
about the new New York State regulations regarding off-flow reductions.
Mr. Herrick answered some questions from the Board. He said that there won't be discharge directly
into the stream, but through an existing pipe. It continues down the stream to Slaterville Road. That
will not need to be reinforced to handle the extra flow. The flow they expect to be discharged into
this practice will be so slight relative to the overall watershed discharge that it will be imperceptible.
Regarding Mr. Bosak's question about the new requirements dealing with runoff, there is an expecta-
tion now that you'll use green infrastructure practices to reduce the volume of runoff that's routed
through the permanent wetland or dry basin practices. They incorporate those bioretention filters in
all phases of this project for that purpose. The concept is that if you can take runoff collected and
somehow infiltrate it into the ground, you'll ultimately have less volume that's running overland or
into streams or into pipes.
Peter Trowbridge addressed parking. They looked at Holly Creek and used it as a model for the num-
ber of parking spaces that might be required at Greenways. It's slightly more: 1.4 cars per unit.At
Holly Creek, two-bedroom units have fewer cars by a fraction than three-bedroom units.
Mr. Wilcox asked what the average selling price is for Holly Creek.
Mr. Reynolds said that the average selling price for units in Holly Creek Phase II is $130,000. The
projected sale price for Greenways units in Phase I is roughly the same.
Mr. Wilcox said that if they were $150,000 units, there might be slightly more vehicles per household
because they could afford it. He pointed out that there are extra spaces built in: based on Holly
Creek, they need 58 spaces and the current plan shows 66,which is an extra 10%. He's comfortable
with that.
Ms. Erb said she feels comfortable, too, because they have the same model and the same income crite-
rion and the same rough size of units.
Ms.Wedemeyer pointed out that there isn't even one guest parking space per building.
Mr. Trowbridge responded that because the parking ratio is slightly larger for Greenways, they're
providing some additional parking. They know that Holly Creek works. There's a slight premium at
Greenways and the hope is that [inaudible].
Ms. Erb pointed out that there are only 65 parking spaces.
They discussed and revised the EAR
Mr. Bosak noted that the one copy of the traffic study the Board received was labeled "Draft." He
wondered when they would receive the final study so they could reference it.
Planning Board Minutes 07.15.2014
Page 6 of 11
Mr. Reynolds responded that it is correctly labeled as draft, but that the report was done for the earli-
er, larger project. So he suggests that they don't need to go out and pay another$5000 to change six
numbers in this report.
Mr. Wilcox said that the traffic this project will generate doesn't meet the substantial threshold ac-
cording to the form, but the Board has to make a determination of whether there's a significant envi-
ronmental impact.
Mr. Bosak asked whether they could answer that question by pointing to a study made for a different
project, and if so, how they would call that out.
Mr. Wilcox responded that each Board member needs to determine whether a traffic report done for
a larger previous proposal is sufficient to provide the information the Board needs.
Ms. Erb said she accepts that this is for the larger project previously proposed, and if these numbers
are correct, she is willing to call it insubstantial. She pointed out, however, that Figure 4 of the draft
report does not make sense for the current condition of Honness Lane turning onto Pine Tree Road.
The [Cornell] TGEIS and everything in this report indicates that in the afternoon, the dominant traf-
fic flow on Pine Tree Road is southbound, but the figure shows that in the afternoon peak,we have
almost 50 percent more cars turning left towards Cornell than during the morning rush hour. How
can 25 cars be going towards Cornell in the morning and 66 in the afternoon during peak hour? Fig-
ure 6,which is explicitly just the counts of traffic coming out of the project, shows 13 in the morning
and only 6 in the afternoon,which seems reasonable, but is not internally consistent. Flipping the
ratio of left turns struck her as odd.
Mr. Hebdon said he has seen the stormwater management study,which was given to him a week and
a half prior.A glance at the numbers seems to make sense. He believes stormwater management can
be properly dealt with on the site. Regarding the letter from Mr. Lyman on Slaterville Road, Mr.
Hebdon said he needs to look at the pipe capacity. He said the letter is talking about the same pipe
that Mr. Herrick referenced for Phase III. It has to be evaluated.
Ms. Fogarty asked what the procedure is if the pipe is not sufficient to carry the runoff.
Mr. Hebdon said he hadn't had a chance to review the documents yet. What the neighbor said is that
there's already a problem. Between preliminary and final approval, engineering will figure out what
needs to be changed. The volume is a very small amount that will go through the pipe. It won't solve
the problem, but it won't exacerbate the problem.This is the first he's heard that there's a problem,
so he will have to investigate.
Mr. Bosak said that Mr. Lyman's assertion that the channel is at or close to its maximum capacity and
is damaging the retaining walls sounds like a collision with the statement that it will have no effect.
Mr. Wilcox said the question is whether it would exacerbate the existing condition. It's complicated
by the fact that Mr. Lyman lives in the city - the impact he's reporting on could be the result of
stormwater mismanagement or issues in the town or in the city.
Mr. Hebdon added that it may be a problem with the state, but it's not in the town's purview to fix it.
Planning Board Minutes 07.15.2014
Page 7 of 11
Ms.Wedemeyer said that assuming that there's already damage being done due to water flow, even if
what is added to the flow is minimal, the Board has to assume that the problem will be accelerated.
Regardless of whose problem it is now, what would the procedure be if Mr. Hebdon finds that we've
reached the tipping point?
Ms. Erb said she has a problem with an assertion coming in at this late stage that there's this problem.
All of Ithaca has water problems from the people up hill. The state has upped the ante in terms of
what can be discharged, and we've had an assertion that what's going to come out is essentially negli-
gible. Mr. Lyman isn't saying it's flooding and taking out his foundation, but that it's at or near capac-
ity.We can't pass our problems on down the hill, but she doesn't think it reaches the threshold.
Ms. Wedemeyer said her question isn't whether or not it reaches the threshold, but what kind of pro-
tection or safety net exists - the process in the event we find there would be additional damage.
Mr. Hebdon responded that if he felt there was a problem, the developer might have to do some mit-
igation in the channels they are discharging into. That's part of the SWPPP review: they might need
rock lining, etc. The developer would be responsible for doing what engineering feels they need to do.
Mr. Wilcox said that presuming this Board finds there are no significant environmental impacts and
that it grants preliminary with lots of conditions, certainly one of those conditions is that their
stormwater management plan will be reviewed and adjusted as necessary to meet all the requirements.
That's standard operating procedure.The items have to be nailed down for final approval.
Ms. Brock said the Board needs to decide if there's a potential for a significant impact and make a
decision from there. This is not a late date; it's a perfectly acceptable time to get this information.
Mr. Haefeli is concerned about the traffic issues. From a SEQR perspective, it doesn't have a signifi-
cant impact.When the presentation was made at the Lutheran church, traffic was a concern of some
of the residents. There are already dangerous conditions at both the intersections, particularly at the
intersection of Honness and Slaterville.We have issues that aren't being addressed and this will ag-
gravate them.
Mr. Bosak said that both times he's been out there to check it out, it hasn't been good coming down
on Honness Lane; the sight lines are not good, and he can see where making a left would be taking
your life in your hands. But he was having trouble figuring out how that part would be made worse by
increased traffic. The project is not affecting the traffic coming down Route 79, so as each person
reaches that intersection, there would be the same odds of sudden death regardless of how many cars
are behind him.
Ms. Erb said that Figure 6 suggests under the larger project that one person in the morning and no-
body in the afternoon would be dumb enough to try to turn left. Sixteen people in the morning and
seven in the afternoon would be trying to turn right, and those are the site-generated trips.
Mr. Wilcox said that when he thinks about the environmental issues of traffic, he thinks about level
of service, for example, at intersections.
Planning Board Minutes 07.15.2014
Page 8 of 11
Mr. Tasman pointed out that the staff report states that there is no change in level of service. Nothing
is below B, and B is pretty good. The number of units in this project is 25 percent that of the thresh-
old. These studies don't account for small changes in human behavior - that people are going to de-
cide to take another route because a tree blocks their view or a deer ran in front of the car.Another
thing to consider is that even though these are added vehicle trips, this is an infill site. If it's not de-
veloped here,we have to consider that these are 46 units will be somewhere else, and the environ-
mental impacts of driving longer distances, burning more fossil fuels,wear and tear on the road, have
greater regional environmental impact than local impacts.
PB Resolution No. 2014.044:SEQR, Preliminary Site Plan and Preliminary Subdivision Approval,
INHS-Greenways, Tax parcels 60.1.34.2, 60.1.1.46.22-Strawberry Hill Circle
Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Paula Wedemeyer
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of preliminary site plan and subdivision approval 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) (±10.4 acres total). The proposal
is for a cluster development with 46 residential units. The project will also include parking areas,
open space, walking trails, play areas, landscaping, outdoor lighting, and stormwater management
facilities. Cornell University, owner; Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, applicant; Trow-
bridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, TG Miller Engineering, consultants; and
2. This is a Type 1 Action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part
617, and Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 148 - Environmental Quality Review; and
3. At its meeting on May 20, 2014, the Planning Board proposed to establish itself as lead agency to
coordinate the environmental review of the above-referenced action, and notified potential in-
volved and interested agencies of its intent to serve as lead agency; and
4. The Planning Board, at its meeting on July 15, 2014, reviewed and accepted as adequate a set of
drawings titled "Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services - Greenways",with the following: cover
sheet(000, 5-30-2014), boundary map/topographic map (1/1, 84-2012), erosion and sediment
control plan(C101, 5-30-2014), utility plan (C102, 5-30-2014), details (C201, 5-30-2014), site
clearing plan(1-101, 5-30-2014), overall layout (1-200, 5-30-2014), detailed layout plans (1-210, 5-
30-2014), typical(road) sections (1-220, 5-30-2014), grading plan(1,301, 5-30-2014), planting plan
(1,401, 5-30-2014), site details (1,501, 5-30-2014), architecture (L1.0, 4-21-2014), elevations (A-03,
A-04,A 05, A-41,A-43,A-44, 5-30-2014), trash pavilions (A-50, 5,30-2014), phasing plan(C1.0,
4/21/14), and preliminary subdivision plat(7-10-2014), along with other application materials;
and
5. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental signifi-
cance with respect to the proposed project;
Planning Board Minutes 07.15.2014
Page 9 of 11
IT IS RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from other involved
agencies, establishes itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above-
described proposal; and
2. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board 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 information in the FEAF Part 1, and for reasons set forth in the FEAF Parts 2
and 3, and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
Vote
Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak, Erb
AGENDA ITEM
Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Preliminary Subdivision Ap-
proval 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 Multi-
ple Residence Zones. The proposal involves the development of 46 townhouse units west of East-
wood Commons, fronting on private 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 University, Owner; Ithaca Neigh-
borhood Housing Service,Applicant; Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP,Agent
Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 9:51 p.m.
Nathan Lyman, 1322 East State Street, said his is the last house inside the city. One of his concerns is
the question of stormwater detention.As of 3 p.m., this stormwater plan was not on the Town's web
site; he received an email from Susan Ritter acknowledging that. He is not normally in Ithaca during
the front part of the week, so he might have missed the comment period, but there were a couple
points he wanted to raise. First, there's a draft traffic study. He didn't hear anybody talk about when
the traffic study was done -whether Cornell was in session at the time it was done. It's not on the
web site. Neither was the EAR If the public is supposed to participate, it would seem appropriate to
have the documents the Board spent the last two hours discussing available on the web site. His pri-
mary concern is stormwater drainage. He sent an email today and made three video files available to
the Town engineer. He asked if the heavy rain event in May was a 25-year, 50-year, or 100-year storm
or if it was not a weather-related event in terms of the downpour. If you look at the video files, not
only was the water up 4 to 5 feet, it was almost filling the culvert; it was pouring down Route 79 be-
cause the state has decided to put a catch basin in the middle of the culvert. So it's not just a question
of the capacity of the culvert as the water comes down, it's also the capacity of the culvert as the water
pours on top. The video shows that the water was pouring over the east side of the bank on his prop-
erty and was also pouring over the west side of the bank. If that wasn't a storm event, he's concerned
about what will happen when we do get a storm of that capacity, particularly in terms of the erosion
he has observed on his property in the last three years. There had been a stone retaining wall built
into the edge of the bank that has been washed down. The roots of a very large tree are now exposed.
Planning Board Minutes 07.15.2014
Page 10 of 11
He knows the state doesn't maintain the culvert because he had to dig it out two weeks ago.When
Ms.Wedemeyer raised the point of what happens if this is a tipping point - it's the Board's obligation
to find out. If it was in a Board member's back yard, they would be concerned, too. He also asked that
they look at the road because a large crack has developed across Route 79 at the edge of this culvert.
The ground is sinking on his property. So there's a significant problem, and if this is going to exacer-
bate it, it should be dealt with ahead of time and not after the fact.
Johathan Butcher, 1342 Slaterville Road, said his primary concern is with the environmental and
stormwater assessment. Over the last seven years, his property looks like a flood zone, especially with
the snow melt. His understanding about the retaining ponds is that the porosity of the soil is an im-
portant indicator of how well the pond will soak up water and deliver it.Where the soil is not as po-
rous, the water will build and potentially spill over. He has rivers running through his property all the
way from the back yard to the front yard. The contour lines create a funnel down to the property line.
You can see there's a culvert between the boundary of his property and the one next to it, but that
doesn't mean that's where the water flows. His concern is that if you increase the impervious surface
ten-fold, and then add a lot of snow removal, that's not going to dissipate like a regular rain storm,
and you will have a significant flooding issue.Along those lines, when we talk about the 100-year
storm prediction, maybe it's important to think about the next 100 years, not the previous, because
we may be in a situation now, given the climate changes,where this year will be the 100-year storm
and it will only get worse from now on. The second issue with respect to the environmental plan is
that he couldn't see the document the Board was discussing. He was concerned with the number of
errors he heard regarding the identification of what is marshland, field land, etc, because it makes it
difficult to have an idea of whether the environment is going to be damaged because we don't know
what's actually there. The vegetation is varied in different regions of that property and influences the
diversion of water. The only thing on the southwest corner is the addition of the pond.The docu-
ment says it will be undisturbed land for unstructured play. His concern is that it seems the area will
be left alone. There are safety concerns with that, especially for children, and the concern about dis-
placing whatever animal species are living there. He thinks it makes sense for somebody to be out
there investigating these things. Is what constitutes unstructured from structured area just the end of
mown grass?Will there be a fence?The walkway is rather inefficient for certain houses if they're going
to use it to walk to Eastwood Avenue.What's to stop people from walking through the woods or find-
ing some other paths that might be more efficient? If this stormwater practice doesn't drain quickly, it
might breed mosquitos. It could also be a big issue for this area because you can see from the topog-
raphy that the water goes straight down to his and the neighboring properties. His last concern is
about the traffic study that was done in September 2012. He doesn't know if the planned demograph-
ic will be the same as the current demographic and if they'll have different traffic needs; for example,
if they have a higher percentage of jobs they'll need to travel for. One idea he's seen done in Boulder,
Colorado, is for everyone who is going to live in a certain development complex to have a bus pass -
some strategy to discourage cars. His last concern is about how the unstructured land will be main-
tained: have they thought about what will happen if the fees for upkeep of the area end up being 30
to 50 percent of the actual mortgage amount?
Jon Finlay, 323 Eastwood Ave,which is past the dead end sign in the Town, worries about the in-
creased foot traffic in front of his property and down Eastwood Ave, which wasn't designed for foot
traffic. People park on both sides of the road and there are no sidewalks. From the bottom of Hon-
ness Lane to the city line, there are no sidewalks on Route 79, and people from this new development
Planning Board Minutes 07-15-2014
Page 11 of II
and other parts up towards Pine Tree Road will also use this pathway that will lead onto Eastwood
Ave.
Tara Finley said her other concern is about the path. She wondered whether there is any potential for
motorized traffic such as mopeds on the path, and said there could be safety issues with people cross
ing over her driveway and her neighbor's driveway, where they have a right of way, because it's hard to
see. There arc no sidewalks for this foot traffic to funnel down.
Nancy Leeming, 221 Strawberry Hill Circle, commented that the applicant keeps comparing the park
ing situation with Holly Greek, but Holly Creek isn't finished. She asked if there was some area in
town that is similar that could be used to determine how much parking this needs. She has heard of
people going to Holly Creek and not being able to find a place to park.
Joel Harlan, Ncwfield, thinks this a good project. He said the Planning Board will be facing lawsuits
from people all over town who are scared of development and think of it as terrorism.
Mr. Wilcox moved to adjourn the public hearing to the meeting of August 5th.
Mr. Hebdon stated that the storm Mr. Lyman referred to was over a 100-year storm.
AGENDA ITEM
Persons to be heard - Nobody came forward to address the Board.
AGENDA ITEM
Other business
Mr. Wilcox announced that Mr. Hacfele has agreed to take on the position of the full-time Planning
Board member and that Ms. Wcdemeyer has agreed to serve as the alternate until an alternate gets
appointed. The Town Board still needs to act.
AGENDA ITEM
Adjournment
Upon a motion by Hollis Erb, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
ra DeAum?;tme, DeputyfTowfKClerk