Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2015-12-01TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. December 1.2015 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: St. Catherine of Siena Church Parish Center, 302 St. Catherine Circle. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed construction of a new 9,970 +/- square foot parish center at St. Catherine of Siena Church, 302 St. Catherine Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71.-1-10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The project also includes the replacement of parking spaces along with new walkways, landscaping, outdoor lighting, utilities, and a roof mounted solar photovoltaic system. The existing 10,275 +/- square foot parish center will be demolished once the new facility is completed. St. Catherine of Siena Church, Owner/Applicant; Richard McElhiney Architects LLC, Agent. 7:20 P.M. SEQR Determination, Consideration of whether to reaffirm or reopen the prior negative declaration of environmental significance: Amabel Subdivision, 619 Five Mile Drive. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed Amabel Subdivision located at 619 Five Mile Drive (NYS Route 13A), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 31-2-28 and 31-2-6 (part of), Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal is for a 32-lot clustered subdivision and involves a number of proposed changes from the approval granted by the Planning Board on 5/5/2015, including utilization of Inlet Road for a second access, changes to the subdivision layout with 30 new single-family residential home lots with individual driveways (instead of 28 new lots without driveways), installation of approximately 20 parking spaces (instead of 43), reduction in the amount of proposed lighting, modification of the stormwater facilities, and potential creation of a "Sewage Works Corporation" for the private sewer system, pursuant to Article 10 of the New York State Transportation Corporation Law. New Earth Living LLC and City of Ithaca, Owners; Sue Cosentini, Applicant. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the proposed Draft Sign Law. 6. Consideration of approval of the 2016 Planning Board Meeting Schedule. 7. Consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board regarding the Chairperson of the Planning Board for 2016. 8. Persons to be heard 9. Approval of Minutes: November 17, 2015 10. Other Business 11. 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 or SPOLCE@TOWN.n HACA.NY.US. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Accessing Meeting Materials Online Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town's website under "Planning Board" on the "Meeting Agendas" page fhttD;//www.town.[thaca.nv.us/meeting-agendas). TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, December 1, 2015 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), Linda Collins, Joseph Haefeli, John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty, Jon Bosak Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; 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 7:00 p.m. and accepted the secretary’s posting and publication of the public hearing notices. AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed construction of a new 9,970 +/- square foot parish center at St. Catherine of Siena Church, 302 St. Catherine Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71.-1-10, Medium Density Residen- tial Zone. The project also includes the replacement of parking spaces along with new walkways, landscaping, outdoor lighting, utilities, and a roof mounted solar photovoltaic system. The existing 10,275 +/- square foot parish center will be demolished once the new facility is completed. St. Catherine of Siena Church, Owner/Applicant; Richard McElhiney Architects LLC, Agent Ms. Balestra said that they’ve temporarily withdrawn their application because the construction costs came in higher than expected. AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2015-046: Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Schedule of Meetings – 2016 Moved by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Linda Collins RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby adopts the following as its schedule of Regular Meetings for the Year 2016. Unless otherwise noted, all meetings will be held on the first and third Tuesday of each month, commencing at 7:00 p.m. and ending by 10:00 p.m. FIRST MEETING OF THE MONTH SECOND MEETING OF THE MONTH January 5, 2016 January 19, 2016 February 2, 2016 February 16, 2016 March 1, 2016 March 15, 2016 April 5, 2016 April 19, 2016 Planning Board Minutes 12-01-2015 Page 2 of 9 May 3, 2016 May 17, 2016 June 7, 2016 June 21, 2016 July 5, 2016 July 19, 2016 August 2, 2016 August 16, 2016 September 6, 2016 September 20, 2016 October 4, 2016 October 18, 2016 November 1, 2016 November 15, 2016 December 6, 2016 December 20, 2016 Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Haefeli, Fogarty, Bosak, Collins, Beach AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2015-047: 2016 Planning Board Chair, Recommendation to Town Board Moved by Yvonne Fogarty; seconded by John Beach Resolved, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that Fred Wilcox be appointed as Chair of the Planning Board for the year 2016. Vote Ayes: Haefeli, Fogarty, Bosak, Collins, Beach Abstentions: Wilcox AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: SEQR Determination, Consideration of whether to reaffirm or reopen the prior negative declaration of environmental significance: Amabel Subdivision, 619 Five Mile Drive Ms. Brock said that New York town law has a procedure for when a board has approved a preliminary plat, and then a plat comes in that’s not in substantial compliance with the preliminary plat, meaning that changes have been made that were not requested by the board as a condition of preliminary approval and that are deemed to be substantial. One of the things the board has to do is look at SEQR again and decide whether to reaffirm the neg dec given in May with the preliminary approval or to rescind the prior neg dec and make a positive determination of environmental impact. Ms. Cosentini stated that the changes were to take perimeter parking and make it a road where you pull up to your house. The primary reason is that the car destroys the environment and was rather unpleasant when she experienced the gigantic parking area at EcoVillage. She’s also had many requests from people interested in Amabel to have parking at their houses, especially given the weather we had last winter. Many elderly people are looking to age in place. The primary reason for Planning Board Minutes 12-01-2015 Page 3 of 9 perimeter parking is to foster spontaneous interaction, but there are other ways to accomplish that without making it inconvenient for people. Inlet Road is there and available, and is okay with the DEC. She’s pleased with the results and thinks it’s very beautiful. She has had a number of conversa- tions with arborists, among them the highest-level arborist at Cornell, who reassured her that the hackberries will do very well as long as she follows behind the excavator with a sharp chain saw and cuts roots bigger than 1.5 to 2 inches around and keeps them wet until they’re replanted. Some of the thinning will make them do better. They found roots going really deep because of the highly draining soils. Any excavated trees will be husbanded and replanted. The groves in the center won’t be impacted at all. Moving the parking will allow them to reduce the lighting so there is more dark-sky retention. Mr. Herrick said their stormwater management approaches haven’t changed. Mr. Thaete did a thorough review. The whole site has unusual and beneficial soils. He has never seen roots that deep in soil at 8 feet. They are gravel and sandy soils. They are continuing to rely on infiltration practices for handling stormwater treatment. The water system is consistent with what was originally proposed for the prior project. The length of the water system has grown, but affords better access to anyone in the future because it will be located under the roadway. The sanitary sewer system is a big question mark because of the new policy, which requires acceptance from the town. Ms. Ritter addressed the new policy the DEC has initiated. They’re interpreting something in SPDES law and have defined sewer extensions in such a way that they’re applying a 1960s law to it. Essential- ly, if any part of a sewer system is going to be privately owned, but owned by multiple persons, that’s no longer allowed and you have to form a transportation corporation. The law has been around for a long time, but the DEC has recently adopted this policy and interpreted this sewer extension in such a way that it caught Amabel. It did not catch previous developments in the town. Ms. Brock said it’s the New York State Transportation Corporations Law. Mr. Hebdon said that existing pump stations have been failing, and the DEC has been going to the municipality to get the pump station back into operation, but the municipalities say these are private entities. The transportation corporation is a mechanism where if there’s a problem with a sanitary sewer system, the municipality is ultimately responsible for its maintenance. The town could request that it be built to our specs just in case the corporation dissolves in five years. Ms. Brock said that they can’t file their certificate of incorporation without the town board’s consent to the formation of the corporation, so the town board could require as a condition of the consent that any system be built to town standards. The law is set up so that at the end of five years, if the corporation abandons the system, the town takes it over. Mr. Bosak said that the situation Mr. Hebdon described has been a concern of his for a long time. Ms. Brock said she has been talking to an attorney from the comptroller’s office, who said that around the state, there have been homeowners’ associations that owned the private infrastructure, which is what the planning board has approved in the past, and even though they assess dues against the residents, some of them refuse to pay, and the HOA has difficulty collecting. There are situations where they have not been able to raise enough money to maintain the private sewer system. The attorney for the state thought it would be a good thing if HOAs would no longer be able to own and Planning Board Minutes 12-01-2015 Page 4 of 9 operate these systems. Under the Transportation Corporations Law, the town can pass a law to assure that construction is completed and require a bond to assure maintenance and operation of the system for at least five years. So even if the corporation ceases to function, the security is there to pay for it for the first five years, and then if the corporation abandons the system at the end of five years, the municipality becomes the owner of the stock in the sewage works corporation and takes it over. All of this will cost the developer. Mr. Hebdon said the town board is continuing to discuss this. They have the option to not consent to the corporation. They also have the option of saying the town will take over all the pump stations right up front. If they do a transportation corporation, the town is still going to require that they build it to town standards knowing that in five years, we might have to take it over. In the past, when an HOA was going to take it over, we did not require that. Ms. Fogarty asked if it wouldn’t be to the developer’s advantage to build it to town specs and just turn it over to the town and not have to put up a bond for five years. Ms. Cosentini said it would from her perspective. Ms. Collins asked who gets called if the system fails during the night. Mr. Hebdon said that will be spelled out in the transportation corporation. If the town takes it over, the town gets called. Every developer who builds a separate pump station will have to form a transpor- tation corporation, and the bond amount will depend on the size of the system. Previous pump stations had to be built according the Health Department specifications. The town requires a more rigorous system. Mr. Wilcox said he saw four stormwater detention ponds on the plans. He prefers a smaller number of larger ponds because then there are fewer to maintain. Mr. Herrick said that an infiltration basin is different from a pond in that water does not stand in them permanently because that’s not what they’re intended to do. The orientation and location of the basins is a result of trying to use space after the layout of the community is set. It would be great if stormwater engineers could lay out the system first and develop the site around it, but it doesn’t happen that way. They’re looking for real estate at the bottom of the site where everything is naturally going to drain. Three of the basins are interconnected. Mr. Wilcox noted that there’s a memo of understanding with the owner of 603 Five Mile Drive. Signatures were not dated. Ms. Brock said it’s not an easement; it’s just that you know that other property owners whose properties might be used as part of this road are authorizing Ms. Cosentini to come before the planning board to ask for this approval. Mr. Wilcox asked who owns the road. Planning Board Minutes 12-01-2015 Page 5 of 9 Ms. Cosentini responded that she and Dick Turlow (613 Five Mile Drive) each own half and New York State has a piece at the intersection by the bridge. She plans to improve the road and make it the primary access to the development. Mr. Herrick said that 20 feet is the minimum fire lane width. Mr. Bates added that wherever there is a hydrant, the road has to be 26 feet wide to allow the fire truck to pull up and hook up while allowing other fire trucks to pass by. Ms. Fogarty asked about the four houses planned near the railroad line. That was originally going to be a dog park and gardens. Ms. Cosentini said the land is just like the rest of the site except there’s more scrub down there. The proximity to the railroad sort of compromises those homes, but the trains don’t come by often – less than four times per week. They’ll do their best to leave as many plantings as possible. That part of the property is not wetter; it drains just like the rest. During the rains this summer that caused all the flooding in Newfield, there was dust coming off this soil. Ms. Fogarty asked how many stories the houses are. Ms. Cosentini said they’re two stories. The highest window is the attic storage space and is intended for architectural reasons and to get a pitch to the roof that is ready to receive solar. The owner will be responsible for solar. The houses are designed around the roof area that will allow enough panels to handle all the heat and basic electric load. She’s hoping it’s enough to accommodate electric cars. The infrastructure will be solar-ready with conduit running through. There will probably be a solar energy credit in everyone’s house contract. It doesn’t pay for the PV, but it could pay for the hot water system. The incentives go through the owner, not the developer. Mr. Bosak said he has liked this project from the first. The way she’s building them to accept solar is beautiful. The reasons given for changing the layout make sense. He loves the central garden. He accepts the explanation about the trees. He’s okay with the stormwater in terms of ordinary engineer- ing practices. The one thing he is concerned about are the four units at the far east. They are located within a 500-year flood plain, and he considers the definitions of what constitutes a 500-year flood to be totally bogus. We can’t require the applicant to do anything beyond what she’s doing, but he is very concerned. She’s at the edge of the 100-year flood, right there next to the inlet, and he can picture a storm event in the next 20 or 30 years that leaves those four units with floors under water. He asked about a condition that was not in the resolution having to do with some way of studying this. Ms. Balestra responded that it’s the upstream drainage analysis. Mr. Thaete discovered that there’s a drainage culvert offsite in the general area that’s three-quarters full of silt, and his concern was that in order to adequately analyze the flood elevation level for the property, that drainage culvert needs to be cleaned out. He had requested in his memo that there be an upstream analysis provided to the public works department. Mr. Bosak said he was imagining the inlet rising and the water coming across and asked what difference it makes what kind of drainage we have. Planning Board Minutes 12-01-2015 Page 6 of 9 Mr. Hebdon said that this area of the site hasn’t been lived on and we’re not sure what’s going on back there. We want to make sure the quarter that’s left is adequate to drain the site and that it’s not backing up into the site. Right now, if it backs up, it doesn’t bother anybody because no one lives there. Mr. Bosak’s concern is the opposite: water rising up over the railroad bed. Mr. Wilcox thinks the market place will take care of this with reduced selling prices and higher insurance costs. Mr. Bates said that if they’re building in the floodplain, the floor level of those homes has to be two feet of freebord – two feet higher than flood level – per the building code. One way the federal government is getting people out of the flood plain is by making flood insurance costs astronomical. The only way around it is paying cash for your house, but if it floods, the federal government will not bail you out. Mr. Herrick said the culvert in question is at the railroad crossing. It serves the city lands on the other side and is also access to the fish ladder. It is not inappropriate for the applicant to ask Norfolk Southern who owns that crossing and who’s responsible for maintaining it. It’s a large diameter culvert and nobody has shown any care for it in quite a long time. In their modeling of the impacts from the development, they left it as an impaired culvert. If that culvert were to plug up in a 100-year event, it would spill over into the adjacent gravel driveway before it backed up high enough to impact the units. So what they’ve already done is in keeping with what Mr. Thaete has been asking for. The other thing he is interested in is the entirety of the watershed that drains into that culvert, and that is one step they’ll have to take, in addition to asking who’s responsible for maintaining it. Once that’s cleaned out and maintained, it’s free flow from there down to the inlet – there’s no restrictions from that point downstream. The property is in the 500-year floodplain, and there are no regulations that apply to developing in the 500-year floodplain. They looked at the elevations of the 100-year flood- plain on the other side of the railroad tracks and added the appropriate freebord onto the units just to be safe. So the units down by the railroad have elevations that equate to two feet above the 100- year flood. Ms. Cosentini explained that those homes won’t be more expensive to construct. The elevation change will be made using grade, not different construction. Mr. Herrick added that having no basements minimizes the exposure and therefore the expense. Ms. Brock asked whether a full SWPPP had been submitted and if so, whether Mr. Hebdon can say their plan will work and meet all the standards. Mr. Hebdon said that there’s a full SWPPP. There was one area of concern: with the high penetration rates, they’ll have to put in some sort of pre quality controls so everything doesn’t just go straight down through. Also, there needs to be a three-foot separation between the bottom of the basin and the normal high water table, and that information wasn’t provided. They’ll need it to sign off on the SWPPP. Ms. Brock said that with more complicated projects, we typically have the two-step preliminary and final approvals. There might be these types of loose ends when we do preliminary approval, so the Planning Board Minutes 12-01-2015 Page 7 of 9 board makes as a condition of final that all the issues the engineers have identified be addressed before the project comes back. This way, everything is done when it comes back for final approval. In this case, we’re not as far along as we normally are. She read from the law, which says that before the board issues final approval, they have to have sign-off by the stormwater management officer that everything has been done. The applicant also needs to provide cold weather design considerations. Mr. Wilcox said that we would normally have this discussion at preliminary approval. The staff would make recommendations on changes to the stormwater management practices, so when the project came back for final approval, the stormwater would be okayed. He thought it should go all the way back to preliminary because the changes were significant: it’s a new plan, not a modification. But Ms. Brock said state law dictates that once we reaffirm that there’s no significant impact, we then consider final. Mr. Wilcox said that town law requires the stormwater be completed and accepted by the stormwater management officer before we can consider granting final approval. Mr. Hebdon said it is acceptable with a few minor tweaks, which won’t affect the layout. Ms. Brock said there were three pages of comments on the stormwater. She needed to know whether the outstanding items could affect the environmental impacts of the project. Mr. Hebdon responded that the only impact is asking them to put the infrastructure in front of the infiltration basins to take care of the first flush; and we’re asking for the overflows. Mr. Beach thought we should do final at a later date. Ms. Collins concurred. Mr. Haefeli said there are housekeeping issues and two substantial changes. Mr. Bosak said he could be pushed either way. Mr. Herrick said they could submit their revisions to the town engineers for review in time to be put on the December 15th agenda for final approval. PB Resolution No. 2015-048: SEQR, Final Subdivision Approval, Amabel Subdivision, Tax Parcel No.’s 31-2-28 and 31-2-6 (portion thereof) Moved by Yvonne Fogarty; seconded by Joseph Haefeli WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed Amabel Subdivision located at 619 Five Mile Drive (NYS Route 13A), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.’s 31-2-28 and 31- 2-6 (part of), Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal is for a 32-lot clustered subdivision and involves a number of proposed changes from the approval granted by the Planning Board on 5/5/2015, including utilization of Inlet Road for a second access, changes to the subdivision layout with 30 new single-family residential home lots with individual driveways (instead of 28 new lots without driveways), installation of approximately 20 parking spaces (instead of 43), re- duction in the amount of proposed lighting, modification of the stormwater facilities, and poten- tial creation of a “Sewage Works Corporation” for the private sewer system, pursuant to Article 10 of the New York State Transportation Corporations Law. New Earth Living LLC and City of Ithaca, Owners; Sue Cosentini, Applicant; and Planning Board Minutes 12-01-2015 Page 8 of 9 2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the lead agency in the environmental review with respect to the proposed subdivision; and 3. The Planning Board made a negative determination of environmental significance when it granted preliminary approval for the project on May 5, 2015; and 4. The Planning Board has reviewed and accepted as adequate application materials related to the proposed final subdivision, including a narrative describing the proposal, a copy of the Phase IB Archaeological Survey Addendum for the Amabel project, prepared by the Public Archaeology Facility, dated December November 19, 2015, a Final Subdivision Plat for the proposed Amabel development, titled “Subdivision Plat Amabel Pocket Neighborhood Located at No. 619 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., dated 10/20/2015 and revised 10/27/2015, a set of plans titled “New Earth Living, LLC, Amabel Pocket Neighborhood, Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” including sheets C101-C106 and C201-C202, all prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., dated 10/20/2015 and revised 10/27/2015, and other application materials; and 5. The Town Planning staff has recommended the reaffirmation of the Planning Board’s negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed project; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. Pursuant to New York State Town Law, §276 (6)(d), the Planning Board finds that the final plat is not in substantial agreement with the preliminary plat that was approved for the project on May 5, 2015, because of the changes listed in Whereas #1 above; and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby reaffirms the negative determination of envi- ronmental 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 FEAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the FEAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Haefeli, Fogarty, Bosak, Collins, Beach AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the proposed Draft Sign Law Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Bosak had a list of comments and recommendations, some related to wordsmithing and others regarding content, that the planning board generally agreed with. Ms. Balestra noted these comments and will bring them to the town board for consideration. Planning Board Minutes 12-01-2015 Page 9 of 9 Mr. Haefeli asked about the emerging field of projected signage. Ms. Brock said that it had not been considered and agreed that it should be looked at. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 9:50 p.m. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - Nobody came forward to address the board. AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Mr. Beach, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, A )ebra DeAugistimrrDeputy To^ CWk