Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2014-08-05TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. August 5. 2014 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Continuation of consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed Greenways project located off Sunnyhill Lane and Strawberry Hill Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60-1-34.2 and 60.1-1-46.22, Medium Density Residential and Multiple Residence Zones. The proposal involves the development of 46 townhouse units west of Eastwood 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 Neighborhood Housing Service, Applicant; Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP, Agent. 2. Persons to be heard 3. Approval of Minutes: July 1,2014 and July 15, 2014 4. Other Business 5. Adjournment Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273-1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday,August 5, 2014 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox(Chair), Linda Collins,Joseph Haefeli,John Beach,Yvonne Fogarty, Paula Wedemeyer,Jon Bosak Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Dan Tasman, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Creig Hebdon, Town Engineer; Susan Brock,Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and accepted the secretary's posting of the public hearing notice. AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Continuation of consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed Greenways project located off Sunnyhill Lane and Strawberry Hill Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60-1-34.2 and 60.1-1-46.22, Medium Density Residential and Multiple Residence Zones. The proposal involves the development of 46 townhouse units west of Eastwood 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 Neighborhood Housing Service, Applicant;Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP, Agent Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. Mr. Bosak asked about the email Planning Board members received from Sue Ritter saying that a statement she had made regarding the existence of paths to the east was incorrect. Mr. Tasman said that at sketch plan, Ms. Ritter incorrectly stated that Eastwood Commons did not have trail access to the East Ithaca Recreation Way. In her email, she said she had "since been to Eastwood Commons and [was] shown that a trail connection does indeed exist. The Greenways representatives and Eastwood Commons HOA Board representatives are in the process of working things out so that it is clear that the trails/walkways associated with each development would be open to use by residents of both housing developments." Mr. Wilcox asked about the folks who live on Eastwood Avenue extension. Four lots have deeded rights of ingress and egress over the Cornell University property. He asked whether the proposed path will interfere with their rights. One of those properties has no road frontage at all on a city street or state highway. Mr. Reynolds responded that that would be a violation of the easement. There were improvements put in place by some of the owners in the past. There's not a shared maintenance agreement at this Planning Board Minutes 08-05.2014 Page 2 of 16 point. Once preliminary approval is granted, they'll try to meet with those people to work out details. It's an old-fashioned access easement that's not as specific as those drawn today. Mr. Wilcox commented that the trail would get people to the East Hill Rec Way. There's a trail there now, and people are using it, but it's informal. Mr. Wilcox invited the public to speak. Joan Carlson provided the following prepared statement: "The site plan for the Greenway Project is much improved over the previous proposal. The lower density is certainly more appropriate. However, I still have several concerns. I live at 341 SHC directly adjacent to buildings J and K. Buildings J and K are located much closer to 341 SHC (approx 50 to 60 ft.) than any other Greenway Bldg. is to an ECRA bldg. You have also placed 4 unit Bldgs. at that site and This certainly will increase traffic, congestion and noise on our streets. Why not place 3 unit Bldgs. there and the 4 unit blogs in the lower area where there is more space.Another idea would be to place the 3 unit building facing each other with a 14 ' roadway between. Even better is to place only one building in the upper region and place the second building in the third phase. This whole project has the most impact on 341 SHC. Changing the J and K units will make a huge difference. The proposed site for bldgs J and K are on wet lands--There is swale that contains cat tails and wet land vegetation and it is also the receiver of rain runoff and snow melt. At times during the year it is quite full. It is my understanding you intend to move or delete this feature. As you know building on wet lands is not usually a good idea as it creates problems for the resi- dents and buildings alike. Also you will be removing large trees and shrubs and paving in the area therefore creating more runoff problems.Also there is a small pond on the south side of the upper road that contains water most of the year. For many years ECRA has maintained a grassy area from our property line, about 30 ft., onto the land in question. This land, the 30' and also the swale, will be part of the 50' to 60' ft. to the first bldg. It really puts the bldgs very close to us. I understand you will be planting trees and shrubs to create a barrier. How many trees,what size and when. The trees you will be removing have many years of growth and the replanted trees will certainly take a long time to reach that level. That is to be expected. Also you will be cutting trees down and removing shrubs and building on the site further reducing areas for runoff Traffic is another concern The Greenway Project will have a huge impact on the traffic on WFD and then in front of 341 SHC. The northern units, F, G, H, I,J, K,will undoubtably use WFD as their entrance. The 14' road way thru the project will not be conducive to reaching their parking areas. There are 24 units that will or could be using WFD and lower SHC to get to their homes. This will be a huge increase in traffic for our area. All the traffic studies have been done only on Honness Lane,Judd Falls Road and Rt 79. 1 have heard no mention of a study on WFD. Also, if there Planning Board Minutes 08-05.2014 Page 3 of 16 is not adequate parking for residents or guests they will be parking on SHC. This will not be appropriate. I understand many of your restraints but I still feel adjustments could and should be made. Units in 341 SHC are receiving the most impact as the result of your proposed project, Close- ness of units, increase traffic and noise. The assessment of our units will most likely be be devalued, and I have my biggest financial investment in my unit. It is my home. I will be very unhappy if this occurs. I have one more concern. What will be the process for the upkeep of the property? I under- stand there will be a HOA, but will the owners be prepared to support and maintain the de- velopment. ECRA spends a great deal of money on property upkeep. Grass cutting, weeding, care of trees and shrubs, snow removal, exterior building maintenance, driveways etc costs a great deal of money.Will they understand the commitment. Plus will they be willing to serve on a board and take action when necessary?These are all big questions. Please take my suggestions seriously when you make your decision. Many people in ECRA will be affected by your decisions. In general the project is fine but it needs some tweeking." Susan Schultz Tapscott, also at Building 341, said she agrees with everything Ms. Carlson said and endorses it heartily. She's confused about how this is a green project. She thought the first premise with green design is to do no harm. It will cover up a fine wetland swale that works very well. She presumes that the detention pond is to compensate for the loss of that wetland. It's a big thing to replicate a wetland, and they don't always get done right. Over 20 percent of wetlands that have been developed in Massachusetts for projects like this don't even get built; they fall by the wayside. She wondered about the vigilance in New York State, and if there are laws pertaining to what is required if you take away an existing functioning wetland and build something instead. Does someone go in and inspect to make sure it's done right, and is there long-term maintenance planned?Wetlands don't just keep working by themselves. One thing that happens is that invasive species comes in. Right now we have an ecosystem that is a natural, native wetland. Taking care of wetlands is a big part of maintenance. Detention ponds can end up looking like Route 1 in New Jersey -you can see all the industry there and Canadian geese where detention ponds weren't turned into proper wetlands. She thinks Building K should be shifted so as not to take away the existing wetland. A gentleman said it's been presented as being for sale, but they're now saying these units could be rented if they're not sold.Also, he doesn't think the road with the two parking lots will work. If you go up to Eastwood Commons, there are two parking lots and each unit has a garage, but anyone going there now would see that the cars on Wildflower Drive are parked along the street. He thinks it would be better if the new road was a legal town road as opposed to a private road. Joel Harlan, Newfield, stated that if the Board listened to these people, there wouldn't be any development at all. Ms. Carlson said this was the first she had heard that the houses might possibly be rented. If they were all rented and people don't care what the houses look like or don't want to join an association and have a nice environment to live in, that would change things a lot. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:27. Planning Board Minutes 08-05.2014 Page 4 of 16 Mr. Hebdon said that in the last three weeks, he has reviewed the stormwater plan; it meets all the town and state regulations. There's a little bit of tweaking left to do, but nothing major. Ms. Collins asked what it means to be a green project related to the wetlands and drainage issues. Mr. Hebdon responded that since 2004 when the stormwater regulations first went into effect, they've gone to what they call "best management practices."Where before, you were required to maintain the flow coming off the property to what it was before, now, depending on the type of soil, you have to reduce the CFS [cubic feet per second]. That's done through biofilters. There are pervious pavements and different ways of accomplishing that, depending on the soil type. The hospital used a green roof on their new laboratory to reduce their runoff. Mr. Beach asked about ongoing followup and enforcement in relation to wetlands and water runoff. Mr. Hebdon responded that for every project they've done of any size in the last five years, they have an Operation, Maintenance and Reporting Agreement. The property owner has to report to Mr. Hebdon once a year. Engineers are responsible for going out and taking a look at the stormwater management. The town gets easements from the developer around all the stormwater facilities, so if staff sees it's not being maintained correctly, they can go in and do the work necessary to get it back into operation and then charge the owner. If it's a health and safety issue, they don't even have to ask permission to go onto the site and take care of the problem. Ms. Fogarty asked whether there was followup with Mr. Lyman. Mr. Hebdon responded that Mr. Herrick made the statement that the amount of water they were adding would be negligible. He required that Mr. Herrick come up with the actual projected figures. The 100-year storm would be about 93 CFS, and they're going to add about .5 CFS,which is one half of a percent increase, so he agrees that it's negligible. Ms. Fogarty said it sounded like it was close to capacity right now. She has serious concerns about that situation. She realizes very little water will be added to it, but if it is close to capacity now, perhaps the town needs to upgrade that system. Mr. Hebdon said he has not done a drainage analysis on that particular drainage way. He knows that all the water that comes down Snyder Hill Road, down Pine Tree, and through the Reis tennis courts ends up in that drainage way. But it's not the town's system; it's on private land. It's near a state right- of-way to begin with and Pine Tree Road is a county road, so anything between the county right-of- way and the state right-of-way is the landowner's responsibility to take care of. The landowner has a swale that goes through there and one thing he can do is get in contact with Tompkins County Soil and Water; they can possibly take a look and make some suggestions. Mr. Hebdon doesn't know under what conditions Mr. Lyman took those photos. Four inches of rain fell the other night, and there are a lot of places that had problems. Ms. Fogarty said that if the Board is looking at another development that will be adding even negligible water to that, they need to be aware of what's there currently and to make sure that it's really functioning before adding anything to it. She thinks it's a great project and wants to see it go Planning Board Minutes 08-05.2014 Page 5 of 16 through, but wants these issues in these people's yards worked out. She understands that it's compli- cated because of the number of entities involved, but there has to be a way to figure that out before moving on. The Board can't just say it's not their problem. Mr. Beach asked who makes the overriding determination. If the stormwater is coming all the way down from Snyder Hill Road and all the way down through this project and is hitting Route 79,who makes the determination of any improvements on the Route 79 area? Mr. Hebdon responded that it's a state right-of-way, so they would do whatever they thought was necessary to keep their road intact. They have done some drainage work in the area. Mr. Haefeli added that this is presuming that all the stormwater mechanisms from Pine Tree Road, all the way down, are functioning properly on the private owners' properties. Mr. Hebdon said it's the same problem as when people start using drainage swales for yard waste. Slowly it's filled up and doesn't have the capacity it used to have. It's not the town's responsibility to ensure that all those drainage ways are clear. Mr. Haefeli pointed out that with the SWPPP process, the developer is held to strict restrictions regarding runoff. So the neighbors' concerns that the developer will be changing something and causing more problems are being addressed. Mr. Hebdon agreed. Mr. Herrick uses a software program to come up with numbers; Mr. Hebdon plugs that data into the program he uses,which is provided by the DEC, to see if he gets the same numbers; the numbers do line up. Ms. Collins asked about the specific wetland between 341 Wildflower Drive and Building K. Dan Tasman said that wetland is described in the SEQR addendum. The size is 0.0862 acres, so while the Army Corps of Engineers says that permission will be required, they don't actually require any kind of mitigation. It's not a natural wetland; it was created by drainage resulting from the construc- tion of Eastwood Commons.At that time, drainage regulations were a fraction of what they are now. It's a low area that drains into the creek, and over time, that area turned into a wetland. There's another wetland on the site about where there's a willow tree towards the eastern part of the property; it is about 800 square feet.According to the DEC, anything smaller than .1 acre doesn't require mitigation. It's a wetland that's the size of a small apartment. It's a reedy, brushy landscape that he didn't walk through, so he isn't sure there's a pond. Mr. Reynolds said that one of the funders of the federal HOME Program changed the regulations, and basically said that if the units don't sell within a certain period of time, rather than leave things open forever, they want INHS to "dispose of the units so they can close the project. In such a case, INHS would be required to rent the unit and convert it to home ownership at a later time. They haven't been funded yet, so they don't have a contract with the terms. Mr. Beach asked about the agreement with Cornell for their employees to have the right of first refusal on the townhouses. Planning Board Minutes 08-05.2014 Page 6 of 16 Mr. Reynolds explained that there are two scenarios.The first scenario is the initial sale of the units. The second is the sale later. The Cornell land-use agreement says that they have a certain period of time - 30 or 60 days - to respond whether they want to take their right of first refusal. If they hadn't gotten a nibble, they would say they are not exercising their right and then the unit would sell as a normal unit. It's a short period of time. It puts Cornell in the loop so they can use their internal human resources system to market the unit to their employees. The other piece is the initial sale. There will be a pre-sale period before all the units are finished when they try to market and sell the units up at Cornell. There's no time period for that. It's an ongoing process where INHS works with Cornell to market the units. He didn't believe the right of first refusal applies to that. Ms.Wedemeyer asked whether these homes will be marketed to a specific income bracket. Mr. Reynolds responded that the typical income bracket is 80 percent of median, and the median income for a family of four in Tompkins County is around $78,000. It's different for each family size. They also have to be owner-occupied. There are also regulatory periods where the income restrictions apply only during a certain period of time, typically from 10 to 20 years, where the units have to be sold to people in that income bracket. With this project, even after the funders decide that their regulations no longer apply, since this is part of the INHS housing trust, they will continue that indefinitely. So INHS's regulations are stricter than what their funders require. Ms. Collins asked if they have marketing research data that shows a demand for these 46 units. Mr. Reynolds said they did a market penetration study for Holly Creek,which is how you measure how much your development will impact the market, and it was so low, they chose not to do another one for this project. Mr. Beach asked what the relationship is between a rental unit in this development and membership in the HOA. Mr. Reynolds responded that as soon as the first unit is sold, the HOA is activated and that person starts contributing to the HOA. The developer is a member of the HOA and contributes the funds for all the other units that have been built. The developer, as the owner of the rental units, is responsible for their fees. The HOA will be responsible for all exterior maintenance. Mr. Wilcox asked why they have staged the project in three phases instead of building it all at once. Mr. Reynolds said the primary reason is financial: the funding they use comes in certain chunks and the chunks are only so big. The second reason is practical: if you want to limit your market exposure, rather than build 46 at once and worry about the market,you build fewer units and have time to absorb. Ms. Collins commented that the rental issue was a surprise to her and to the residents in the neighborhood. What she heard Mr. Reynolds say was that there is a lot of demand for affordable housing, and Holly Creek was only going to be able to satisfy a small piece of that demand. She asked Mr. Reynolds to speculate on the likelihood that any of these units would ever be rented. Planning Board Minutes 08-05.2014 Page 7 of 16 Mr. Reynolds said it would be total speculation. When they built their schedule, they built in a long period for pre-sale and sale. He thought it was 18 months for the first phase. That's the only phase they've projected a detailed schedule for because they're not going to build a second phase until they build a first phase. That will take them through two housing cycles,where you have the peak in the housing cycle in the spring and summer. All of the units in Phase I of Holly Creek are sold; Phase 11 is for sale, and they've sold 3 out of 11 units. Ms.Wedemeyer asked if anything would preclude a person buying a unit, then renting it out. Mr. Reynolds responded that their ground lease with buyers requires owner-occupancy. Their loan agreement requires owner-occupancy. Either one is a default if they rent the units. There are provi- sions, for example,where people can go away on a one-year sabbatical or some limited period of time with permission. They do this on all their loans for all the houses they sell. Rarely is it an issue.This has nothing to do with the funding they bring; it has to do with the funding that built the project. It wouldn't matter if INHS gave them the unit; it's a deed restriction on the unit itself. Mr. Wilcox commented that the owner versus renter question comes up often in the town; there's a perception that owner-occupied units are better taken care of. But in this case, there's an HOA, so that even if a unit is rented, there's still money being paid monthly into the HOA and the HOA is still responsible for enforcing the agreement in terms of what you can and cannot do and making sure the property is taken care of. Ms. Fogarty asked how big the doorstep gardens will be; she thinks people should have a space to grow food. Mr. Reynolds said there's an example at Holly Creek, where a woman has put in raised planting boxes that form a perimeter on her property; she said she intended to put in a mix of flowers and vegeta- bles. He guessed that they're approximately 2 feet deep by 20 feet long. Ms. Fogarty said she still would like to see a community garden on this property. She thinks it would be an added benefit. Mr. Reynolds responded that the way they prefer to handle these things is to let the HOA have control of their land and decide what improvements or amenities they want to provide, because gardens are great if people keep them up, but if they don't, they start to look like gardens in the city, where some of them look wonderful and others not so nice.The HOA has complete control over that; technically, because this is a housing trust, INHS keeps a little toe in the HOA, so if they wanted to do something INHS thought was crazy with the land that they control in perpetuity, INHS could weigh in on it. Mr. Wilcox asked whether the Eastwood Commons HOA allows owners to rent out units. Someone in the audience said that it does. Mr. Bosak commented that all concerns about renters didn't strike him well. He rented for most of his adult life, and the floating implication that renters are a lower form of life or that providing renters with housing is less of a public good than providing owners with housing - these are implica- Planning Board Minutes 08-05.2014 Page 8 of 16 tions he finds offensive. The only practical issue that was raised is the thought that perhaps renters would be less likely to take care of the grounds, but that has been shown to be completely irrelevant. He said there was a suggestion that Building K be moved. He asked why it can't simply be pushed around somewhere else. Mr. Trowbridge responded that there are a number of issues, the least of which is topography. Between Ms. Carlson's unit and the proposed K Building, there is quite a number of feet of topo- graphic change. A couple of issues they've struggled with are access to the units and topography. They will have an additional conversation with the neighbors and continue to look at the possibilities. It wasn't done gratuitously; it's very much based on disturbance. If units get turned, there can be greater disturbance to the site, because rather than having the thin dimension, we have the long dimension pushing to the east. Mr. Reynolds said that there are other considerations they're stuck with on the site. One is the water line and the easement for the water line; that is a hard and firm boundary that cannot be moved.And it isn't as simple as building up to the easement, because you need to be able to dig in the easement to work on the pipe in the future and not undermine the building, so the buildings have to be set back from the easement. The third point is the stream setback and staying away from the gorge; they worked very hard to keep as far from that stream as they possibly could. Mr. Bosak said he's not seeing an issue regarding the proximity of the K units to the person objecting - they're quite a bit farther away than her existing neighbors, so he's not seeing an issue regarding proximity. Ms. Collins asked why those four-unit clusters were put in that particular location. Mr. Reynolds responded that it had a lot to do with building separation required by the building code. They squeezed it down as far as they could, so by having a limitation on the north end where Building J and K are,with the stream setback and topography, and at the lower end, where they have to enter the site, they could fit only so many units and still maintain that building separation. Because the site is tight along there, just adding a unit,which is 20 to 25 feet, would basically tumble every- thing down and push buildings further back- like the domino effect. Ms. Collins said the gentleman who spoke commented that in Eastwood Commons, many people park on the street even though they have a garage and driveway. His concern is that in the Greenways development, there will be no place for people to park in front of their houses and that they will have to go to a parking lot. She pointed out that about a third of the parking spaces are in front of people's houses on the new road. Mr. Trowbridge said they will also probably have designated parking spots so individual units will have a space to park in. The private road is narrow; it's just a fire lane. They don't expect people to park along the road. The ratio of parking spots to units is larger in Greenways than in Holly Creek. Ms. Collins said that at these meetings, there has been concern about generation of more traffic. One of the speakers said that there was no traffic study done in terms of the impact on Wildflower Drive, and she speculated that most of the people who lived in Buildings J and K and also the next four Planning Board Minutes 08-05.2014 Page 9 of 16 clusters down the road would naturally come from Strawberry Hill Circle and would increase the traffic on Wildflower Drive and in front of her unit. She asked if the applicants had looked at this. Mr. Reynolds responded that they submitted a draft traffic study from the former proposal in which there were 50 percent more units than in this development, and they found that the global traffic impact was quite small. From a traffic engineer's point of view, the amount of traffic was considered negligible. They focused on the impact at major intersections, like Honness Lane, and not so close to home. Mr. Tasman said that the staff report talks about trip generation for different types of uses. In a townhouse project, there are generally six vehicle trips per day. Buildings H, I,J, and K comprise 14 units and if they all go down Wildflower instead of the new Greenways Lane, that totals 84 additional vehicle trips per day,which is four per hour. Some will be clustered during rush hour. In the eyes of staff, that's infinitesimal. If you were watching,you wouldn't notice a difference unless you were actually out there counting cars. Mr. Wilcox said the road isn't being dedicated to the town because it doesn't meet town standards. Mr. Hebdon added that as with the Belle Sherman Cottages, the town doesn't allow pull-off parking; they would need to put in driveways. Mr. Bosak wasn't clear on why making it a town road would make a difference. Mr. Hebdon said that if it were a town road, it would be wider and enable people to pull off to the side to park. People can park along Wildflower and there's room for cars to get around them, but if people parked along that small lane, they would block the road. Mr. Bosak said he has pointed out that people will park along the sidewalk, and that Mr.Trow- bridge's response was that it would be an enforcement issue. But he doesn't see how that will affect the surrounding neighborhood, so he doesn't get why it would be an issue. Ms. Collins brought up the issue of undergraduate students related to renting: the units are small, affordable, and close to Cornell. She could understand how some residents would be concerned about parties, loud music, etc. She asked what the disincentives might be for students renting these units should they ever come up for rent,which she thinks is a low likelihood, or what would preclude a parent from buying one for a son or daughter going to Cornell. Mr. Reynolds responded that students aren't a protected class - they're not excluded - but he can't recall ever making a purchase loan to an undergraduate student. The primary reason is that the units have to be owner-occupied, so that would preclude someone buying it for their child. There's no co- signing allowed. They also have to be able to afford the unit. The chances of an undergraduate student having an income large enough to afford a unit while going to school full time is probably zero. It's not a deed restriction or a legal thing, it's just a practicality of how financing works. Even in their rental portfolio, they have very few, if any, undergraduates, although they have a few graduate students. He's guessing that for this project, the same rules will apply: the applicant has to meet income requirements and they don't allow co-signing. Planning Board Minutes 08-05.2014 Page 10 of 16 Mr. Bosak said that the question of renters versus owners is not the same as the question of students versus non students. Whether we want to encourage student housing in certain parts of the town is a land-use question - a zoning question - and many of the questions at these meetings relate not to what's within the Planning Board's purview to do,which is to make sure the zoning regulations have been followed. It has to do with the zoning that was set up in the first place and what the proper use of this land is in the first place.A lot of the objections to developing that chunk of land are exactly the objections that could have been raised in developing Eastwood Commons in the first place or any other place someone wants to put housing. Those decisions are made by the Town Board when it decides what is an allowable use. The fact that this is an allowable use means the Planning Board has to have some pretty darned good reasons for denying it. The Town Board already decided when they zoned it that that chunk of land ought to be housing. This has come up before, and it's becoming a hot-button issue for him. The time to deal with this issue was in 1993 when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted.The time to express an opinion about what's happening in development in the town is now while the next Comprehensive Plan is being formed. Ms.Wedemeyer said she thinks it's unfortunate that the Board just learned about the rental option this evening and she thinks it's unfortunate that it's being treated as a delineation as to the value of different public segments when in fact it's just a collection of information, which is the Board's job. Mr. Beach said that as a renter, he likes the idea that he could rent in a development such as this, as opposed to purchase. Susan Brock said that with the exception of the issue of student renters, all the other issues that the people who spoke during the public hearing brought up are in the Board's purview - stormwater, wetlands, traffic, placement of buildings. She respectfully disagreed with Mr. Bosak's characterization and said he was probably focusing on one particular issue. Mr. Bosak agreed that he was and that he was including the whole question of whether a nice piece of ground should be developed. Ms. Brock said she didn't hear anyone from the public say that the piece shouldn't be developed. The comments were more along the line of this is a good project that needs some tweaking. Mr. Bosak said that he heard comments about loss of open space. Ms. Brock said that it's fair to look at open space as far as site plan and subdivision. Mr. Bosak said that insofar as open space is necessarily following from development of the land and that development is physically allowed for in the zoning: that's what he was getting at. Mr. Tasman said that he researched the case files for Eastwood Commons that date back to the 1970s. When the project was first proposed, there was a lot of neighborhood opposition by people in the city and the town worried about how their property values were going to go down and how there would be traffic and drainage problems because of this condominium development. Eastwood Commons Phase 1, Wildflower Drive, was built. When Phase 11 came in, there was objection from the people living in Eastwood Commons Phase I about how there was going to be traffic and decreased property values and drainage issues, increased crime, etc. Eastwood Commons Phase 11 was built. Planning Board Minutes 08-05.2014 Page 11 of 16 Then Phase III was proposed and the same objections have been raised. Staff and Board members are going to have to accept that the area they live in, if it was built any time after the 1950s or 1960s, probably faced neighborhood objection. They have to decide whether some people have more of a right to live in the Town of Ithaca. Ms.Wedemeyer commented that even though the Board sees that all the time, they still have to consider whether the concerns raised are legitimate. Even hypochondriacs get sick sometimes. Mr. Tasman agreed that the Board should not dismiss legitimate concerns. Mr. Bosak said that his point is that if you don't want development in a certain place, the Planning Board is the wrong stage in the process to lodge that objection. Mr. Wilcox invited residents to speak. Ms. Carlson took issue with the increase of 84 cars going down a very short road; she asked Board members if they would like it if 84 more cars went by their houses. She said that if students can afford to live in the apartments on State Street, they can afford to live anywhere. She recognizes that there would be objections to anything being developed. Ms. Schultz Tapscott asked about the road width in relation to emergency vehicles. Mr. Trowbridge responded that New York State code requires 20 feet for emergency vehicles. The asphalt is 14 feet wide, flanked by two concrete sidewalks that meet or exceed the 20-foot require- ment. The fire chief has reviewed and approved the roadway for both turning radii and adequate width. There are parking spaces designated off-street; they are not part of the sidewalk. Mr. Bosak said that regarding traffic on Wildflower Drive, it's difficult for him to believe that the increase of cars due to this project will result in a discernible difference in the level of service; what it will mean is that there will be a few more cars going down the road.That's the price one pays for living on a town road. It's not a private road; it doesn't belong to an individual. We all pay for it. It comes from our taxes, and therefore,we all get to use it. He lives directly on a state highway. Does he wish he didn't have trucks hauling garbage going up and down it all day?Yes, but it's a state highway; it belongs to the people of the State of New York, and that's the use they put it there for. So, since there's no discernible difference in level of service, he doesn't see that the Board has any grounds for taking that into consideration. The metric for significance the Planning Board has used in the past is level of service. A woman who recently moved from Jackson Heights, Queens, to Eastwood Commons described walking her dog on Strawberry Hill Circle as "dreamy." She thinks that the reality for them is that 84 cars will change their lives. Mr. Beach said he can understand that if residents haven't been used to that number of cars, it can appear to be a significant increase. In 1982, he bought a house in the City of Ithaca.The average daily traffic in front of his house at that time was 7600 vehicles per day; in 12 years, it went to 13,500 per day. This was on the south side of the city.A traffic engineer who did a study for the city reported to Common Council that even if all traffic mitigations were implemented in an attempt to spread out Planning Board Minutes 08-05.2014 Page 12 of 16 the traffic, the traffic on his street would only drop to 7600 cars per day. Mr. Beach said he stood up at the meeting and said he would take it because that would take him back to the way it was 12 years prior. It's all relevant to what you're used to. He thinks that the neighborhood will get used to 84 more cars per day. Mr. Wilcox said he's slightly disappointed that there's no connection for vehicles to Eastwood Avenue. It would provide a second, independent ingress and egress to the site. The residents of Eastwood Avenue wouldn't appreciate it, but it would provide a second access should there be an emergency. From a planning perspective, he'd like to see a road there. Mr. Bosak said that the question of stormwater has been a theme throughout these proceedings. The question is not whether there's a problem, but whether this development will make it worse. The doubters think this will make it worse. The claim by the town engineer and the engineer for the applicant is that this development will not make the problem any worse. The town's requirement is that it won't make it any worse. The Board will either find out that this is true or that the engineers aren't competent. His position is that he's going on the assumption that they are competent. Mr. Hebdon pointed out that David Herrick's house is directly down the street from Phases I and 11. If his calculations are off, he is one of the people who will get flooded. Mr. Bosak added that he shares the concern about stormwater. Four hours prior to the meeting, he experienced an inch and a half of rain in 45 minutes. This is becoming commonplace. He believes the answer is to set higher thresholds for engineering these systems. He has a hunch that municipalities like the Town of Ithaca are going to start being fiscally responsible for damage due to climate change that is clearly coming. A municipality in the Northeast was sued a few months ago on exactly this sort of issue. He wanted it very clear on the record that the Board did discuss this, that they've looked at it thoroughly, and that as far as they can tell, it's been over-engineered according to current standards. PB Resolution No. 2014.045: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 Fred Wilcox; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of preliminary site plan and preliminary 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 storm- water management facilities. Cornell University, owner; Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, applicant; Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, TG Miller Engineering, consultants; and 2. This is a Type I action, for which the Planning Board, at its meeting on May 20, 2014, proposed to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above-referenced Planning Board Minutes 08-05.2014 Page 13 of 16 action, and notified potential involved and interested agencies of its intent to serve as lead agency; and 3. At its meeting on July 15, 2014, the Planning Board, having received no objections from other involved agencies, acted as lead agency in a coordinated environmental review for the proposed project, reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant, FEAF Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff, and other ap- plication materials; and made a negative determination of environmental significance with regard to proposed site plan and subdivision proposal; and 4. The Planning Board, at its meeting on August 5, 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, 8-1-2012), 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 (1-1.0, 4-21-2014), elevations (A-03, A-04,A 05,A-41,A-43,A-44, 5-30-2014), and 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 mate- rials; IT IS RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board grants preliminary subdivision approval for the proposed Greenways project, as shown on the preliminary subdivision plat dated 7-10-2014 conditioned upon the following to be completed before final subdivision approval, unless otherwise noted: a. Town Board approval of amendments to the local law(February 26, 1973, amended by Local Law 4, 1987) that established MR zoning for the site of the Eastwood Commons development as originally planned, to exclude the application of certain provisions of that law to the south- ern stub of Strawberry Hill Circle and to tax parcel 60.1-1-46.22, which forms the eastern por- tion of the proposed Greenways site, which would otherwise prevent this proposal from being developed as approved by the Planning Board; and b. Discontinuance or legal abandonment by the Town of the southern stub of Strawberry Hill Circle prior to application for any permit required by the Town; and c. Determination of responsibility for access, maintenance, liability, and other related issues for an existing parking lot that encroaches onto the eastern portion of the site; and d. Obtaining all necessary permits and approvals from the United States Army Corps of Engi- neers for construction in wetland areas on the site; and e. Submission of a final subdivision plat showing final details; and f. Submission of final design and construction details of all proposed infrastructure-related im- provements and structures, including drainage and storm water management facilities, roads and driveways, parking areas, curbing, sidewalks and trails, sewer and water facilities and other utilities, and sedimentation and erosion control measures, for review and approval by the Town Public Works Department; and Planning Board Minutes 08-05.2014 Page 14 of 16 g. Submission of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), for review and approval by the Town Public Works Department; and h. Submission of draft water and sewer main easements, satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town and Town Public Works Department; and Acceptance by the Town Board of the concept and location of water and sewer mains and as- sociated easements before application for any permit required by the Town; and i. Reconciling ownership of the northern stub end of Strawberry Hill Circle, where the spur at the northern end of the road will connect with the proposed private road for Greenways, to determine whether this is publicly owned or privately owned, and if privately owned, requir- ing the developer to seek an easement or some other legal arrangement for access across this segment of road; and j. Submission of a stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement" between the property owner and the Town of Ithaca, satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town and the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department, prior to issuance of any building permits; and k. Submission of a drainage easement or other mechanisms to assure the Town of Ithaca access to all stormwater facilities satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town and Town Public Works Department prior to issuance of any building permits; and 1. Submission of(i) any draft cooperative proprietary leases, condominium or homeowners asso- ciation documents, or other agreements among property owners, including but not limited to suitable provisions to assure maintenance of all common utilities and facilities, satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town, before application for any permit required by the Town, and (ii) submission of the above documents as approved by New York State, satisfactory to the Attor- ney for the Town, before any certificates of occupancy are issued; and m. Submission of language for cross easements or other agreements necessary to guarantee cur- rent and future owners, leaseholders, and residents of all units in the subdivision access to all utilities, drainage and stormwater facilities, recreational amenities, trails, common open space, and other common or shared facilities, before application for any permit required by the Town; and n. Submission of details showing projected flows to and capacity of the sewage pump station and describing procedures and mechanisms to handle emergency conditions during power or pump failure subject to approval of the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department prior to is- suance of any building permits for the Phase 3 development. 2. That the Planning Board finds there is no need for any additional park land reservation created by this proposed subdivision, because there are adequate recreational facilities in the proposed development. This includes a common play area and a trail connecting to Eastwood Avenue. The project is also about 0.4 miles (via street/sidewalk access) from Grandview Park, and within short walking distance of the East Ithaca Recreationway; IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board grants preliminary site plan approval for the proposed Greenways project, as shown on the set of site plan drawings including: cover sheet(000, 5-30-2014), bounda- ry map/topographic map (1/1, 8-1-2012), erosion and sediment control plan (C101, 5-30-2014), Planning Board Minutes 08-05.2014 Page 15 of 16 utility plan (C102, 5-30-2014), details (C201, 5-30-2014), site clearing plan (L101, 5-30-2014), overall layout(1-200, 5-30-2014), detailed layout plans (1-210, 5-30-2014), typical (road) sections (L220, 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 (1-1.0, 4-21-2014), elevations (A-03, A-04, A-05,A-41, A-43,A-44, 5-30-2014), phasing plan (C1.0, 4/21/14), and trash pavilions (A-50, 5-30-2014), along with other application materials, conditioned upon the following to be completed before final site plan ap- proval is granted, unless otherwise noted: a. Submission of details of location, design, and specifications of proposed lighting standards and fixtures on the site and its buildings, in compliance with the Town of Ithaca Outdoor Lighting Law; and b. Submission of details of location, design, size, materials, and illumination of any proposed signs on the site; and c. Submission of a revised landscaping plan and planting schedule, including details of number and location of specific shade and ornamental trees and shrubs to be planted on the site; and d. Submission of final detailed elevations for all proposed buildings and structures on the site including descriptions and renderings of building materials and colors. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2014.046: Minutes of July 1, 2014 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on July 1; 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 July 1. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty,Wedemeyer, Bosak PB Resolution No. 2014-047: Minutes of July 15, 2014 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Linda Collins WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on July 15; now therefore be it Planning Board Minutes 08-05-2014 Page 16 of 16 RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, as amended, to be the final minutes of the meeting on July 15. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak Abstentions: Beach AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - Nobody came forward to address the Board. AGENDA ITEM Other business Mr. Hebdon announced that the Green Infrastructure tour, which he will lead, will be on October 9th in the late afternoon, and will include the hospital, Cornell, and IC. It's sponsored by the Tompkins County Stormwater Coalition. He also mentioned that the stormwater permits for all MS4s are coming up in 2015. The draft regulations have come out. The 10-year storm is going from 3.7 to 3.5 and the lOO-year storm from 5.5 to 7.5. Until that is enacted and is law, those new numbers can't legally be used for sizing stormwater practices. They are bound by current law. Mr. Beach said that on Sunday afternoon, he was at the WVBR studios when the torrential down pour came. He watched the water run down the gutters to Stewart Avenue and East Buffalo Street, digging up blacktop pavement as it went. Upon a motion by Mr. Wilcox, the Board voted to cancel the meeting of August 19. AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by John Beach, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted. ^ra DeAugikiiae^, Deputy T Clerk