Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA History Combined (29) Zoning Board of Appeals History as of 27.-1-13.121 200 Conifer Dri Tax Parcels involved, with address if known Mecklenburg Road 27.-1-13.121 with subdivision from 27.-1-13.12. History: 2006 – Height Variance - Approved 2002 – Area Variance subdivision - Approved TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 2006 7 : 00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Monday, January 23 , 2006, in Town Hall , 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . on the following matters : APPEAL of Chad Horihan, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-60 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain a newly constructed home located at 303 Old Gorge Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 46- 1 - 15 . 36, Low . Density Residential Zone. A portion of the home is located within the 30-foot required front yard setback. — APPEAL of-Comell University, Appellant, Laurene Gilbert, Agent, requesting a variance- from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII , Section 270-59 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to install rugby goal posts located at the Precinct 9 Athletic Fields on Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 60- 1 -9 .2, Low Density Residential Zone . Said goal posts exceed the 30-foot maximum permitted height for structures other than buildings in the Low Density Residential Zone . APPEAL of Conifer LLC , Appellant, Carol Oster, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article XII, Section 270- 105 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct an 80,000+/- square foot, three-story building located on a 9+/- acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III on Conifer Drive, off of Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . ' s 27- 1 - 13 . 12 and 27- 1 - 13 . 162, Multiple Residence Zone . Said building exceeds the maximum permitted height for structures in the Multiple Residence Zone (38 feet from lowest interior grade or 36 feet permitted from lowest exterior grade, whichever is lower) . APPEAL of Bonnie and James Warren, Appellants, Bob Drew, Agent, requesting an interpretation, or alternately, a use variance, from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Sections 270-54 and 270-55 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to operate a miniature golf course that includes the sale of ice cream, frozen ice cream novelties and other concessions . located at 869 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 35 - 1 - 10 .2 . The miniature golf course is an allowable use in the Low Density Residential Zone following Planning Board Special Permit and Site Plan Approval . Howev_er,_retail__ sales are not allowed in the Low . Density Residential Zone . Therefore, an interpretation is being requested as to whether ice cream and concession sales are a "normal function" of a miniature golf course . Otherwise a use variance is being requested to allow the ice cream and concessions to operate with the mini-golf use . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time; 7 : 00 p.m ., and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or . objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person . Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Jonathan Kanter, A1CP Director of Planning 607-273 - 1747 Dated : January 12, 2006 Published : January 16, 2006 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES Precinct 9 Athletic Fields on Pine Tree Road , Tax Parcel No . 60- 1 -9 . 2 , Low Density Residential Zone . FINDINGS : The requirements for an Area Variance have been satisfied CONDITIONS : 1 . The posts shall not exceed 37 feet in height 2 e posts shall only be installed from September 1St through December 15 The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer , Matthews NAYS : NONE The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairperson Sigel — OK, you ' re all set. Ms. Gilbert - Thank you. Mr. Matthews — Thank you. APPEAL of Conifer LLC, Appellant, Carol Oster, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article XII, Section 270 405 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct an 80,000+/- square foot, three-story building located on a 9+/- acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III on Conifer Drive, off of Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. ' s 27443 . 12 and 27443. 162 , Multiple Residence Zone. Said building exceeds the maximum permitted height for structures in the Multiple Residence Zone, Ms. Oster - Hello, I ' m Carol Oster from Conifer and with me tonight is John Fennessey of Conifer and Stacey Crawford from Better Housing for Tompkins County our not for profit partner. And I 'm just giving John a couple seconds here, and do the presentation to you. Chairperson Sigel — OK. John Fennessey, Conifer LLC Good evening. Does this work? Yes . My name is John Fennessey from Conifer Realty, and I ' d like to just take a moment to explain to you the proposed development we have and then get to the building in which we are seeking the variance . For those who are just not completely familiar where this project is located, this route 79 coming up from the 13 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES city and this is the bend in the city that runs . . . this is the incorporation line between the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca which runs right along this line here . We have, over the years, built 56 units in here and we built 72 units here, and the 2 years ago, we finished 24 units over here . And our overall concept plan which is expressed here, which contains about 90 some-odd acres of land, calls for Conifer Drive to be continued on up through here and eventually on over to what would be the Bundy Road. These would be single-family homes, patio homes in here, and more single family homes in here . And our discussion here tonight involves just this space right here which is the proposed elderly building that we want to put here . Now in the planning of this project, we took a lot of things into consideration. One of the things that drove us was a housing market study which showed there' s a substantial demand for elderly housing in the community, and we felt that this was a good location in which to locate that housing. So we had proposed to put a, originally, we proposed to put a 72 unit project . in a two story physical environment. But the topography here .is such that the buildings had long wings on it in a delta shape, and it was very difficult for us to get a pleasing structure with that configuration, and it also required us to move a lot of dirt and take down more trees that what we wanted to do . So we toyed with the idea of what if we went to the three-story building. And immediately when we went to the three story building, we were cross the threshold in terms of the height requirements, where we would go , I believe it is, we would be at 36 feet, and we would have to go to 42 feet. Or 43 feet rather I should say. So that would require a variance . But in the same token, that allowed us to have a more pleasant looking building. But we ourselves weren' t convinced as would this look good in terms of the whole neighborhood. And I believe in your packet, you have materials where we had what is known as a "balloon test" last, a year ago this past . January, where we had balloons erected on the site, one set of balloons erected at the permitted height which is 36 feet, and the other set of balloons erected at the 42 or 43 foot height. And then on that we superimposed the proposed building that we had. And I believe you have in your package, those drawings with those balloons that show where things are relative to one another. Then, besides that we went out and took photographs from all around the countryside from different angles, several miles away, even across the lake to see what impact this would have visually on the community . And the sum and substance of it is it' s a modest, very modest impact on our property here . On the properties that are distant from us, it' s no impact whatsoever, you just don' t see it. So , if we take a look at these photographs here, which .is a artists rendition of what the building is, set on the exact site, the way it would sit on the site, and then the balloons depict what it would be like if it was built with a, at the approved height,, which is 36 feet or what it was built at 43 feet. And it' s, I hope in your packet, you can see how modest that change is. So, that' s our purpose here tonight. We thought that a pitched roof building would be a better looking building, and it would be worth our coming before this board to seek, to get, your approval . I would like to say too, that we could have done it with a two story, or a three story building but with a flat roof and we did present that to the Planning Board, and it went over like a submarine with a screen door, in terms of its acceptability of,appearance, and we felt again, that we are in a residential neighborhood, a residential neighborhood 14 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES that primarily has buildings with peaked roofs and not a flat institutional look. So that' s why we' re here, it is to ask your indulgence and your approval for us to put up, to make this building a more attractive building by allowing it to go up to three stories with a pitched roof as opposed to. a flat roof. I think in your deliberations, there are five areas that need to be considered, and just let me speak to those if I could for a moment. We don't want to have an unreasonable change in the character of the neighborhood. And keep in mind that these are all rental units that have been developed here . The single-family homes are out here along the street and over in here. And we 're back in here quite a distance away. So, this building will have no impact visually on these neighbors, these single-family neighbors that are over here and down in here . It ' s barely visible from our site. This is our site right here, and you can see back into it from there, so it will not have any negative impact on the character of the neighborhood that we ' ve already developed here over the past several years, with well over 100 units in here. Next, the second consideration is, I mentioned we could have built a three story building with a flat roof, and again it has an institutional character to it, and it' s not in keeping with the residential character of this area. So we felt that was a factor that needed consideration. Moreover if we built, if we proposed to build a building that conformed with the height requirements to get the same number of dwelling units, we would have had to go to a larger building, which is going to have 40,000 square feet of land are have to be covered, so it was going to be a bigger environmental change to the land than if we went to the three story building with a pitched roof. So. we felt that that was modest, it would be substantially different. It would be like 48%, We ' d have to eat up 48% more land area to build that building with the, on a two story configuration. Finally, the request that we ' re making is . not substantial . It .is a variance, but it ' s not substantial . It ' s like 19%, 20% increase over what the, the 36 feet and the 43 feet that we . . . [tape is flipped] Mr. Fennessey - The physical characteristics of the village or of the neighborhood as we mentioned, we could have built . . . since this is a variance, you know, it ' s a self created variance, we are the ones that decided we ought to try to do this, but we think by doing it the way we 're doing it, you ' ll have a . . . the community will have a better project, we ' ll have a better project, and it will be a better looking project. So, while it is a self-imposed "hardship", the factors that mitigate it outweigh it. It has a smaller footprint here, which is substantial when we 're dealing in an area that has substantial topography to it. So, we ' re moving less dirt around, that means we have more open space, more green space, for everyone to enjoy than if we had a spread out building. So , that' s basically it, I think that we have tried to address the realistic things of what is the impact of the building going to have on the neighboring people, and we concluded that it will not have an adverse impact. Some of the photographs you have there, you can 't see . . . It' s in our own neighborhood, and we all have . . . we have multi-family here, and it ' s not going to have any impact on these homes here, when they are built. These houses are already going to be here, this building will already be here, and these buildings will know that . the environment they 're moving into when they do that. 15 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES So, basically, that' s it. I think that without having to scale back the development, which would be detrimental to the elderly people of this community, because you' re just building less units where the demand is clear there for what we want to build. So, I think that all in all, though we are as they say, it is a hardship that we have imposed on ourself, we feel the community' s going to be better off with this subtle variance granted to this development, because of all the positive influence it will have on the elderly community: Can I answer. any questions? Mr. Krantz - Yeah, I have some . I have a problem. I guess I ' ve always known rules were made for breaking, but this Town enacted a whole series of rules for agricultural land, which this was. And on Agricultural land, you can always put up one residential unit in 7 acres, and somehow this has gone from Agriculture to medium density to multiple residential, and all of a sudden on what was agricultural land, on 9 acres we ' re going to have 72 units . How does this come about? Chairperson Sigel — Well, that' s not really an issue for us to tackle, I don' t think, because that' s the Town Board' s decision. Mr. Matthews — They already approved that. Mr. Niefer Changed the zoning. Chairperson Sigel — The Town Board decides how things are zoned and we just respond to requests for variances from that. Mr. Krantz — Right. Chairperson Sigel — So, I don' t think the property ' s history as being other zones has any, wouldn' t appear to have any bearing on . . . Mr. Matthews — You can ' t prohibit that, prohibit them from building because it' s been approved. Chairperson Sigel — Right. Mr. Niefer - I think the thing that' s kind of interesting is that the Planning Board approved this project and the height involved and the size of the project, the physical size of it. It' s humongous. But then contrast the Planning Board ' s approval of this, versus the Planning Board' s view of the Auble project on the . . . across from Sam. Peter' s up on South Hill . And the Planning Board on that project, chopped a three story building down to two stories and were very restrictive on the size of the facility, so this . . : Ms. Balestra — I believe the height for this . . . Mr. Niefer — to some extent is inconsistent with what they had previously done . Now I fully understand politically low cost housing, that' s five stars right there, and the 16 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES Planning Board is all for that, and I ' m not_ necessarily opposed to that. So, it' s a matter of low income, moderate income housing, an affordable situation, and granted it' s more economical to build a three story building with 72 units than it is to build a two story building with 72 units, and granted the footprint is smaller. So there are a lot of factors that I understand as to why they are proposing to do what they ' re doing, but my basic comment is that it' s an interesting observation how the Planning Board goes one way on one situation, and another way on another situation that are somewhat similar. Mr. Krantz — And I would like to go on record as being quite critical of the Planning Board for allowing this . They' re allowing 72 units on a 9-acre plot in what was agricultural land and that' s outrageous . Chairperson Sigel — I think that the 72 units is well within the multiple residence density. Ms . Balestra — I believe it is . Chairperson Sigel — I mean, if not, they would need a variance. Mr. Fennessey - We would need a variance if it wasn' t. Chairperson Sigel — So the number of units is permitted in . . . Mr. Ellsworth — With the current zoning. Chairperson Sigel — in the multiple residence . Mr. Krantz — I think it ' s outrageous that they changed the zoning. Chairperson Sigel — That ' s the Town . . . Ms. Balestra — Well, the Planning Board didn ' t change the zoning. Ms. Brock - The Town Board can do that. Ms . Balestra — The Town Board changed the zoning according to research that the COC did, which some of the people on this board were on the COC at the time, and the zone change happened a while ago , from agriculture to residential . Mr. Krantz — How long ago ? Ms. Balestra — I have to actually check, but I would be happy to do that right now. It may have been something that the Comprehensive Plan of 1993 requested and based on the research then. Chairperson Sigel — That was to medium density. 17 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Balestra — Medium density residential , which allows 15 ,000 square foot lots. Mr. Krantz — And there ' s another factor, too . You know, there ' s a time and a place for all things, the West Hill already has the box stores, the recycling center, the school bus garage, the Highway Department, West Village, Linderman Creek and a gravel pit. Mr. Ellsworth — Eco Village . Mr. Krantz — Wouldn' t it be nice if we could put something like . this up close to Cornell, so these people could go and take courses there? Mr. Ellsworth — I have a question, to the west, I know that terrain . . . Mr. Fennessey Here? Mr. Ellsworth — Well, adjacent, right directly west from the building you' re talking about. That terrain rises . Mr. Fennessey - That' s correct. Mr. Ellsworth — In other words, is this three stories going to be . . . you know the view to the East, is the big view of Cornell and a few other things, but is this going to what ' s supposed to be there to the West? Mr. Fennessey - That' s a good question. You don' t, maybe, I ' m not sure if this comes with your plan, but here ' s a 5 foot person standing here, at this level here, beyond . . . just, this is our property line here, just beyond the property line, and this is the top of the building shown here, and the line of sight is right over the top . As I think I mentioned in my presentation, viewing it from the east looking west, there ' s no one can see it except our own property, is the only one where it' s visible . And it' s also visible when you' re over here where this . . . this is a future Town park, it would be visible from there. Mr. Ellsworth — The major view of the properties that are going to be to the West is to the East across the valley. Mr. Fennessey - These people would look: across . . . Mr. Ellsworth — Is this additional height going to be obstructing that view of what ever' s going to be there . . . single story homes or . whatever. Mr. Fennessey - That' s what I was talking about here . Here ' s a drawing which depicts the height of the three story building relative to a five foot person that' s standing here just past the property line, . and their line of sight is right over the top of this building, as shown by this arrow right here . This is one of the things we had when we went before the Planning Board to show them [inaudible] and we verified that by doing the balloon 18 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES test with the photographs, and we did the photographs during the January month when there ' s no leaves on the trees. Mr. Ellsworth — Well, I know what you tried to show, but I know you can use photography to your advantage too, so I didn' t make that a big deal looking at all those 20 pictures. Mr. Matthews — What restricts the line of sight going lower, is there a hill there or something? Mr. Fennessey - I'm sorry, say that again please sir? Mr. Matthews — What restricts the five-foot person's line of sight going lower? Is there a hill there or something? Mr. Fennessey - No, no, no . . . Mr. Matthews — If I ' m standing there, what restricts me . . . ? Mr. Fennessey - If you' re standing here, Mr. Matthews — yeah . . . Mr. Fennessey - you can certainly see it. If you' re standing over here, you cannot see it. If you' re standing right along Oakwood Lane, you won' t see it. You could come in here onto the site, where it' s cleared land back in here, you can . . . Mr. Matthews — But there ' s no Mr. Fennessey - But if you' re over here on this side of the street, you cannot see it. Mr. Matthews — OK, the picture you have on the top right, is that from Route 79? Mr. Fennessey - This picture right here sir? Mr. Matthews — Yes. Mr. Fennessey = Yes. Mr. Matthews — Is that from the road? Mr. Fennessey - No that picture is right from our road right here . . . Mr. Matthews — Yes? Mr. Fennessey - . . . right here, that' s on Conifer Drive . 19 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews — So who would see that building in the surrounding diameter of a mile? Mr. Ellsworth — The people due west. Mr. Fennessey - Well, if you' re over here, you' re not going to see the site, you're not going to see the building. If you' re up here, you' re not going to see the site . Mr. Ellsworth — Why, what' s . . . ? Mr. Matthews — What ' s up there to prevent me from seeing? Mr. Ellsworth — Right. Mr. Fennessey - This topography rises up. Remember I had mentioned during the time period that we had, there was an awful lot of. . . [inaudible] Mr. Ellsworth — Yeah, because the road rises, 79 rises . Mr. Matthews — Is what? Mr. Fennessey - As well as this land up here is substantially higher than ours here, so again I have to go back to this drawing which shows the elevation and what a five foot person would see if they looked across here when this was built. You' re going to be looking across, all this represents our development out there . If you' re looking across it would not be obstructing your view. Mr. Matthews — Would you be kind enough to show me on that picture, top right, right. Bring the roofline down, if you can, to the zoning regulation. Chairperson Sigel — It would be roughly . . . Mr. Fennessey - I can do it with this board right here . Mr. Matthews — Put a card over it or something, so that I can see . Chairperson Sigel — It would probably be roughly removing the pitched roof, right? Mr. Ellsworth — Yeah. Mr. Fennessey - Yeah. Chairperson Sigel — Because the flat roof would meet the requirement. Mr. Fennessey - the flat roof would meet it. On this photographed picture, you see that Orange balloon right there? 20 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews — Yes . Mr. Fennessey - OK, that' s at the 36 feet level, that' s at the 43 feet level . Mr. Matthews — So you' d have to come up here to the top of this third floor, is that right? Mr. Fennessey - Well, we ' d just take it and cut this roof off. Mr. Matthews — Yes, but you couldn' t have a flat roof. Mr. Fennessey - No , you can have a flat roof. But it' s not, our view is that it' s not, and the Planning Board ' s view is that it' s not an attractive way to build this building, you' re better off having a pitched roof. Mr. Matthews — So, essentially, to have the pitched roof, you ' d have to have two floors, two stories? Mr . Fennessey - To have a pitched roof, there' d have to be two floors and then you' d have to go off. Mr. Matthews — I understand. And you can ' t go deeper in the ground? Mr . Fennessey - No, no , you can't live below ground, you wouldn' t be able to live below grade . Chairperson Sigel — you' d still need a variance actually, because we have a provision for measuring from the interior, lowest interior floors as well as exterior. So, if they essentially made the first floor a basement, it would still . . . Mr. Matthews — They would still need the variance . Chairperson Sigel — They would still need the variance . Mr. Matthews — So the concern I have, I don ' t know if other people have the concern, is the visual effects. You keep pointing out the visual effects, so I ' m wondering if you go down, you grade out, then you wouldn' t have the visual effects of this tall three story building for somebody to look at. Which, I don' t have a problem with looking at buildings, but some people do . Mr. Fennessey - There is no, with this, where this site is located, and the topography, there is not any visual impact except places that I ' ve tried to show here in these photographs . Mr. Matthews — I know and you brought a lot of that up, so that ' s why I ' m bringing it up, to reduce the visual impact. 21 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23, 2006 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — How far back from the property line on that, on your elevation chart there, is . . . in the lower right, yeah, that one . So you have your five-foot person there, how far back from the property line are they, to achieve that line of sight? Mr. Fennessey - The uh . . . Chairperson Sigel — How . . . ? I think the dark vertical line is your property line . . . Mr. Fennessey - Yeah, that' s going to be . . . it says vertical is . . , horizontal is one inch equals 100 feet, and vertical is one inch equals 20 feet. So you' re back here 100 feet from the . . . if this represents the property line right here, back 100 feet, if you ' re five foot high, you won' t see anything. Chairperson Sigel — Did we get that in our packet, do you know? Mr. Fennessey - I do not know. I know it was part of the Planning Board review, because this is an issue that we went through with the planning board, concerning this whole issue of [inaudible] , and that' s why, as I said, we went, from our point of view, the importance of having a balloon test, which we felt would be unequivocable in terms of what you' re actually going to see, once you' re out in the field. And it' s not something superimposed by artists, it' s something where balloons are set in the air, they' re set at 36 feet, they ' re set at 43 feet, they take photographs from all around the area to see what you can see. Carol, do you know if those photographs are part of their packet, too? Mr. Ellsworth — Yeah, they ' re in here . Ms. Balestra — Just for the board ' s information, the Planning Board was lead agency for environmental review, and they did look at the visual impact, and that information is included in your packets as well . Mr. Ellsworth - John, is it John? Mr. Fennessey - Yes . Mr. Ellsworth — What is going to be on that piece of property between Route 79 and your building? Mr. Fennessey - Right here, the green? Mr. Ellsworth — Well, what' s those things drawn in there, those just trees? Mr. Fennessey - Oh, these are all houses. Everything that' s in there . Mr. Ellsworth — And they' re what, single story? 22 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Fennessey - These are two story town houses . Mr. Ellsworth — Two story. And up. the other way are all single-family two story? Mr. Fennessey - We ' ve developed as far as, this is Linderman Creek right here. These are all built. And our proposal is to build this building that we ' re talking about here. The balance of these, these are single-family homes, patio homes, zero outline homes, to be built sometime . Mr. Ellsworth — They' re two story? Mr. Fennessey - Two . story, well, probably: They might be one story too . Mr. Ellsworth — Well . What about to the north? Mr. Fennessey - In here? Mr. Ellsworth — Yeah. Mr. Fennessey These would be more single-family homes. Mr. Ellsworth — Some two story. Mr. Fennessey - Right. As I said, this land here, when we bought this land back in the early 90 ' s, we bought half the land, and both the owner and we contributed ten percent of our, what we planned, to the Town. [inaudible] Mr. Ellsworth — But what I don't want to happen, is if this board approves this, and then you come back later in one of these other area developments and start going at this again. OK? You know, we say you already approved one at 43 feet, now we want 46 feet for some other reason that whatever, you know? Mr. Fennessey - Well, we presented this conceptual plan to the Planning Board, that [inaudible] Mr . Ellsworth -Well, this isn' t the planning board . Mr. Fennessey - Pardon me? Mr. Ellsworth — This is the board of appeals . Mr. Fennessey - I know. 23 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Ellsworth — And we have criteria here . And one of them is, whether the undesirable change in the neighborhood character has to nearby properties. These are the first three story buildings in this whole area, right? Mr. Fennessey - That ' s correct. Again, these are all two and, two stories here, these are all properties that we own and we. manage, as we both own and manage that. The people who buy here eventually, if this is approved, before they buy a house here, they' re going to . [inaudible] Mr. Ellsworth — Use the microphone I guess, we ' ll get you on the Nixon tapes . Mr. Fennessey - I don' t know if this works, yes, it does work. So, the people who buy these single-family homes, these patio homes, they ' re going to see what' s all here before they make a decision whether to buy here, OK? And our plan is to eventually build this out with these single family homes, patio homes, zero outline homes, whatever, and serve a population that is not inconsistent with the other residential homes in the area. But I think that, the point that I tried to make is that, that we ' re dealing with an issue of seven feet, seven feet, and in that seven feet, we ' re having a, an attractive solution to a development. And we can go to, I mean if this is denied, we ' ll just go and build a flat roof building, and it will not be as an attractive . . . Mr. Ellsworth — No, you can build two story . You can build less units in two story . Mr. Fennessey - Then again, if we were to do that . . . Ms . Balestra — That would need to go back to the Planning Board, who has already approved this project. Chairperson Sigel - They could also, I mean they are permitted though to build a building with a flat roof, which would need further site plan review. Mr. Ellsworth — the last item on the area variance criteria is, and you mentioned it yourself, that this difficulty is self-created, because you want to build 72 units in three stories . Mr. Fennessey - Well, I ' m glad you brought that up. We ' ve , a market study that showed the demand for elderly housing in the community, and we said how can we best address that, and we can best address it by building a 72 unit project, but you' re right, you can build a smaller project, but you' re not going to have the level of amenities in the project for the tenants that you want to serve . Now, we have hundreds of apartments across the countryside here that serve the elderly, and we ' ve got a pretty good idea of what it takes to do a nice job and make it pleasant living for them. And we felt that it was, that the issue of a seven-foot variance was not significant, because it was not going to have an adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood. The character of the 24 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES neighborhood' s, first, not going to know about it, secondly we own all this land here, we own all this land around it, so we know what we ' re doing in terms of what we want-to try to do for housing development in this area, and we thought it would be a better solution, we ' re moving less land, we ' re cutting down less trees, to make this possible. If you made a smaller project, which is possible, then you can ' t serve the same number of people you served before, you can' t provide the level of amenities you could supply if you had a larger development . It' s basically as simple as that. And we want, we have two 75 -unit projects in New Jersey, and what ' s the other one? In Maryland, that we had a similar type of situation there, where we could have a large enough development where you could have facilities to serve the tenants beside the normal type of facilities to serve tenants . We think it' s advantageous to the people that are elderly that want to live in this town and live on this site . Mr. Ellsworth — Well , there ' s a lot of other projects going on in the Town, too, some of which I ' m sure are going to have elderly going into them. Mr. Matthews' — The homes that are looking at the map there, the homes to the right of your building, are privately owned . Mr. Fennessey This right here? Mr. Matthews No, move your hand forward towards the building you want to build. Yeah, right there . Mr. Fennessey - These right here? Mr. Matthews — Right. Mr. Fennessey - These are not here, these are proposed single-family patio homes, zero lot line homes . Mr. Matthews — That individuals will purchase? Mr. Fennessey - That ' s correct. Mr. Matthews So that will be a neighborhood of individual owners, you wouldn' t own that? Mr. Fennessey - No . There would probably be a common area maintenance program for them, because they wouldn' t be, they might not be maintaining these homes as you and I might maintain a home . Mr. Matthews — And up in the upper left hand corner, those are also going to be privately owned homes? Mr. Fennessey - Yes . The balance of the site, the balance of the site is . . . 25 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews — And they can all be looking at this three story building? Mr. Fennessey - Correct. Mr. Matthews - Is that correct? Mr. Fennessey - And if that' s a concern, then they' re going to say well, I ' m not going to purchase here, but we feel that it' s going to be an attractive physical improvement to this property and an attractive building for people that are going to be living here to look at. [inaudible] Mr. Matthews — But you don't know what those homeowners are going to think. Mr. Fennessey - All I know is that if I was a homeowner here, and I took umbrage to the fact that there was a three story building there, I wouldn ' t buy here, and we ' re not concerned one iota about that, because we think that this whole thing is attractive . . . I don' t know the level of familiarity you have with the area, but we think we ' ve done a pretty good job up here of developing this in a very attractive development, and we know this will be as equally attractive, and when we get to do this, it will be attractive as well , with hiking trails and things leading to the park. We think that it ' s going to be an area that ' s very very desirable for people to live . Mr. Matthews — People move to Ithaca usually for the combination cultural/country environment that they live in, I think. And, I ' m not so sure they move to Ithaca to look at large buildings . Mr. Krantz — They stay in New Jersey, or something. Mr. Matthews — I think that' s pretty much true . Ms. Balestra — It would go against a lot of the suburban development that exists today, in Ithaca, but . . . Mr. Matthews — I ' m not opposed to progress, nor am I opposed to a growing community . Mr. Niefer — If I read the material correctly, this is for people 55 and older, and it will be for people who ' s high taxes on their individual houses downtown drive them to sell downtown and move up here, so that you ' re giving some of the people that are between a rock and a hard place on the taxes, a place to live at a moderate price, and that' s basically the market I think that you' re [inaudible] to look at. Mr. Fennessey - That' s right. Mr. Ellsworth — Surrounding this new building, is, none of these have been built yet, this is all future development? 26 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES . Mr. Fennessey - This is, what, down in this part, this whole frontage here along Route 79 is all built, OK, then this is Linderman Creek through here, and then the first thing we are proposing to build on the north of Linderman creek is elderly housing. Mr. Ellsworth — Those other three plots are not built yet? Mr. Fennessey - Pardon me? Mr. Ellsworth Those other three light yellow areas are not built yet. Chairperson Sigel — That' s correct. Mr. Ellsworth — Correct? Mr. Fennessey - That' s correct, right. Mr. Ellsworth — That' s why those people can ' t be here because they don' t like your proposal . . . nobody, those houses don' t exist. Chairperson Sigel — The applicant is the current owner of that land, so . . . Mr. Ellsworth - Yeah, I understand that. Mr. Fennessey - And as I mentioned, our view is that we made the whole thing attractive so far, and we will continue to do same, and I feel comfortable, and not concerned at all, that the people who buy these single family lots or these townhouse lots or these patio home lots, are going to have any concern about this building that happens to be seven foot higher than it ordinarily might be. Seven feet, that' s a little bit taller than me, well maybe a little bit. But, it ' s not, in the universe of things, . it' s not a significant issue in terms of anything in this geographic area. Chairperson Sigel — I just want to point out to the board, that you know, these, unlike the case of a use variance, with an area variance, the criteria here, that it says the Board of Appeals shall consider, are not criteria that the applicant necessarily has to meet, it ' s just additional criteria that the board may consider in their decision. But it' s unlike a use variance, for instance if the alleged difficulty is self-created, if you found that the applicant had created the difficulty themselves then that would disqualify them immediately in the case of a use variance, but in the case of an area variance it does not, so don ' t . . . I don' t want you to get hung up on them say, failing one test, or you think not fully meeting one test. It' s still this balancing test where you try to weigh the benefit to the applicant, versus the detriment to the community, taking into account these factors listed. Mr. Matthews — And I think that' s what we ' ve been . . . if I can use the term lightly, arguing . . . 27 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, no, I agree. Mr. Matthews That the benefit to the community or the adverse impact to the community. I think we ' re all grow up men, and we recognize people who are senior citizens need a place to live and want a place to live, and we don' t have any problem with that. Mr. Ellsworth — Most of the board are senior citizens . Mr. Matthews - We' re all going to be there in a couple weeks or a couple months, I think, except for Harry. Mr. Ellsworth -Right. Chairperson Sigel — Any . . , ? Mr. Ellsworth — Well, Kirk, you' re saying the key thing is this balancing test — Chairperson Sigel — Right. Mr. Ellsworth - It says, the last part of it, detriment to health, safety and welfare of the community. Our opinions might be a little different from John' s, he ' s here for economic reasons. Chairperson Sigel . Right, well the benefit to the applicant I think has been clearly stated . . . Mr. Ellsworth — That' s pretty obvious . Mr. Matthews — That' s obvious: Chairperson Sigel They get to build a more compact, efficient structure, and the detriment to the community is up to us to . decide . Ms . Balestra — And, if I may, the detriment is concerning the height of the building, not the use or whether it was agricultural once or how many houses are going to be next to it, it specifically, the action in question, which is the height of this proposed building. Mr. Matthews — That' s it. Ms . Brock - Right, you shouldn' t be looking at whether you think it should be in this location at all, whether you . agree that this should have been rezoned to multiple residence, you shouldn' t be looking at how many units are there. All that was determined by the Town Board when they did the rezoning, so the only thing you' re looking at is whether the height variance should be granted. 28 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews — And my point is people who are going to buy these homes, who haven' t purchased them yet, are going to have to live with our decision to have this building that is relatively tall, to what we ' re used to, to what the norm is, and we have to make a decision if that' s something we can approve. Chairperson Sigel — Right. Mr. Krantz — The nearest three-story building is downtown in Ithaca. Mr. Niefer — But on the other hand, though, as John ' s pointed out, if a buyer comes in for a single family home and this is already there, this three story building is already there, the potential buyer, it' s open and obvious, if the buyer doesn' t like to have that building next door, he can go somewhere else . So, it' s an open market, free market situation, that' s not like the situation where all these individual homes have already been built and then we come along and put in a three story or are asked to put in a three story that ' s 43 high, that' s significantly different and the homeowners have little or no choice there other than to rise up and say we don't like it, we ' re going to fight it. Here, this is a strategic move to put in all the rental properties first, and then subsequently build one family units later on and . . . [tape is changed] Mr. Niefer — is there, and as a practical matter, a peaked roof is less maintenance than a flat roof too . A flat roof, regardless of how good it is, it is a problem to maintain. So, from the standpoint of being more attractive, I think the peaked roof situation is significantly more attractive to anyone living in the area or seeing the situation. Chairperson Sigel — I agree . Mr. Ellsworth — Why don' t you go with the public hearing? I want to see if there are any people that live in those homes down below there that have any feelings about this . Chairperson Sigel — Sure OK, we ' ll open the public hearing at this point. . Does anyone wish to speak? Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8: 07 p. m. Chairperson Sigel — Do you want to speak during the public hearing portion? Ms . Crawford - Whichever' s appropriate I guess . Chairperson Sigel — Sure, go ahead . Ms . Crawford - Sure, I ' m Stacey Crawford, I ' m the executive director of Better Housing for Tompkins County, and we ' re working with Conifer on this project and have on 29 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES several others, and as such, we ' ve been partners in joint ventures and developments and developing and owning Linderman Creek and Ellis Hollow Apartments. I just wanted — my comment is that as a non-profit that works on housing issues locally, we ' ve been well aware of the needs for projects like this for seniors and other folks doing a variety of things rental and ownership. The discussions around the number of units and whether it could be two story and have fewer units and things, we really do see a need for this many units, and to the extend that we like to be involved with projects that are attractive and do fit with the communities as well as possible, this configuration with the peaked roof is in our mind definitely preferable to flat roof situations . Also, too , just a general comment, on proposals going forward and housing being built and things, there is a needs assessment that is being completed at the County level right now, and final results aren ' t going to be out for another month I ' m told, but the consultants who have been working on the plan have been releasing some information ahead of time, and their projection is now, just given current demographics and jobs and things, and the rate of housing need , they see in the area, between now and fifteen years from now, they ' re going to see a need for at least 150 some odd units a year in order to keep people in this community housed. And there certainly, I ' m just bringing that up because there certainly us a need for the [inaudible] that are proposed. Chairperson Sigel — Is that total units for all demographics? Ms. Crawford - I believe so , yes . Chairperson Sigel .— OK. Ms. Crawford - That' s the rough number is 150 . They do have something on the county' s website that has more in depth information about housing need in the area, and just what we ' re seeing in terms of demographics and talking to the office for the aging about the growing, you know, the aging of communities everywhere, including Tompkins County, the need for seniors is going to continue to grow, and we know that this is going to be a nice project and combine some amenities that will be really, really, really good for the community. So , those are my comments . Chairperson Sigel — OK. Ms . Crawford - Thanks . Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak? If not, we ' ll close the public hearing. Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 8: 10 p. m. Chairperson. Sigel — Any further comments, questions? The . . . as Chris pointed out, I think the Planning Board did act as lead agency with regard to the environmental assessment, and they made a negative determination which I ' m not sure exactly how you say this, it' s essentially binding on us, right? 30 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Balestra — Mmm hmm. Chairperson Sigel — We don't make a negative, or we don' t make a. separate determination. Ms. Brock - Because it was a coordinated review. Ms . Balestra — It was a coordinated review. Chairperson Sigel — Because it was a coordinated review. Chris, did . you want to make any comments about that, highlight anything in particular? Ms . Balestra — Well, there were comments regarding the photographs that were submitted, and regarding the balloons and the height differences and the visual impact regarding the height differences to a 36-foot roof as opposed to 43 . And it, I believe there were no environmental concerns regarding that, because the difference is only seven feet, so it ' s not that significant of a height increase, environmentally speaking, to cause a significant impact visually. Mr. Niefer — I have one question to raise . Normally notice is sent to adjoining property owners or adjoining residents, in this situation, what was the extent, I granted there was a sign that ' s put out by the road, granted there is the legal notice in the journal . How extensive was any other notice distributed to people of interest in the area. To what extent did it go?. Ms . Balestra = I know for the Planning Board, we generally send things to people within 500 feet of the proposal , then if there are any other neighborhood groups that are of interest, we' ll also send things to them additionally, or anyone else who requests information. Mr. Niefer — Would that have included tenants and rental people in these houses? Ms . Balestra — Yes, that would include the people in Linderman Creek . . . Mr. Niefer — I recognize that they' re not property owners, so they really don' t have that much interest in the height. of the building. Ms . Balestra — Yeah. Chairperson Sigel — Any other questions? Comments? Mr. Ellsworth — Yeah, I guess I have one . Chairperson Sigel — Sure . 31 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Ellsworth — These areas to be developed in the all the light yellow there . This is for Chris = is it set what' s going to be there? I mean, my concern again is, it' s only x number of feet like you just said, but tomorrow, or next month or next year you get these people in here that, you just approved one, you know x doors away for 43 feet, now I want 48 feet, 52 feet, or whatever. You know, we ' ve been through that several times . Ms . Balestra — Well, there has been some discussion . . . Mr. Ellsworth — So, the question is whether we ' re not going to go through that for these adjacent developments. Ms . Balestra - There ' s no way for met to tell you whether the houses they' re going to build , . . Mr. Ellsworth — John ' s a good businessman. He ' s here because of economics, and he ' ll be back again because of economics . Ms. Balestra — I can tell you this — there has been talk internally with staff as to the wisdom of our zoning ordinance height requirements and height restrictions, based on different architectural styles that have come about, and the measurements that we choose to measure, interior and exterior grade to the roof peak. Peaks of roofs are a little bit differently these days. You' ve seen with a lot of the Southwoods development. Mr. Ellsworth — You know, we have this unique problem in Town of Ithaca with these hills, and that' s what' s driving all this, the hills and the walkout basements is what' s driving . . . Chairperson Sigel — For the single-family homes . . . Mr. Ellsworth — [inaudible] the hill and so on. You know, the minute we get a walk out basement with a steep roof, we ' re into this situation. Now, his probably isn' t unusually steep, but we ' ve had a lot of them in here that are unusually . . . you haven' t witnessed all this. I have because I ' m the elder here . Ms. Balestra — Yeah, there have been quite a few. Mr. Ellsworth — And we ' re getting it time and time again. Thus the Town officials are considering upping the limit, is that where this is going? Ms. Balestra — It' s just sort of talk amongst the staff at this point. Chairperson Sigel — That' s up to you, Harry, what you think in each situation is reasonable . Mr. Ellsworth — Since you' re on the board that makes the rules . 32 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES Chairperson Sigel — I don' t make the rules. Mr. Ellsworth — Well, there ' s a committee that makes the rules . Chairperson Sigel — But we have our current set of rules that we need to enforce, and it' s up to us in each case to decide . Homes in the single family development will be in a different zone, so I don't think there ' s much of a . . . personally, I don' t think there ' s much of a compelling argument for someone to come in and say I want a height variance simply because this neighboring property, which is a different zone . . . Mr. Ellsworth — We already had that several times . Chairperson Sigel — got variances . That' s not to say that a 43 -foot variance might not be unreasonable in a neighboring zone . We have, I think, found thus far that in the Southwoods development that 42 or 43 feet has been a reasonable height. Ms. Balestra — Right. It' s my understanding though, also , that patio homes especially are generally not as tall as your typical single-family homes. I don' t know if that' s correct, but that' s my understanding . Mr. Fennessey - That' s correct, they' re primarily for people that are retiring, they want to have everything at all one level, and so they ' re designed to be smaller houses, maybe zero lot line, but smaller houses that are easier to maintain with maintenance done on the outside of the buildings by community organizations . Mr. Matthews — We used to have a term when I worked for a living and earned my dollars, you do something without prejudice or precedent, but we can' t do that here. The market, the market is driving, as Chris said, the market in architecture is driving the height of these homes higher and higher. In my short tenure on the board, I 've noticed that. And I don' t think we can legislate against that, we had to take each individual case as it comes along, and they' re probably pumping us up over a ten-year period. We ' ll have these neo-Victorian homes that have been sprouting up all over the place. That' s all I have to say . Mr. Krantz — Do we have to vote on the environmental assessment? Chairperson Sigel — No . Mr. Ellsworth — That was done. Ms . Brock - It ' s already finished. The Planning Board did that as lead agency. Mr. Krantz — The planning board on 90 percent poorly drained soil, in the agricultural district, in the wetlands along Linderman Creek, allows the use of herbicides and pesticides . 33 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Balestra — Where are you reading that, Ron? Mr. Krantz — Right from this environmental assessment form. Ms . Balestra — I know, tell me specifically though. Chairperson Sigel — You' re looking at the Ms. Balestra — You' re looking at the part I? Mr. Krantz — The full environmental assessment form. Ms . Balestra — OK. If you' re looking at the part I , that is the part of information . . . Mr. Krantz — One, soil drainage, poorly drained, 90 percent. Ms . Balestra — Right. Mr. Krantz — OK. Two, site located in an agricultural district; number 18 , yes . Ms. Balestra — Right. Mr. Krantz — Number, page number 18 , will project use herbicides or pesticides, yes . And somewhere it says wetlands along Linderman Creek, Ms . Balestra — Poorly drained soil, the wetlands, all of those were considered in the environmental review that the Planning Board . had gone through. The . applicant submitted information for the environmental analysis including stormwater management studies, all of those different things . As far as being in an agricultural district, that is a Tompkins County designation that the landowner, applied for. It' s not agriculturally zoned, and in fact, . I looked this up, it hasn' t been agriculturally zoned for many, many years. It' s been a residentially zoned area since before the comprehensive plan, and the Town comprehensive plan zoned, or excuse me, anticipated more suburban style development for this property for the future, and that was in 1993 , so . . . Mr. Matthews — Hasn' t this been approved by the town Planning Board except for the height? Ms . Balestra — Yes . Chairperson Sigel — Yes. Ms . Balestra — Yes, all of this has been approved. Ms. Brock - So the . . . 34 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 . 2006 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Matthews — With all due respect to my colleague, it ' s not a point. Ms . Brock - Right . The environmental determination of significance for . . . Mr . Matthews — It ' s not a point . Ms . Brock - the environmental impact . . . Mr . Matthews — It could be an obstructionist point, but it ' s not a point that we can deliberate . Ms . Brock - Right . Ms. Balestra — If you were on the planning board , you could deliberate it, but you ' re looking at the height . Mr . Matthews — So we have to determine whether or not we like the height or not , and whether or not they ' re dumping pesticides or whatever they ' re doing up there , somebody can go back to the Planning Board , certainly not us . Ms . Balestra — Correct . Chairperson Sigel — If you look. the wetland is listed as half an acre . Mr . Matthews — But they ' ve already determined that there was no impact, so why even discuss it? You know . . . Ms . Brock - Right , that ' s a done thing . They ' ve made their determination . Mr. Matthews — I can determine to live until I ' m 93 years old , there ' s not a hell of a lot I can do about it . That ' s the way it is . Can we vote on this? Chairperson Sigel — We can . Mr. Ellsworth — I ' m ready . Chairperson Sigel — Any further questions. comments? OK . I will move to grant the appeal of Conifer LLC , requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article XII , Section 270- 105 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct an approximately 80 . 000 square foot , three- story building located on an approximate 9 acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III on Tax Parcel No . 27 - 1 - 13 . 12 and 13 . 162 , Multiple Residence Zone . We ' ll make the finding that the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied by the applicant, and with the condition that the building not exceed 43 feet in height, and with the further condition that the building be constructed as indicated on the applicant ' s plans . With a further condition that all of the conditions listed . . . all the requirements listed in Planning Board 35 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES resolution 2005 - 125 , with the exception of the requirements related to this board, also be met. Ms. Brock - Just a point of clarification, when you say that you want, one of the conditions is that the building be constructed as indicated on the applicant' s plans, you probably need to specify which plans you' re referring to . Are you talking about the plans that were submitted to this board? Chairperson Sigel — Yes . Ms. Brock - For this .hearing, OK. Mr. Ellsworth — Well, for the sloping roof. We also have plans for a flat roof. Chairperson Sigel — Right, the plans that the applicant has indicated that they want to build, that they' ve submitted to this board. Ms . Brock - OK. Chairperson Sigel — Any further suggestions? Mr. Ellsworth — I ' d like to . . . I think we ought to condition it a little further on some of the points John made, so that when somebody comes back later and points at this and wants theirs passed, we say well, there were special conditions . One is that it' s not blocking the view from sites to. the west, the view across the valley . . . what else? That by building this number of units in this type of structure it saves a lot of economics and landfill , and it makes for a smaller footprint. Those, you know, specifics . Chairperson Sigel — We can make the finding that the applicant has shown, through photo simulation evidence, that the impact from various points outside of their property is minimal, and that the impact from various points within their property is modest, also make the finding that allowing a three story building allows the applicant to disturb less land, allows them to build more units in a smaller overall structure and more efficient structure. Mr. Ellsworth — No one came to speak . . . Chairperson Sigel — Make a finding that . . . Mr. Ellsworth — from the public, from, that live adjacent to this property presently . Chairperson Sigel — that no one from the community spoke against the proposal . Mr. Matthews - Again, to take everything Harry is saying, which is, it all has validity . . . can we, can we fold it all in into the term that I used in my work years ago, without 36 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 . 2006 APPROVED MINUTES precedent or prejudice, in other words, this decision stands on it ' s own, and it doesn ' t establish any precedent . . . Chairperson Sigel — All decisions are like that . Mr. Matthews — Well , maybe if we put it in there , somebody comes and says well ; you did it for them , uh uh . uh uh. uh uh . Chairperson Sigel — I don ' t personally think it ' s necessary, or . . . Mr. Matthews — OK. well , I just didn ' t want you to have to use 16 tapes to get every-thing that Harry was concerned about . . . Chairperson Sigel — No , it ' s good to add more findings , because that basically establishes the uniqueness of this application and deserving of a variance . Mr. Matthews — OK . Chairperson Sigel — So , it ' s good to add those findings . Mr. Ellsworth — I think that ' s it . Chairperson Sigel — OK , Second ? -0 . Niefer seconded the motion. Mr. Matthews — Yeah. I ' ll second it . Chairperson Sigel — All in favor? Mr. Matthews , Mr . Niefer, Mr. Ellsworth . and Chairperson Sigel — Ave . Chairperson Sigel — Opposed ? Mr. Krantz — Opposed , on basis that there is no other three story building within approximately ten miles . ZB RESOLUTION NO , 2006 - 004 : Appeal of Conifer, LLC , Mecklenburg Rd , Tax Parcel No . 27 . 1 - 13 . 12 and 27 . - 1 - 13 . 162 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Jim Niefer . RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Conifer LLC , requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article XII , Section 270- 105 of the Town of Ithaca Code , to be permitted to construct an approximately 80 , 000 37 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES square foot , three-story building located on an approximate 9 acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III on Tax Parcel No . 's 27- 1 -13 . 12 and 27- 1 - 13 . 162 , Multiple Residence Zone , FINDINGS : 1 . The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied by the applicant 21 The applicant has shown , through photo simulation , evidence that the impact from various points outside of their property is . minimal and that the impact from various points within their property is modest 3 . Allowing a three story building allows the applicant to disturb less land , and it allows them to build more units in a smaller overall structure and a more efficient structure 4 . No one from the community spoke against the proposal CONDITIONS : 1 . . The building shall not exceed 43 .feet in height 2 . The building shall be constructed as indicated on the applicant's plans that they have submitted to this board 3 . This variance is also conditioned upon the following requirements of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board : a . Rezoning by the Town Board of the proposed project site as described above prior to consideration of Final Subdivision Approval by the Planning Board ; and b . Submission of draft easement language allowing emergency access for the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community development to utilize Cypress Court and to utilize other portions of the existing Linderman Creek Apartment Phase 11 and III on Tax Parcel Nos . 27- 1 - 13 . 18 and 27- 1 - 13 . 17 ; and C . Submission of draft easement language providing access to the Town of Ithaca to all storm water management facilities , and sewer and water mains , and indication on the Final Plat of the location and dimensions of all such easements to be conveyed to the Town ; and d . Approval of easements guaranteeing access of the large remaining parcels to Conifer Drive , by the Attorney for the Town , prior to signing of the Final Subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair; and e . Evidence of the necessary approval by the Tompkins County Health Department on the final .plat , prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair; and 38 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES f. Before construction of any improvements anywhere on the project site is commenced , requirements of the Final Site Plan Checklist shall be met , and Final Site Plan Approval granted by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board ; and g . Submission of a revised subdivision plat that correctly aligns the extension of Conifer Drive within the road - right-of-way ; and h . Completion of the new extension to Conifer Drive and required utilities , and completion of the existing Conifer Drive with the addition of six more inches of " crusher run " to the road base followed by an asphalt covering , to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and Town Highway Superintendent , prior to the issuance of a building permit ; and i . Prior to signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board , the Town Board grants approval for the Town to accept the conveyance of Conifer Drive ( extension and existing segment) ; and j . Prior to issuance of a building . permit , the conveyance of the above referenced road to the Town of Ithaca , and k . No building permits for future phases or development of the remaining large parcels located north of Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community and Linderman Creek Phase I shall be issued until the access road , extending from Conifer Drive is reviewed and approved by the Town Highway Superintendent and Town Engineer ; and I . Submission of evidence of inclusion of a deed restriction for the wetland mitigation , required by the U . S . Army Corp of Engineers Nationwide Permit No . 12 and No . 14 , showing /describing the required 0 . 72 acres of unmowed , vegetated upland buffer along the north side of Linderman Creek ; and M . Submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the final plat and three dark- lined prints , 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 n . Rezoning of the proposed project site by the Town Board ; and o . Preparation and submission of final design and construction details of all proposed structures and improvements , including drainage 39 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES and storm water management facilities , roads/driveways , parking areas , curbing , walkways , sewer and water facilities and other utilities , design of the play area , and sedimentation and erosion control measures , for review and approval by the Town Engineer; and P , Submission of final details of size , location , design , and construction materials of all proposed signs and lighting ( including any building wall mounted lights and proposed recessed ceiling porch lights) , including the proposed entrance sign ; and q . Submission of final , detailed building elevations and floor plans including descriptions of building materials and colors , and accurate dimensions of buildings , including building heights ; and r. Provision of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from other county , state , and/or federal agencies and obtaining the necessary curb-cut and road work permits from the New York State Department of Transportation , prior to issuance of any building permits ; and S4, Submission of a revised site plan modifying the placement of the two stormwater management facilities , identified on the plans as " Proposed Detention Basin of the Conifer Road right-of- way ; and t . Submission of a stormwater " Operation , Maintenance , and Reporting Agreement" between the property owner and the Town of Ithaca , satisfactory to the Director of Engineering , prior to issuance of a building permit , and U . Documentation from . TCAT that bus service will be extended to the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community and that access accommodations for buses on that site will be adequate , and V . Provision of curb cuts necessary for ADA access on the sidewalk on the . site ; and W, Provision of the necessary curb-cut and road work permits from the New York State Department of Transportation , prior to issuance of any building permits . The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Niefer, Matthews NAYS : Krantz 40 FILE 0 DATE V )DDLU ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2006 - 004 : Appeal of Conifer, LLC , Mecklenburg Rd , Tax Parcel No . 27 . -1 -13 . 12 and 27 . -1 -13 . 162 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Jim Niefer . RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Conifer LLC , requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article XII , Section 270- 105 of the Town of Ithaca Code , to be permitted to construct an approximately 80 , 000 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 23 , 2006 APPROVED MINUTES The MOTION was declared to be carried . Chairperson Sigel — Ten? Ms . Balestra — How about all of Cornell campus ? Chairperson Sigel — OK, it ' s approved . Thank you . Mr. Fennessey - Thank you . Mr . Krantz — Ten . I ' d say ten miles to downtown Ithaca . Approximately . Several side conversations occur. APPEAL of Bonnie and James Warren , Appellants , Bob Drew , Agent, requesting an interpretation , or alternately , a use variance, from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Article V111 , Sections 270- 54 and 270-55 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to operate a miniature golf course that includes the sale of ice cream , frozen ice cream novelties and other concessions located at 869 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 35 - 1 - 10 .2 . The miniature golf course is an allowable use in the Low Density Residential Zone following Planning Board Special Permit and Site Plan Approval . However, retail sales are not allovsved in the Low Density Residential Zone. Therefore, an interpretation is being requested as to whether ice cream and concession sales are a " normal function " of a miniature golf course. Otherwise a use variance is being requested to allow the ice cream and concessions to operate With the mini-golf use. Chairperson Sigel — Good evening . Ms . Warren - Hi . Chairperson Sigel — Please start with your name and address . Ms . Warren - Bonnie Warren , 2028 Elmira Road , Newfield . Mr. Warren - James Warren . same address . Chairperson Sigel — I just wanted to point out to the other members that we were handed out tonight the Planning Board resolution , which was done a short time ago . Mr. Matthews — l have a half a acre of trees here . 41 ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-004 PAGE 2 d . Approval of easements guaranteeing access of the large remaining parcels to Conifer Drive , by the Attorney for the Town , prior to signing of the Final Subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair ; and e . Evidence of the necessary approval by the Tompkins County Health Department on the final plat , prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair; and f. Before construction of any improvements anywhere on the project site is commenced , requirements of the Final Site Plan Checklist shall be met , and Final Site Plan Approval granted by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board ; and g . Submission of a revised subdivision plat that correctly aligns the extension of Conifer Drive within the road- right-of-way ; and h . Completion of the new extension to Conifer Drive and required utilities , and completion of the existing Conifer Drive with the addition of six more inches of "crusher run " to the road base followed by an asphalt covering , to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and Town Highway Superintendent, prior to the issuance of a building permit; and i . Prior to signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board , the Town Board grants approval for the Town to accept the conveyance of Conifer Drive (extension and existing segment) ; and j . Prior to issuance of a building permit , the conveyance of the above referenced road to the Town of Ithaca , and k . No building permits for future phases or development of the remaining large parcels located north of Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community and Linderman Creek Phase I shall be issued until the access road , extending from Conifer Drive is reviewed and approved by the Town Highway Superintendent and Town Engineer; and I . Submission of evidence of inclusion of a deed restriction for the wetland mitigation , required by the U . S . Army Corp of Engineers Nationwide Permit No . 12 and No . 14 , showing/describing the required 0 . 72 acres of unmowed , vegetated upland buffer along the north side of Linderman Creek ; and ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-004 PAGE M . Submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the final plat and three dark- lined prints , 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 n . Rezoning of the proposed project site by the Town Board ; and o . Preparation and submission of final design and construction details of all proposed structures and improvements , including drainage and storm water management facilities , roads/driveways , parking areas , curbing , walkways , sewer and water facilities and other utilities , design of the play area , and sedimentation and erosion control measures , for review and approval by the Town Engineer; and P , Submission of final details of size , location , design , and construction materials of all proposed signs and lighting ( including any building wall mounted lights and proposed recessed ceiling porch lights) , including the proposed entrance sign ; and q . Submission of final , detailed building elevations and floor plans including descriptions of building materials and colors , and accurate dimensions of buildings , including building heights ; and r. Provision of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from other county , state , and/or federal agencies and obtaining the necessary curb-cut and road work permits from the New York State Department of Transportation , prior to issuance of any building permits ; and S . Submission of a revised site plan modifying the placement of the two stormwater management facilities , identified on the plans as " Proposed Detention Basin " , outside of the Conifer Road right-of- way ; and t . Submission of a stormwater " Operation , Maintenance , and Reporting Agreement" between the property owner and the Town of Ithaca , satisfactory to the Director of Engineering , prior to issuance of a building permit , and U . Documentation from TCAT that bus service will be extended to the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community and that access accommodations for buses on that site will be adequate , and i ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2006-004 PAGE 4 V . Provision of curb cuts necessary for ADA access on the sidewalk on the site ; and W. Provision of the necessary curb-cut and road work permits from the New York State Department of Transportation , prior to issuance of any building permits . The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Niefer, Matthews NAYS : Krantz The MOTION was declared to be carried . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA : I John Coakley , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 23rd day of January 2006 . Deputy ow Clerk Town of Ithaca vy� OF I TOWN OF ITHACA 18 21 4� 4� 215 N. Tioga Street, ITHACA, N . Y . 14850 TOWN CLERK 273 - 1721 HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks, Trails, Water&Sewer) 273- 1656 - ENGINEERING 273 - 1747 PLANNING 273- 1747 ZONING 273- 1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To : Zoning Board Members From : Christine Balestra, Planner Date : January 12 , 2006 RE : Conifer Village at Ithaca Apartments— Height Variance Enclosed please find materials related to a height variance request for the proposed +/- 80, 555 square foot, three-story rental apartment building for seniors 55 years of age and older, located on a 9 . 0 +/- acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase I1 & 111, Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . ' s 27- 1 - 13 . 12 and 27- 1 - 13 . 163 . Planning Board Action : The Planning Board reviewed this proposal and granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Preliminary Subdivision Approval , and Recommendation to the Town Board for a Zone Change at their December 20, 2005 meeting . The Town Board, at their January 9, 2006, Town Board meeting, granted a rezoning of the property from Medium Density Residential to Multiple Residence Zone . Enclosed are the most recent resolutions for the project from the Planning and Town Board meetings . For the Planning Board review and environmental analysis, the applicant submitted a stormwater management study, a market analysis, a Site Impact Traffic Evaluation, a preliminary landscaping plan, information on lighting, and other application information. More information concerning the project can be found in the in the enclosed environmental assessment prepared by staff. This project is classified as a Type I action under Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Review Law and provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) . The Planning Board conducted a coordinated SEQR review for this project, and, as Lead Agency in the review, made a negative determination of environmental significance at the December 201h Planning Board meeting. The environmental assessment for the project is enclosed for the Zoning Board ' s information. The environmental assessment (LEAF Part I & I1) includes analysis of traffic, stormwater, and other impacts resulting from development of the proposed senior apartments, as well as the future residential development of the remaining +/- 49 acres of land owned by Conifer Realty, LLC . Zoning Board Action and Height/Visual Assessment : The proposal will require a height/area variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed 43 -foot tall building . According to' the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, no building shall exceed 38 feet in height from the lowest interior grade or 36 feet in height from the lowest exterior grade, whichever is lower. In considering granting an area variance, the Zoning Board is required to apply the balancing test, using the area variance criteria, to weigh the benefits to the applicant in allowing the excessive height against the detriment to the health, safety, and general welfare of the public . The information below and the attached environmental assessment are intended as additional data for the Board to consider in their deliberations at the meeting . On January 5 , 2005 the applicants floated several balloons at two of the corners of the proposed building and photographed them from various locations . The applicants submitted the balloon photographs (enclosed, dated 1 /5/05 ) along with several photo simulations (enclosed, dated 1 /24/05 ) showing the proposed building on the site . In the photographs submitted, the orange balloons represent the allowed zoning height and the red balloons represent the proposed 43 -foot height. There is little difference visible in most of the photographs relating to the height difference . The balloons were most visible from sites within the existing Linderman Creek development and from the future subdivision development area owned by Conifer Realty and the undeveloped Town Park. The visibility from NYS Route 79 appears to be limited, and the further from the proposed site, the less visible the balloons were . In many of the photographs the balloons were visible through existing vegetation, some of which will remain, and when leaves are out, will help to screen the proposed project. The photos taken from the north and east of the proposed building in the future residential subdivision and the undeveloped Town Park, appear to be where the building will be most visible from. The Visual EAF Addendum is attached with the LEAF Part II. Regarding alternatives to the proposed building height, it appears that creating a flat roof for the building or reducing it to two stories with a larger footprint would visually have more of a negative impact than the proposed 7 additional feet in height for the building. Conifer provided elevation drawings of what the flat roof alternative would look like . These are included for the Board ' s reference . Please contact Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning, or Christine Balestra at 273 - 1747 or email me at cbalestra@town. ithaca. py . us with any questions regarding this project . Att. - - TOV TN- OF -ITHACA - 215 N . Tioga Street, ITHACA , N . Y . 14850 TOWN CLERK 273- 1721 ENGINEERING 273- 1747 PLANNING 273 - 1747 BUILDING AND ZONING 273 - 1783 HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks & Trails, Water & Sewer) 273- 1656 FAX (607) 273- 1704 Application for Appearance in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals Fee $ 100 For Office Use Only For Office Use Only Pro erty is located within or adjacent to Date Received ,. CHECK ALL THAT APPLY X Area Variance County Ag District Use Variance UNA Gash or Check: No. CEA i11gCl � Sign Variance Zoning District Sprinkler Variance Forest Home Historical District Special Approval Requesting an appearance to be allowed to construct a 72 -unit senior .' living -:+`facility at Conifer Drive Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27 - 1 - 13 . 12 , as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents, under Article(s) XII Section(s) 270 - 105 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Application Form . A description of the practical difficulties and unnessary hardship and/or the Special Approval authorization request is as follows : (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary . ) ( See Attached ), By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in conne tion with my Application. Signature of Owner/Appellant: LIAL NK Date : 12 / 23 / 05 Signature of Appellant/Agent Date : Print Name Here Home Telephone Number Work Telephone Number;` �3 ' r "Q`Y, NOTE: If construction of work in accordance with any variances given does not commence within 18 months, the variance will expire. Your attendance at the meeting is strongly advised . Revised 11 / 14/05 1 ® n 1 e 1 (585) 324 0500 voice 183 East Main Street, 6th Floor (585) 324 0556 faX Rochester, NY 14604 www. coniferllc. com December 23 , 2005 Town of Ithaca Planning Department Attn : Jonathan Kantor, Director of Planning 215 N . Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re : Conifer Village at Ithaca Apartments — ZBA Application Package Dear Jonathan : Enclosed is Conifer ' s application for appearance in front of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals on January 23 , 2006 . We are submitting the following material concerning Conifer Village at Ithaca Apartment ' s proposed development : • The completed ZBA application form , with an attached narrative describing the "circumstances present under which our strict observance of Ordinances would impose hardships and practical difficulties , etc . " ; • One original and ten ( 10) copies of site plans , plot plans , engineering plans , preliminary subdivision plat, survey, and building plans , completed full Environmental Assessment Form ; and • A check in the amount of $ 100 . 00 for our application fee . Please contact me directly at (585 ) 324-0521 if you have any questions , or if you require additional information . incerel//y 6� Carol Oster Project Director CC : John Fennessey, File Enc . c ZBA APPLICATION ADDENDUM CONIFER VILLAGE AT ITHACA APARTMENTS Request : Multiple Residence Zone- Building Height Variance to 43 feet There is a housing crisis in Ithaca. The large number of college students, many of whom are quite affluent, are pushing rents up and the vacancy rate down. This has resulted in a generally unaffordable rental market. Low and moderate-income citizens, especially seniors, are finding it increasingly difficult to find suitable affordable housing. Ithaca is well known as being the home of two major universities : Cornell and Ithaca College. These are prestigious institutions that attract the best and the brightest from around the world. But Ithaca is much more than that; it is also home to many other people. These are the people who work in the factories, stores, and offices that make Ithaca a community. Ithaca is college students, but it is also school . children, young families and retired citizens. Many of the people are low and moderate income. The Conifer Village at Ithaca apartments is a planned seventy-two (72) unit independent living rental project. The proposed project is designed to promote a diverse community environment and will increase the supply of affordable housing in the area. Residents will be seniors 55 years of age and older. The proposed site is located on the north side of Linderman Creek . and adjacent to the existing Linderman Creek Apartments off of Route 79 . The senior project will be constructed on a 9 . 0 acre parcel composed largely of brush and stands of young trees. In all, 57 . 9 acres of the property are planned to be developed into a residential subdivision in the future. At that time public roads will be established, and the area of the senior project will reduce to 8 . 2 acres. The developer, Conifer, LLC, has successfully developed three phases on the adjoining southerly family rental properties known as Linderman Creek Apartments I, II, III. The units to be developed will be rented to low to moderate income households earning 90% or less of the area median income. The tenant income range is $ 13 , 850 to $33 , 800. Land improvements will include the extension of Conifer Drive off of Mecklenburg Road, NYS Route 79 . A secondary emergency only access will be constructed at the northern part of the Linderman III site that will cross the Linderman Creek into the Phase IV Senior Apartment site. Utility extensions for water, sewer, gas and electric utilities will come through Linderman II and along Conifer Drive. Storm water will be managed by the installation of two on-site detention basins. The senior project will be a single three-story L-shaped elevator building. The proposed building footprint is approximately 27,000 square feet and has a pitched roof reaching a maximum height of 43 feet above grade which will require a zoning variance (36 ' allowable) . The building ' s exterior will fit into the local landscape and finishes will be vinyl siding with brick or stone accents. The same building can be built with a flat roof below the 36 ' allowable height to eliminate the need for a variance. However, it is aesthetically inferior to the proposed, pitched roof building and would be out of character with local architecture. The building is designed to accommodate the needs of seniors. A more compact building design provides convenience to common spaces within the building for social interaction thereby fostering a sense of community. The same number of units and community spaces could be built in a two story building which would have a building footprint of 40,295 , a 50% increase in ground disturbance. Apartment unit amenities will include washer and dryer hookups, private balconies, and central air-conditioning. The senior project is ADA compliant and all units are adaptable for the mobility impaired. There are 82 on-site parking spaces, including 4 handicapped spaces. Should the need arise, provision is made to accommodate 14 additional parking spaces in compliance with Town zoning. Common spaces include a laundry room, management offices, a conference room, a community room with pantry, a wellness center including visiting doctor' s offices/exam room, exercise room and resident computer room. There is no commercial space within the project although space is provided for the delivery of occasional medical and social services. On January 5 , 2005 we floated several balloons at two of the corners of the proposed building and photographed them from various locations and used the photos to create photo simulations showing the proposed building on the site. In the photographs submitted, the orange balloons represent the allowed zoning height and the red balloons represent the proposed 43 -foot height. There is little difference visible in most of the photographs relating to the height difference. Creating a flat roof for the building or reducing it to two stories with a larger footprint would visually have more of a negative impact than the proposed 7 additional feet in height for the building. Conifer Realty is dedicated to providing quality affordable senior housing in the Ithaca community. Our strict observance of Ithaca ' s Multiple Residence Zone ordinance poses unnecessary hardships and practical difficulties to the proposed senior apartment community. With this in mind, we are respectfully requesting the Town Ithaca' s Board of Zoning Appeals permit the building height variance to 43 feet. 14- 164 (9/95)-% SEAR 617 .20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose : The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine , in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a .project that are subjective or unmeasureable . It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis . In addition , many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature , yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action . Full EAF Components : The full EAF is comprised of three parts : Part 1 : Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site . By identifying basic project data , it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3 . Part 2 : Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action . It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced . Part 3 : If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially large , then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE - Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project : ® Part 1 ❑ Part 2 E] Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF ( Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information , and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: ❑ A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and , therefore , is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment , therefore .a negative declaration will be prepared. ❑ B . Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment; there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required , therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.` ❑ C . The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. ` A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Conifer Village -Ithaca Senior Living Community Name of Action Town of Ithaca Planning Board Name of Lead Agency Fred T. Wilcox, III Chair Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) Date 1 PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE : This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may' have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form , Parts A through E . Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3 . It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent upon information currently available and will not involve new studies , research , or investigation . If information requiring such additional work is unavailable , so indicate and specify each instance . NAME OF ACTION Conifer Village -Ithaca Senior Living Community LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address. Municipality and County) Conifer Drive , Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County, New York NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE Conifer Realty 585424-0500 ADDRESS 183 East Main Street, 6t" floor CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE Rochester NY 14604 NAME OF OWNER (if different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADDRESS CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION New construction of a 72 -unit senior apartment building , 96 -car parking lot, access roads , and associated utilities . Please Complete Each Question - Indicate N .A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project , both developed and undeveloped areas: 1 . Present land use : ❑ Urban ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Residential (suburban) ® Rural (non-farm) ❑ Forest ❑ Agriculture ❑ Other 2 . Total acreage of project area : 40, 11 . 7 acres . ( including access roads , utilities , etc. ) APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION I Meadow or Brushland ( Non-agricultural) 9:09 .4 acres M392 acres Forested 0 . 5 acres 0 .4 acres . Agricultural ( Includes orchards , cropland , pasture , etc . ) 0 acres 0 acres Wetland ( Freshwater or Tidal as per Articles 24 , 25 of ECL) 0 . 5 acres 094 acres Water Surface Area 0 . 03 acres 0 : 1 acres Unvegetated (rock, earth or fill) 0 acres 0 acres Roads , Buildings , and Other Paved Surfaces 0:070 . 08 acres 2,.52 .6 acres Other (indicate type) lawn 0:40_5 acres 445.0 acres 3 . What is predominant soil type (s) on project site? '4" 11 . 7 '40:911 . 7 a . Soil Drainage : ® Well drained 10 % of site ❑ Moderately well drained _ % of site ® Poorly drained 90 % of site b . If any agricultural land is involved , how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System ? NA acres . (See 1 NYCRR 370) 4 . Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site ? ❑ Yes ® No a . What is depth to bedrock ? > 9 (in feet) ( more than 9 ft.) I ' with emergency access , we now effect 11 . 7 acres of land 2 5 . Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 00- 10 % 85 % ® 10- 15% 15 % ❑ 15% or greater % _6 .___Is_project- substantially contiguous to , or contain a building , site , or district listed on the State or -the National Registers of Historic Places? ❑ Yes ® No 7 . Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of . National Natural Landmarks? ❑ Yes ® Noy 88 What is the depth of the water table? 3 . 5 - >9 (in feet) (varies) 9 .' Is site located over primary , principal , or sole source aquifer? ❑ Yes ® No 10. . Do hunting , fishing , ' or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? ❑ Yes ® No 11 . Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? ❑ Yes ® No According to Terrestrial Environmental Specialists Identify each species 12 . Are there any unique .or unusual land forms on the project site? ( Le . , cliffs , dunes , other geological formations) ❑ Yes ® No Describe 1 $ . Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? ❑ Yes ® No If yes , explain 144 Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? ❑ Yes ® No 158 Streams within or contiguous to project area : Linderman Creek a . Name of stream and name of river to which it is tributary Cayuga Lake 160 Lakes , ponds , wetland areas within or contiguous to project area : a . Name Wetland along Linderman Creek be _ Size (in acres ) 0_5 17 . Is the site served by existing public utilities? ® Yes ❑ No a . If Yes , does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection ? ® Yes ❑ No b . If Yes , will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ❑ Yes ® No 18 . Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304 ? ® Yes ❑ No 19 . Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ❑ Yes ® No 206 Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? ❑ Yes ® No B . Project Description 10 . Physical dimensions. and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a . Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 50 acres . b . Project acreage to be developed : 0-11 . 7acres initially ; 8-11 . 7 acres ultimately. I c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 42-41 . 6 acres . d . Length of project, in miles : N/A (if appropriate ) e . If the project is an expansion , indicate percent of expansion proposed 0% . I f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 ; proposed 96 . (82 initial and 14 potential future) g . Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 57 ( upon completion of project)? h . If residential : Number and type of housing units : One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially 0 0 72 0 Ultimately 0 0 72 0 I , Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 43 height ; 80 width ; 285 length . j . Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 0 ft. See attached SHPO letter 3 2 . How much natural material (i .e. . , rock , earth , etc . ) will be removed from the site? 0 tons/cubic yards. 3 . Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? ❑ Yes ❑ No N/A a . If yes , for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? - - - - b . Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ® Yes ❑ No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ❑ Yes ® No 44 How many acres of vegetation (trees , shrubs , ground covers ) will be removed from site? 0 . 2 acres . 50 Will any mature forest (over 100 years old ) or other locally important vegetation be removed by this project? . ❑ Yes ® No 6 . If single phase project : Anticipated period of construction 12 months , (including demolition ) . 7 . If multi-phased : a . Total number of phases anticipated (numbers). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase I month year, (including demolition). C, Approximate completion date of final phase month year. d . Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? ❑ Yes ❑ No 8 . Will blasting occur during construction? ❑ Yes ® No 9 . Number of jobs generated : during construction 50 ; after project is complete 3 . 10 . Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 . 11 . Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? ❑ Yes ® No If yes , explain 12 . Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑ Yes ® No a . If yes , indicate type of waste (sewage , industrial , etc . ) and amount b . Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13 . Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑ Yes ® No 14 . Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ❑ Yes ® No Explain 15 . Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? ❑ Yes ® No 16 . Will the project generate solid waste? ® Yes ❑ No a . If yes , what is the amount per month 5 tons . b . If yes , will an existing solid waste facility be used ? ® Yes ❑ No c . if yes , give name Tompkins County Solid Waste , City of Ithaca d . Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ❑ Yes ® No e . If yes , explain 17 . Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ❑ Yes ® No a . If yes , what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b . If yes , what is the anticipated site life? years . 18 . Will project use herbicides or pesticides ? ® Yes ❑ No (for fertilization and extermination by an outside contractor) 19 . Will project routinely produce odors ( more than one hour per day)? ❑ Yes ® No 20 . Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? ❑ Yes ® No 21 . Will project result in an increase in energy use? Yes ❑ No If yes , indicate type (s) electricity and gas 22 . If water supply is from wells , indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute . 23 . Total anticipated water usage per day 8 , 500 gallons/day. 24 . Does project involve Local , State or Federal funding ? ® Yes ❑ No If yes , explain NYS--Dept--af-44o-k a _ RevvaJ--SlateAce Weflc+r�g-F-a ifies—k�e siR -Treat F� a� NYS Dept . of Housing & Community Renewal State Low Income Housing Credits and Low Income Housing Credits 4 25. Approvals Required : Type Submittal Date Town , City, V+llage Board ® .Yes ❑ No Zone change Apfi-I-Dec. 2005 Town , City, Village Planning Board ® Yes ❑ No Site plan approval 12125104 Subdivision approval 2200512/5105 Town , City Zoning Board ® Yes ® No Height variance 2115120061 /6/05 County Health Department ® Yes ❑ No Plumbing 7/1 /2005 Other Local Agencies ❑ Yes ® No Other Regional Agencies ❑ Yes ® No State Agencies ® Yes ❑ No DEC SPDES NOI 7/112005 NYS DOT Highway Work Permit 4/18/05 Federal Agencies ® Yes ❑ No US Army Corp . of Engineers January 2005 Wetland C . Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ® Yes ❑ No If Yes , indicate decision required: ® zoning amendment ® zoning variance ❑ special use permit ® subdivision ® site plan ❑ new/revision of master plan ❑ resource management plan ❑ other 2. What is the zoning classification (s ) of the site? Medium Density Residential 3 . What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 25#4ets21 ± lots 4 . What is' the proposed zoning of the site? Multiple Residence 5 . What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? I.In ' t020 Dwelling Units 6 . Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ® Yes ❑ No 7 . What are the predominant land use (s ) and zoning classifications within a 1 /4 mile radius of proposed action? Multiple Residence Medium Density Residential , Low Density Residential , Undeveloped Former Agricultural Lands , Agricultural Lands 8 . Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining /surrounding land uses within a 1 /4 mile ? ® Yes ❑ No 9 . If the proposed action is the subdivision of land , how many lots are proposed 2 a . What is the minimum lot size proposed ? 0441-a4i; s9 . 65t acres 10 . Will proposed action require any authorization (s ) for the formation of sewer or water districts? ® Yes ❑ No Extension of town sanitary and water systems . 11 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation , education , police , fire protection)? ® Yes ❑ No a . If yes , is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand ? ® Yes ❑ No 120 Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ❑ Yes ® No a . If yes , is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ® Yes ❑ No See Traffic Study dated December 2004. D . Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project . If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal , please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them . 6 E . Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge . Applicant/Sponso Name onifer Realty, LLC Date 49120841114/05 Signature _ Title Proiect Director If the action is in the Coastal Area , and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 7 S • 58 4 -05M.Mio o n f e r - (585) 324o556 fax 183 East Main Street, 6th Floor Rochester, NY 14804 www.coniferiic.com , December 17 , 2004 Mr. James Warren New York State Office of Parks and Recreation and Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau Peebles Island, PO Box 189 Waterford, NY 12188-0189 Be : Conifer Village, Itbaca — senior Housing D_ w onment Dear Mr. Warren: I am requesting review of a site located just North of Conifer .Drive, off Route 79 in the Town of Ithaca, for a proposed development known as Conifer Village, Ithaca. This will be an extension of Conifer ' s recent Linderman, Linderman H and Linderman III developments located on Conifer Driveo please review the "Project Review Checklist" form enclosed for the above referenced development to determine if it is eligible to be listed in the National Register of Historical . Places. Please respond in writing within ten ( 10) business days to my attention with your findings. I have enclosed maps depicting the proposed site and earlier phases of development, photographs, and correspondence from your office stating previous developments had "no impact on cultural resources". Us application please do not hesitate to contact me If you have any questions regarding at (585) 324 - 05650 Sincerely, i Ra etherbee Project Coordinator Enc. I 419 6 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation j Historic Preservation Feld Services Bureau o e¢wroaceraM z Peebles Island, PO Box 189 , Waterford, New York 12188-0189 518-237-BB,43 Bemadece Castro CcmfnrasAww February 22, 2005 i Ray Wetherbee Conifer Realty, LLC 183 East Main Street, 6th Floor Rochester, New York 14604 Re: DHC Conifer Village Senior Housing .. NY 79/Conifer Drive Ithaca, Tompkins County 04PRO6483 Dear Mr. Wetherbee: Thank you for requesting the comments of the Office of Parks. Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). We have reviewed the project in accordance with the New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law, Section 14.098 Based upon this review, it is the OPRHP's opinion that your project will have No Impact upon cultural resources in or eligible for inclusion in the State and National Registers of Historic Places. If further correspondence is required regarding this project, please be sure fo refer to the OPRHP Project Rcview (PR) number noted above. Sincerely, ' Ruth L. Pierpont Director RLP.bsa l. : 'i 12-12-79 (3/99)-9c SEAR State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Project Number 04- 12-516 Date : December 20 , 2005 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation. Law, The Town of Ithaca Planning Board as lead agency , has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant environmental impact and a Draft Impact Statement will not be prepared . Name of Action : Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community SEQR Status : Type 1 ❑✓ Unlisted ❑ Conditioned Negative Declaration : ❑ Yes ✓❑ No Description of Action : This action involves Site Plan and Subdivision. Approval from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , a height variance from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , and re-zoning from Medium Density Residential to Multiple Residence by the Town of Ithaca Town Board , for the proposed construction of a 72-unit, +/-80 , 555 sq . ft. , three story rental apartment building for seniors 55 years of age or older, located on a +/- 9 acre parcel on Tax Parcel No . 27- 1 - 13 . 12 and 27- 1 - 13 . 162 . The remaining +/- 49 acres of property is planned to be developed into a residential subdivision in the future . The project also includes an 82-space parking lot, stormwater facilities , landscaping , and associated utilities . The project also includes a secondary "emergency only" access drive to NYS Route 79 . This secondary access will utilize the western-most portion of. the private road constructed for the completed Linderman Creek Apartments Phase III & II projects , (the west end of Cypress Court) , to provide a, connection between the senior apartments project site to the north and Route 79 to the south . This will require construction of short driveway segment .from Cypress Court, through a previously disturbed but undeveloped portion of the Linderman Creek Apartment Phase II and III site , to Route 79 , thus requiring Site Plan Modification for the Linderman Creek Apartment Phase II and III project , on Tax Parcel No' s . 27- 1 - 13 . 18 and 27- 1 - 13 . 17 . Conifer Realty, LLC , Owner/Applicant; John H . Fennessey , Agent. Location : ( Include street address and the name of the municipality/county . A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended . ) Conifer Drive , and immediately north of Linderman Creek Apartments Phase 11 ( Mecklenburg Rd . ) i SEQR Negative Declaration Page 2 of 2 Reasons Supporting This Determination : (See 617 . 7(a)-(c) for requirements of this determination ; see 617 . 7(d) for Conditioned Negative Declaration) please see attached If Conditioned Negative Declaration , provide on attachment the specific mitigation measures imposed , and identify comment period (not less than 30 days from date of pubication In the ENB) For Further Information : Contact Person: Susan Ritter, Assistant Director .of Planning Address: 215 N . Tioga Street , Ithaca , NY 14850 Telephone Number: 607-273- 1747 For Type 1 Actions and Conditioned Negative Declarations, a Copy of this Notice is sent to : Chief Executive Officer , Town / City / Village of Other involved agencies (If any) see attached Applicant ( If any) Environmental Notice Bulletin , Room 538, 50 Wolf Road , Albany NY , 12233- 1750 (Type One Actions only) Conifer Village — Ithaca Senior Living Community Attachment to Negative Declaration Form Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Reasons Supporting This Determination : Based on review of the project at a Planning Board meeting on December 20, 2005 , a negative determination of environmental significance has been made for the above referenced action by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, in accordance with the requirements of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law. Given the proposed design of the project, its location and the character of the surrounding uses, and the proposed uses and activities associated. with the project, no significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. The Planning Board at their December 20, 2005 meeting, reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I prepared by the applicant, Part II of the EAF prepared by the Town Planning staff, and other application materials . The above referenced EAF incorporates specific studies and reports prepared and submitted by the applicant including, but not limited to a Market Analysis Summary (October 12, 2004), a Site Impact Traffic Evaluation (Dec . 2004), a Geotechnical Evaluation (Dec. 2004), a Drainage Report for Linderman Creek Subdivision (December 29, 2004), Balloon Test Analysis. and visual simulation Photos No . 1 — 15 ( 1 /5/05 ), and numerous site plan and architectural drawings. In particular, the following specific conclusions were reached by the Planning Board: 1 . Impact on Land : Development of the entire Conifer property will result in a substantial physical change to the land, with disturbance of much of the +/- 57 acres for construction of a 72- unit, +/- 80,555 square foot apartment building, with future construction of +/- 47 clustered patio homes and +/- 51 single family residences, as well as associated. access drives, parking areas, sidewalks, driveways, yards, landscaping, and stormwater facilities. The proposed Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community (apartment) building, currently under consideration by the Planning Board, will involve disturbance to +/- 11 . 7 acres, (includes development on the +/- 9 acre parcel, plus the extension of Conifer Drive, the emergency access, and utility work) and involve a substantial amount of re-grading and earth work in order to accommodate the 27 ,000 sq. ft. building footprint and the 82 space parking lot for the senior apartment complex: The +/-57 acre site is mostly undeveloped, and is composed mainly of open field/meadow,- brush, and deciduous forest. The most heavily wooded areas appears within the eastern half of the site, as well as along portions of Linderman Creek and along the property ' s western edge. The senior apartment building site is composed largely of brush and stands of young trees. Linderman Creek traverses the southern edge of the property and is situated between the proposed development to the north and the recently developed apartment complexes to the south. The creek is also bounded on both sides by a narrow band of wetlands. These wetlands were previously delineated for the Linderman Creek Apartment Phase II & III project: The entire site can be characterized as having moderately sloped topography, ranging from around 7% to 12% slopes. Steeper slopes exist in specific locations, such as on the southern end of the senior apartments parcel, near Linderman Creek, where slopes of 15 % and somewhat 1 Conifer Village — Ithaca Senior Living Community higher can be found. Approximately 140 ft, of topographic relief exists on the overall Conifer property, with elevations ranging from 810 ft. in the far northeast corner, to 950 feet along the southwest end. For the 11 . 7 acre apartment building site, the topographic relief is approximately 64 feet, with an elevation ranging from +/- . 880 ft. elevation along the east side, to +/- 944 ft. on the west side of the site. The Town of Ithaca holds a 20-foot wide easement for an underground water main on the site, which is mowed annually to prevent woody vegetation growth. This line traverses the property east-west from the Oakwood Lane water tank within the. City of Ithaca, to a location near the western edge of the Conifer property boundary. At this western terminus the Town has constructed a control station, and from this point the water line proceeds south to Mecklenburg Road. Site Gradiniz Concerns As shown on the , drawing entitled "Grading Plan and Details" (L-3 ) for the senior apartments, much of the +/- 11 . 7 acres will require significant grading to accommodate the proposed development. Plans call for cuts and , fills of up to 10 feet in some locations, but . generally average around 5 feet overall . Existing slopes on the site . range from 6% to 10% . In order to create level surfaces for the building and parking lot a substantial amount of grading will be necessary, resulting in adjacent slopes that will be significantly steeper and range from around 20% to 33 % . Steeper slopes raise concern for slope stability, which is generally dependent upon the type of geologic material, soils, moisture content, and vegetative cover of the site . The applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Evaluation report (Foundation Design, P . C . , December 2004), which provides information on the site conditions based on test pits and soil analysis. The report concluded that slopes up to 3 : 1 (33 %) would be expected to be stable on the site, likely due to the soil types which are described as consisting of "topsoil over firm to compact silty natural soil". The geotechnical report discusses potential problems associated with wet soils and perched groundwater (springs) on the site, stating that springs are likely to develop as the site is graded, and that it will require some type of collection and piping system to control and stabilize the surrounding soil. The report outlines a number of recommendations, including installation of a "curtain" drain west of the proposed slope and installation of a drain at the toe of the cut slopes . As shown on the L-3 and L-4 ("Storm System Plan & Details") drawings, the applicant has proposed drainage facilities to remove runoff from the site, including a ditch with french drains behind the building at the toe of the slope, and ditches along the north and south sides of the building that will direct runoff into the proposed detention basins located on the site. The applicant may find the 30 % sloped hillsides to be difficult to mow, and may need to consider leaving these steeper slopes in a natural state, perhaps utilizing a native species meadow mix vegetative cover in the landscaping plan. According to the Full EAF, the applicant does not anticipate transporting any excavated material (rock, earth) off site . The project will require a great deal of both cutting and filling of earth, and the applicant has identified a large area immediately north of the site as a location for stockpiling soil . 2 Conifer Village — Ithaca Senior Living Community The proposal also calls for disturbance to Linderman Creek and its associated wetlands. This is discussed in more detail under "Impacts to Water". The applicant has revised the grading plan to provide more useable open space near the building for residents to enjoy. This area is shown on the site plan and located north of the proposed building. Further, the applicant has revised the plans to include an expanded walkway with connections that link the "Senior Living Community" with the Linderman Creek Apartment development. 2) Impact on Water. Wetlands/Stream Impacts The proposal calls for disturbance to Linderman Creek and its associated wetlands in . three separate locations, including the site for the Conifer Drive extension, the emergency access drive, and the extension of the sanitary sewer line . The extension of Conifer Drive will result in the permanent loss of 72 feet of stream bed, as shown on drawing L-6 . ("culvert detail" 51 /L-6) for development of the driving lanes, shoulders, trail, and the reinforced concrete headwalls containing the two 24 inch culverts . The emergency access will result in a .loss of an additional 31 feet of streambed (exact measurement . is not clear on the detail drawing 52/L-6) . Twenty feet of streambed were previously impacted in this location for construction of a . temporary road access, which allowed excavated soil to be transported to the north side of the creek during the Linderman Creek Apartments Phase III project. In addition, the extension of the 8-inch sewer line will result in a temporary disturbance of around 20 feet of streambed. These figures do not take into account total disturbance of the sites, which will exceed the specific design dimensions mentioned above. In general, the two roadways will result in the permanent loss of approximately 103 feet of streambed, an additional 20 feet will be temporarily disturbed for installation of the sewer line, and an additional 20 to 40 feet of temporary disturbance is also likely anticipated for construction of the two roadways. . Linderman Creek is not listed as a NYS DEC protected stream. The creek originates from the outflow of a pond that exists on the neighboring property, approximately 600 feet from the Conifer property line. This pond appears to collect runoff from the area around the agricultural field, and is released through an outfall into the stream channel . Topographic data indicates that the drainage channel begins at this location. The creek is fairly shallow as it enters the Conifer property, but becomes more defined as it traverses the site, picking up more drainage from the adjacent land . Linderman Creek eventually discharges directly into the Cayuga Inlet. In addition to impacts to Linderman Creek, the proposal will also disturb the. associated wetlands that exist immediately adjacent to the creek. Total disturbance has been calculated at approximately 0 . 14 acres . This includes the filling of approximately 0 . 12 acres of wetland for the Conifer Road extension and 0 .01 acres for the emergency road access. Approximately 0 . 01 acres will be temporarily disturbed for extension of the sewer line. The construction of the truck access way for the recently completed Linderman Creek III project, along with installation of the municipal water line in the 1980 ' s led to previous loss of wetlands located in the area of the proposed emergency access road. 3 Conifer Village — Ithaca Senior Living Community The applicant has , received nationwide permits (NWP) from the Army Corp of Engineers, including NWP No. 12 for the wetlands loss associated with the utility work and a NWP No. 14 for the wetlands loss due to the road work. As a condition of the permit, the applicant is required to mitigate for the loss of the 0. 14 acres of wetlands by protecting a minimum of 0 . 72 acres of unmowed, vegetated upland buffer along the north side of Linderman Creek. The applicant has identified this protected buffer on the site plan drawings. As required by the permit, the applicant is also required to make protection of the buffer a perpetual deep restriction. Stormwater and Erosion Control Development of the entire Conifer property will result in conversion of nearly +/-57 acres of meadow, bush, and forest to turf lawns and impervious surfaces for roadway, driveways, walkways, and buildings . Construction of a 72-unit apartment building, with future construction of +/- 47 clustered patio homes and +/- 51 single family residences, as well as associated access drives, parking areas, sidewalks, driveways, yards, landscaping, and stormwater facilities will impose impacts on stormwater water quality, alter drainage patterns, and increase the amount of runoff. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management study entitled "Drainage Report for Linderman Creek Subdivision", dated December 29, 2004 . This document characterizes the existing drainage patterns on the site, and provides a stormwater management plan for treating and handling the post-construction runoff from the entire 56+/- site . The proposal calls for developing four detention basins, two within the senior apartments development, and two on the eastern side of the property, near the proposed patio homes and single-family residences . The detention basins are proposed to be configured as Micropool Extended Detention Ponds. These systems are approved by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and are considered an acceptable method for meeting water quality goals. Details of these detention basins should be required as part of the final stormwater plan submission. The applicant has also submitted detailed drawings/plans for the senior apartment proposal . This project, currently under consideration by the Planning Board, will involve disturbance to +/- 11 . 7 acres, (includes development on the +/- 9 acre parcel, plus the extension of Conifer Drive, the emergency access, and utility work) and involve a substantial amount of re-grading and earth work in order to accommodate the 27, 000 sq . ft. building footprint and the 82 space parking lot for the senior apartment complex. The applicant has provided a drawing, entitled "Storm System Plan & Details" (L-4), that provides more specific details for the post-construction drainage system by identifying the location of catch basins . and french drains proposed for the site. . The drawing "Demolition/Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan and Details" (1,4 ) specifies the erosion and sedimentation control plan proposed to be implemented during the ongoing construction activity. Sedimentation and erosion control will be a very important concern given the significant amount of grading and earth moving that will take place, as well as the steep grades that will result on the senior apartment site. The plans indicate that silt fencing will be installed all along the perimeter of the site on the downhill slopes, including along the northern edge of Linderman Creek, and along the northern edge of the proposed soil stockpile location. 4 Conifer Village — Ithaca Senior Living Community The proposed method and features to handle stormwater on the site appears to be appropriate, as do the measures for controlling erosion and sedimentation during construction. However, the two stormwater. detention facilities are currently sited on the drawings within the Conifer Drive road . . right-of-way. The site plan needs to be modified so that either the road right-of-way is, moved back to its original location, or that the detention facilities are shifted out of the right-of-way. Details for construction of the stormwater control measures should be required as part of the final stormwater plan submission. And a maintenance plan outlining a plan and schedule should be required as part of the final stormwater details for Final Site Plan submission. Because the project disturbs more that five acres of total land area, the project must comply . with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharge from Construction Activities (GP-93 -06) . Specific SPDES permit requirements include submission of the Notice of Intent (NOI) and the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. The applicant has fulfilled this requirement and has submitted a copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to the town. 3) Impact on Agricultural Land Resources : The project site is situated within New York State . Agricultural District No . 2 , pursuant to the . New York State Agriculture and Markets Law, but the owner has not been receiving the agricultural tax abatement under the Agricultural District program. Additional lands to the north and west are in Agricultural District No . 2 . The applicant has prepared an Agricultural Data Statement, as required by the NYS Agriculture and Markets Law, which has been distributed to the Tompkins County Planning Department and property owners within 500 feet of the property boundary . The Agricultural Data Statement indicates that the property contains no current crop cover, and that the property is not covered by .a farm plan under the County Soil and Water Conservation District program. The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (September 1993 ) recommends this site and adjacent areas to the north and south for " Suburban . Residential". development. The site in question has not been actively farmed in recent years . Public water and sewer lines currently exist to provide service to this site . 4) Impact on Aesthetic Resources : The character of the site and the surrounding areas to the west, north, and immediately to the east is a mix of largely undeveloped land of meadow/forest and former agricultural land. Immediately south of the proposed project is Phase II and III of the Linderman Creek development, consisting of 96 apartment units in twelve buildings. This senior housing proposal will consist of one three-story, +/- 80, 555 square foot building, containing 72 apartment units with a 82-space parking lot. Future plans include single-family residences (+/- 51 units) and patio homes (+/- 47 units) on the surrounding lands to the north and east of this proposal . On January 5 , 2005 the applicants floated several balloons at two of the corners of the proposed building and photographed them from various locations . The applicants submitted the balloon photographs (dated 1 /5/05) along with several photo simulations (dated 1 /24/05 ) showing the proposed building on the site. The balloons were most visible from sites within the existing Linderman Creek development and from the future subdivision development area owned by Conifer Realty and the undeveloped Town Park. The visibility from NYS Route 79 appears to 5 Conifer Village — Ithaca Senior Living Community be limited, and the further from the proposed site, the less visible the balloons were. In many of the photographs the balloons were visible through existing vegetation, some of which will remain, and when leaves are out, will help to screen the proposed project. The photos taken from the north and east of the proposed building in the future subdivision area and the undeveloped Town park land, appear to be where the building will be most visible from. Until the future subdivision development, the proposed senior housing building will be very obvious from within the subdivision area and undeveloped Town park and standout until the anticipated development fills in around it. [The photograph no . 13 in the packet was not taken from NYS Route 96B at the Scenic Overlook as labeled.] A Visual EAF Addendum (Appendix B) is attached with additional information. The proposal will require a height variance (43 feet proposed, 36 feet allowed) from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals for the building in the proposed Multiple Residence Zone . In the photographs submitted, the orange balloons represent the allowed zoning height and the red balloons represent the proposed 43 -foot height. There is little difference visible in most of the photographs relating to the height difference. It appears that creating a flat roof for the building or reducing it to two stories with a larger footprint would visually have more of a negative impact than the proposed 7 additional feet in height for the building. In terms of outdoor lighting, drawing No . ' s C103 and C504 show the location of the proposed lights on the site and the details of the poles . Additional details and cut sheets of these light pole fixtures for the site have also been provided . The site lighting fixtures selected for along the driveway, walkways, and in the parking lot, appear to be adequately shielded so as to minimize glare and off-site light spillage. The applicant has indicated in their letter summarizing the site plan revisions that the wall mounted lantern lights, initially proposed for the building, have been eliminated, and will be replaced by a recessed ceiling mounted lights located above each tenant balcony. No additional light fixtures are shown on the building, and it should be confirmed with the applicant that no additional wall mounted lights are proposed. A condition has been added to the . draft resolution requesting assurance that no additional lights are proposed for the building. New landscaping, as part . of this proposal, can help to screen and buffer this new building and parking lot from neighboring properties . and the Town Park while still providing opportunities for views out from the building. The addition of carefully placed landscaping can help to reduce the visual impact of the project. The proposed landscaping plans (Drawing No . L-5 and L-6) call for a mix of maple, crabapple, ash, and spruce trees on the site, with numerous planting beds immediately adjacent to the building. The , planting beds are proposed to be composed of a mix of shrubs and annuals, and are located on all sides of the building. 5) Impacts on Open Space and Recreation . As mentioned in # 11 above, the proposed three-story building will be highly visible from the Town Park to the north and east of the senior apartment site . As the area develops in the future with additional single family homes, as proposed by Conifer, the neighborhood will take shape and relate as a whole to the Town Park. Until that happens, however, the senior apartment building should be carefully designed and buffered with appropriate landscaping to help blend the building as viewed from the Town Park. 6 Conifer Village — Ithaca Senior Living Community ti The park is currently undeveloped, but consists of about 22 .3 acres, and is planned to be developed. as a "community park" as the area on West Hill continues to grow. It could have facilities such as ball fields, tennis courts, a pavilion and picnic areas, walking trails, as well as retention of some of the natural wooded areas . 6) Impact on Transportation : The proposed project would add 72 apartment units for seniors aged 55 and over in qualifying income ranges. Up to 98 detached and clustered single-family homes are planned as future phases of residential development by Conifer on their remaining property. Access to the Conifer Village — Ithaca site would be provided by extending Conifer Drive northward across Linderman Creek with an access drive extending into the apartment site' s parking lot. The latest traffic volume data provided by the NYS Department of Transportation (DOT) indicates that there were 4,200 vehicles per day traveling on Mecklenburg Road (NYS Rt. 79) in 2002 . A Site Traffic Impact Evaluation (Dec. 2004) has been prepared by the applicant. Overall, the traffic analysis indicates that the existing transportation system can accommodate the projected traffic volumes with no significant adverse impacts to study area intersections. The traffic analysis provides trip generation rates based on 72 apartment units, comparing actual recorded data from the Linderman Creek Phase 1, II and 111 developments with Institute _of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates . Although the ITE rates are higher than the actual traffic volumes generated by the Linderman Creek Apartments, the ITE rates were used in the traffic study as a more conservative (worst case) estimate. In addition to a 1 . 5 % annual growth rate . factored into the analysis, the planned 200-unit condominium development at- the adjacent Sky Gardens site was also added into the background growth calculation (this is a very conservative approach, since the Sky Gardens project has not advanced beyond the initial sketch plan stage in the Town review process at this point) . The applicant' s traffic consultant counted existing peak hour volumes at study area intersections . Based on the combined site generated volumes, Figure 8 in the traffic study indicates that the majority of vehicles exiting Conifer Drive in the morning peak hour are expected to end up at the Hector Street/Floral Ave . intersection heading into the City (24 out of 31 ; or 77%) . The results indicate that a very small number of those morning peak hour vehicles exiting Conifer Drive are anticipated to use neighborhood streets ( 1 vehicle onto Warren . Place and 1 vehicle onto Campbell Ave .) . Only 5 vehicles exiting Conifer Drive in the morning peak hour are expected to head west on Mecklenburg Road, and of those, no more than 1 vehicle is expected to turn south onto West Haven Road. Results are of a similar scale for afternoon peak hour vehicles returning to Conifer Drive. The trip generation table and capacity analysis in the traffic study indicate that the proposed Conifer Village — Ithaca project will not result in any significant decreases in Levels of Service at the Conifer Drive intersection with Route 79 or at other nearby intersections. The capacity analysis results (summarized in Table II on page 6 of the traffic study) indicate that most of the intersections included in the study will have acceptable levels of service (LOS) under "full development conditions" (meaning the 72 senior apartments are built and occupied, factoring in the background growth estimates) . Vehicles southbound on Conifer Drive will experience somewhat longer delays under full development conditions, with LOS in the afternoon peak hour 7 , Conifer Village — Ithaca Senior Living Community . 7 changing from `B" to "C", which is still acceptable. Vehicles southbound on Oakwood Lane will also experience somewhat longer delays in the afternoon peak hour, similar to the Conifer Drive intersection, changing from LOS "B" to "C". Based on the above, the traffic study adequately demonstrates that the projected volumes from the proposed Conifer Village - Ithaca project can be accommodated on the surrounding road system without causing significant impacts . TCAT (Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit) has indicated in a letter (Feb . 14, 2005 ) that it can provide service to the proposed Conifer Village — Ithaca project by extending existing Bus Route # 14, which currently serves the Linderman Creek Apartments . The applicant is proposing a bus drop-off/pick-up area in the front of the proposed senior apartment building. This would require the bus to enter and manipulate its way through the parking lot. TCAT previously asked the applicant to check the turning radius for the island in front of the entrance court where the bus turns 180 degrees, and the applicant has submitted a revised site plan to address this concern. A gated, emergency only, access drive has been proposed for the senior apartments. This secondary access will utilize the western-most portion of the private road constructed for the Linderman Creek Apartments Phase III and II completed project, (the west end of Cypress Court), to provide a connection between the senior apartments project site to the north and Route 79 to the south. This will require construction of short driveway segment from Cypress Court, through a previously disturbed but undeveloped portion of the Linderman Creek Apartment Phase III site, to Route 79, thus requiring Site Plan Modification for the Linderman Creek Apartment Phase III project. NYS Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) has approved this as a "temporary access" . The NYSDOT has stipulated that no further development of the Conifer property, beyond the senior apartments, will be allowed with the installation. of a permanent, secondary means of access, and that the temporary access be removed once a secondary means of access is provided. 7) Impacts on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood : The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (September 1993 ) designates the project site as " Suburban Residential, " which anticipates additional growth that can be served by public water and sewer facilities. The site is currently zoned MDR Medium Density Residential . Approximately 8 .4 +/- acres of the site are proposed to be rezoned to MR Multiple Residence . The proposed development under consideration by the Planning Board would consist of 72 apartment units for seniors 55 years of age and older in a three-story building. Later phases of residential development anticipated by the applicant and as shown on their Conceptual Sketch Plan (SK- 1 , 12/29/04) include up to 98 detached and clustered single-family homes on the remaining 57 . 8 +/- acres . The proposed rezoning appears to be generally consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for "Suburban Residential" development. The current MDR zoning would theoretically permit a maximum of about 29 dwelling units on the 8 .4 +/- acre site (using the maximum cluster density of 3 . 5 units per acre) . Although the proposed MR Zone could allow a density up to 12 .4 units per acre (or a maximum of 104 units), the proposed development would consist of 72 apartment units for seniors aged 55 and older in a single, three-story apartment building (a density of about 8 . 6 units per acre) . Public sewer and water are readily available to serve this facility, and public transportation (TCAT Route # 14) is 8 Conifer Village — Ithaca Senior Living Community available at the Linderman Creek Apartments (TCAT has indicated in a letter dated Feb. 14, 2005 that they would extend Route 14 to serve the Conifer Village project) . Rezoning the 8 .4 +/- acres to MR Multiple Residence would allow the creation of affordable apartment housing for seniors. This is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Town ' s Comprehensive Plan. It would provide rental apartments for a range of income levels, from low to moderate income, including the following tentative breakdown of maximum allowable incomes proposed by the applicant under the NYS Division of Housing & Community Renewal guidelines for the Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit program : • 50% of the units are targeted for seniors with incomes up to 60% of the area median income • 50% of the units are targeted for seniors with incomes up to 90% of the AMI. * [The median family income for Tompkins County in 2000 was $53, 041 .] The Town Board decided to refer this proposal to the Planning Board because there was a consensus that there is a need for this type of affordable housing for seniors. A Market Analysis Summary (Oct. 12 , 2004) is included in the applicant' s submission discussing the need for. affordable housing for the senior population in this area. [Note : The mix of units for the different income ranges as stated in the Market Analysis Summary and the draft Local Law are not consistent — this needs to be clarified and corrected.] The EAF Part I indicates that the proposed project will create a demand for community provided services, in particular, public transit, fire protection, and associated emergency services. A statement prepared by Conifer (memo from Rod L Littlepage, Director of Property Management for Conifer, 1 /28/05) indicates that Conifer does not anticipate that any school age children would have permanent residency in Conifer Village — Ithaca. This is based on a survey of six similar age-restricted communities. As mentioned above, TCAT has indicated that they expect . to be able to serve the senior apartment building by extending Route # 14 . This notice is being distributed to : Janis M. Gross, Associate Transportation Analyst, NYS Dept. of Transportation Stan Birchenough, Resident Engineer, NYS Department of Transportation, Region 3 Kenneth Lynch, Director, Region 7, N . Y. S . Department of Environmental Conservation Kevin R. Carlisle, Assistant Commissioner for Community Development, NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal Nathan L . Rudgers, Commissioner, NYS Dept. of Agriculture and Markets John B . Rintoul, Deputy District Engineer, US Army Corp of Engineers, Buffalo District John M. Andersson, Tompkins County Department of Health Edward C . Marx, Commissioner, Tompkins County Planning Department Fernando de Aragon, Director, Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council Carolyn K. Peterson, Mayor, City of Ithaca Julie Conley Holcomb, City Clerk, City of Ithaca 9 � s Conifer Village — Ithaca Senior Living Community , r H. Matthys Van Cort, City of Ithaca Dept. of Planning & Development Dwight Mengel, Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit Brian Wilbur, Fire Chief, City of Ithaca Fire Department Stacy Crawford, Better Housing for Tompkins County Russell Demond, Chair, Tompkins County Agriculture & Farmland Protection Board. Catherine Valentino, Supervisor, Town of Ithaca Town Board Kirk Sigel, Chair, Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Lenore Durkee, Chair, Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Carol Oster, Project Manager, Conifer Realty 10 617 .20 Appendix B State Environmental Quality Review ' 3t� VISUAL EAF ADDENDUM, This form may be used to provide additional information relating to Question 11 of Part 2 of the Full EAR e; r; (To be completed by Lead Agency) Distance Between Visibility Project and Resource (in Miles) - 1 . Would the project be visible from: 0- w V4 %- 3 .3- 5 5+ I A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 . to the public for the use, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities ? ! An overlook or parcel of land dedicated to public ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ observation, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man-made scenic qualities? I A site or structure listed on the National or State Cl ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Registers of Historic Places? I State Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ! The State Forest Preserve ? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ' National Wildlife Refuges and State Game Refuges? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ National Natural Landmarks and other outstanding ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ - natural features? I National Park Service lands? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ! Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or Recreational? Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ as part of the Interstate System, or Amtrak? A governmentally established or designated interstate ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or inter-county foot trail, or one formally proposed for establishment or designation? A site, area, lake, reservoir or highway designated as ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ scenic? Municipal park, or designated open space ? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ I County road? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ! State road? . ❑ El 1:1 ❑ ❑ Local road? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Is the visibility of the project seasonal? (i.e., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) ❑✓ Yes ❑No some existing vegetative screening will remain and help screen during summer 31 Are any of the resources checked in question 1 used by the public during the time of year during which the project will be visible ?' ❑Yes ❑No Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273 - 1747 AGRICULTURAL DATA STATEMENT In accordance with Section 283 -a of the New York State Town Law, the Town of Ithaca will use the data in this statement to assist in evaluating the impacts of proposed development projects on farm operations in Agricultural Districts. 1 . Name of Applicant: Conifer Realty , LLC Address : 183 E . Main St . , 6th Floor Rochester , NY 14604 2 . Project Name/Location : Conifer Village of Ithaca , Town of Ithaca 3 . Description of proposed project. 72 - unit senior apartments complex with a community building and parking areas . 4 . Tax Parcel Number(s) 27 - 1 - 13 . 12 5 . Number of total acres involved with project: 9 . 0 6 . Number of total acres presently in Tax Parcel 29 . 07 7 . How much of the site is currently farmed? 0 Acres 8 . Please identify who is farming the site . N / A 9 . Please indicate what your intentions are for use of the remainder of the property, over: Five years : Senior housing facilities Ten years : Senior housing facilities Twenty years: Senior housing facilities 10 . Who will maintain the remainder of the property not being used for this development? Conifer Management. LLC page 1 of 2 Revised 11 /14/05 11 . Please indicate crop(s) or vegetational cover for the site None exists 12 . Are there any drainage ways or underground tile systems located on the site? No Will this project alter existing drainage patterns? Yes If yes, please describe Drainage flows will routed through detention basins for stormwater quality and quantity mitigation . 13 . Is the parcel included in a farm plan prepared by the Tompkins County Soil and Water District of the USDA Soil Conservation Service? No Are federally funded cost sharing practices in place for the parcel? No Name of program(s) . N / A 14. Is the parcel currently granted an agricultural tax exemption? Yes X No Signature of Applicant: Date: 12 / 23 / 05 FOR TOWN USE ONLY : NOTE : This form and a map of the parcel(s) should be mailed to County Planning as part of the GML in and n referral. It should also be mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property boundary along with the Notice of Public Hearing (Attach list of property owners within 500 feet) . Name of Staff Person - Date Referred to County Planning - Page 2 of 2 Revised 11 / 14/05 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD MONDAY, JANUARY 9 , 200.6 TB RESOLUTION NO . 2006 - 024 : Resolution Adoptina a Local Law Amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code to Rezone a Portion of Tax Parcel No . 27 . -01 -13 . 12 Located Off of NYS Route 79 From Medium Density Residential to Multiple Residence WHEREAS , a resolution was duly adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca for a public hearing to be held by said Town Board on January 9 , 2006 , at 7 : 15 p . m . to hear all interested parties. on a proposed local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 270 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO REZONE A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NO . 27 . -01 -13 . 12 LOCATED OFF OF N .Y. S . ROUTE 79 FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE" ; and WHEREAS , notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal ; and WHEREAS , said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law; or any. part thereof; and WHEREAS , the adoption of this local law is , pursuant to Part 617 of the . . Implementing Regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the New York State Environmental . Conservation Law (which law and regulations thereunder, including the Town ' s local law, are collectively referred to as " SEQR") , a Type 1 Action , and WHEREAS , the Town Planning Board was designated Lead Agency for the review of the environmental impacts of the local law and the project to which the local law relates ; and WHEREAS , it has been determined by the Town Planning Board that the proposed actions , including adoption of the proposed local law, will not have a significant environmental impact and could be processed without the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board finds it is in the best interests of the Town and its citizens to adopt the local law; NOW , THEREFORE , be it RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts said local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 270 OF THE TOWN OF TB RESOLUTION NO . 2006-024 PAGE 2 ITHACA CODE TO REZONE A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NO . 27 . -01 -13 . 12 LOCATED OFF OF N .Y. S . ROUTE 79 FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE" a copy of which has been submitted to , and reviewed by the Town Board as provided by the Municipal Home Rule Law; and it is further RESOLVED , that the Town Clerk be and she hereby is directed to ( i) enter said local law in the minutes of this meeting and in . the Local Law Book of the Town of Ithaca , ( ii ) cause a copy or abstract of such local law to be published in the Ithaca Journal as required by law (including Section 265 of the Town Law) , and (iii) file a copy of said local law with the Secretary of State of the State of New York ; and it is further RESOLVED , that this Board strongly urges the Planning Board , upon its consideration of final site plan approval , to include the following : 1 . Extension of the walkways to provide more reasonable exercise and walking opportunities 2 . Require a certified wetlands consultant to provide a complete and adequate plan for construction of replacement wetlands and require the replacement wetlands to be constructed in accordance with such plans 3 . Reserve an off-road bikeway corridor on the final site plan through the project to permit connection to a bikeway on the property on the north . 4 . The Planning Board request the Developer to make provision for a possible future second elevator should the need for same become apparent after occupancy of the project; and it is further RESOLVED , that this Board request the Planning Board to present a report as to the manner the Planning Board handled the requests above . MOVED : Councilwoman Leary SECONDED : Councilman Cowie Vote : Supervisor Valentino Voting Ave Councilperson Burbank Voting Aye Councilperson Engman Voting Aye Councilperson Stein Voting Aye Councilperson Leary Voting Ave Councilperson Cowie Voting Aye FILE DATE 1`2- z ds ADOPTE RESOLUTION : PB RESOLUTION N09 2005-125 Conifer Village — Ithaca Senior Living Community Preliminary Site. Plan and Subdivision Approval . and Recommendation to Town Board Regarding Rezoning Tax Parcel No . 27-143 . 12 , 27-143 :1631 Conifer Drive AND Site Plan Modification for Linderman. Creek Apartments Phase II & III for development of an emergency access Tax Parcel No . 27-1 -13 . 18 , 27-1 -13 . 17 Cypress Court Planning Board , December 20 , 2005 MOTION made by Board Member Howe , seconded by Board Member Talty . WHEREAS : 1 a . This action is consideration of Preliminary .Subdivision Approval , Preliminary Site . Plan Approval , and a recommendation to the Town Board regarding a . Zoning Change , and height variance from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living . Community, consisting of a seventy-two (72) unit independent living rental project for seniors _55 years of age and older, located on a 9 . 0 +/- acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase 11 and III , Tax Parcel No . ' s 27- 1 - 13 . 12 and 27A A 3 . 162 , Medium Density Residential Zone . The proposal involves construction of a 80 , 555 square foot, three-story building , with an 82-space parking lot, stormwater facilities , landscaping , and associated utilities . The project also includes a secondary "emergency only access drive to NYS Route 79 . . The remaining +/- 49 acres of the property are proposed for future development phases , over a period of years and depending on market conditions . The proposal also requires a rezoning request for the 9 . 0 +L- acres from Medium Density Residential to Multiple Residence . Conifer Realty, LLC , Owner/Applicant; John H . Fennessey, . Agent, and 1 b . The proposal also includes consideration of Site Plan Modification for the Linderman Creek Apartments Phase 11 and III to allow construction of a secondary "emergency only" access drive for the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community project. Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and 11.1 were granted Site Plan Approval on April 16 , 2002 . The proposed modification would allow emergency access from the proposed senior apartments onto Cypress Court (the existing private road for Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III ) , and involve construction of a short driveway segment from Cypress Court through a previously disturbed but undeveloped portion of the Linderman Creek PB RESOLUTION N0. * 2005-125 PAGE 2 Apartment Phase 11 and III site , to Route 79 , on Tax Parcel No's. 27AA3. 18 and 27- 1 - 13 , and 2 . The proposed . actions , which include subdivision approval , site plan , and site plan modification approval by the Planning Board , rezoning by the Town Board , and height variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals, are Type I actions pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617 , and Town of Ithaca Code , Chapter 148 , Environmental Quality Review, and 39 The Town of Ithaca Town . Board , in a resolution dated November 14, 2004 , has referred the petition to rezone the above-referenced parcel to the Planning Board for a recommendation , and 4 . Having received no objections from other Involved Agencies , . the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in a resolution dated February 22 , . 2005 , established itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above-referenced actions , and 5 . The . Planning Board , after holding public hearings atl a meeting held on December 20 , 2005 , has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form ( EAF) Part I prepared by the applicant, Part II of the EAF prepared by the . Town Planning staff, and has reviewed other . application materials , including a Project Description , Market Analysis Summary (October 12 , 2004), the Site Impact Traffic Evaluation ( Dec . 2004) , Geotechnical . Evaluation ( Dec . 2004) , excerpts from Drainage Report for Linderman , Creek Subdivision ( December 29 , 2004) ,, Balloon Test Analysis and visual simulation Photos No . 1 - 15 ( 1 /5/05) , NYS DEC Water Quality Certification Permit (5/ 11 /05) , Nationwide Wetland Permit 12 and 14 (August 5 , 2005) , site plan and architectural drawings including , Demolition/Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plana & Details ( L1 -7) , Layout Plan ( L-2) , Grading , Plan & Details (L-3) , Stormwater System Plan & Details ( L4) , Planting Plan & Details ( L-5) , Details ( L- 6) , Profiles , Sections & Details ( L-7) all dated 12/29/04 and revised 11/3105, and site utility plan and details , building floor plans and elevation drawings ,Boundary and Topographic Survey ( December 12 , 2003) , Conceptual Sketch Plan (SK- 1 ) dated September 8 , 2004 revised 12/29/04 and 11 /3/05 , Preliminary Subdivision Plat (1 /13/05) revised 11 /3/05 , a draft Local Law regarding the proposed rezoning of the site, and revised drawings for Linderman , Creek Apartments Phase II and III including Site Plan and Details ( L- 1 ) , Enlarged Site Plans and Details ( L-2) and Fire Truck Access and Analysis ( L-3) each dated April . 159 2005 and other application materials , and 6 . The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination ' of environmental significance with respect to the proposed rezoning , Site Plan and Subdivision Approval , and Site Plan modifications , and height . variance , and PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005-125 PAGE 3 71 Based on the above , the Planning Board , at its December 20 , 2005 meeting , has issued a negative determination of environmental significance with regard to the proposed rezoning , . Site Plan Approval , Subdivision Approval , height variance , and Site Plan Modification , and 81 The Planning Board , after holding another public hearing on February 3 , 20041 has reviewed and accepted as adequate the above-referenced materials , NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED : 1 . That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , pursuant to Article . XIV , Section 78 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , hereby finds that: a . There is a need for the proposed Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community project in the proposed location , and more particularly , that the Market Study prepared by the applicant adequately demonstrates that there is an unmet need for the proposed project, and b . The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected by the proposed rezoning and project development, and C, The proposed rezoning is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town , which designates the project site as appropriate for Suburban Residential' development, and in addition , is adequately served by public water and sewer facilities , is proximate to the City of Ithaca , and is served by public transit, and 2 . That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board enact . a proposed local law to amend the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance by rezoning a . portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27- 1 - 13 . 12 from MDR Medium Density Residential to MR Multiple. Residence , which is proposed for the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community , consisting of a seventy-two (72) unit independent living rental project for seniors 55 years of age and older, located on a 9 . 0 +/- acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III as shown on the " Preliminary Subdivision Plat" dated January 13, 2005 revised 11 /3/05 , prepared by C .T . Male Associates , P . C . and " Layout Plan " ( L-2) dated December 29 , 2004 revised 11 /3/05 , prepared by Carl Jahn & Associates , Landscape Architects and Planners, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Tax Parcel No . 27- 1 - 13 . 17 totaling +/- 29 acres , into two PB RESOLUTION N0. 2005-125 PAGE 4 parcels , including a +/- 9 acre parcel for development of the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community apartment complex and +/- 20 acre parcel . proposed for future residential development as shown on the drawing entitled " Preliminary Subdivision Plat — Conifer Village Ithaca" ( DWG No _ 05- 166) , dated January 13 , 20.05 , prepared by C . T . Male Associates , P . C , conditioned upon the following to be completed prior to the granting , of. Final Subdivision Approval , unless otherwise noted : a . Rezoning by the Town Board of the proposed project site as described .. above prior to consideration of Final Subdivision Approval by the Planning Board ; . and b . Submission of draft easement language allowing emergency access for the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community development to utilize Cypress Court and to utilize other portions of the existing Linderman Creek Apartment Phase Il . and III on Tax Parcel Nos . 27- 1 - 13 . 18 and 27,, 1 - 13 . 17 ; and c . Submission of draft easement language providing access to the Town of Ithaca to all storm water management facilities , and sewer and water mains, and indication on the Final Plat of the location and dimensions of all such easements to be conveyed to the Town ; and d . Approval of easements guaranteeing access of the rlarge remaining parcels to Conifer Drive , by the Attorney for the Town , prior to signing of the Final Subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair; and e . Evidence of the necessary approval by the Tompkins County Health Department on the final plat, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair; and f. Before construction of any improvements anywhere on the project site is commenced , requirements of the Final Site Plan Checklist shall . be met, and Final Site Plan . Approval granted by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board ; and g . Submission of a revised subdivision plat that correctly aligns the extension of Conifer Drive within the road-right-of-way; and h . Completion of the . new extension to Conifer Drive and required utilities , and completion of the existing Conifer Drive with the addition of six more inches of "crusher run " to the road base followed by an asphalt covering , to the satisfaction of the Town .Engineer and Town Highway Superintendent , prior to the issuance of a building permit; and I PB RESOLUTION NO, 2005-125 PAGE 5 i . Prior to signing of the plat by . the Chairman of the Planning Board , the Town Board . grants approval for the Town to accept the conveyance of Conifer Drive (extension and existing segment) ; and J * Prior to issuance of a building permit, the conveyance of the above referenced road to the Town of Ithaca , and k. No building permits for future phases or development of the remaining large parcels located n.orth of Conifer Village Ithaca. Senior Living Community and Linderman Creek Phase I shall be issued until the access road , extending from Conifer Drive is reviewed and approved by the Town Highway Superintendent and Town Engineer; and I . Submission of evidence of inclusion of a deed restriction for the wetland mitigation , required by the U . S . Army Corp of Engineers Nationwide Permit No . 12 and No . 14 , showing/describing the required 0 . 72 . acres of unmowed , vegetated upland buffer along the north side. of Linderman Creek; and M , Submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of : an original or mylar copy of the final plat and three dark-lined prints , prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office , and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED : 1 . ' That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan_ Approval for the proposed Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community , consisting of a seventy-two. (72) unit, +/- 80 , 555 square foot, three-story apartment building , with an 82-space parking lot for seniors 55 years of age and older, located on a 9 . 0 +/- acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III , on Tax Parcel No . s 27- 1 - 13 . 12 .and 27- 1 - 13 . 162 , as shown on drawing and details including Demolition/Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan & Details (L1 -7) , Layout Plan (L-2) , Grading Plan & Details (L-3) , Stormwater System Plan & Details ( L-4) , Planting Plan & Details (L-5) , Details ( L- . . 6) , Profiles , Sections & Details ( L-7 ) all dated 12/29/04 and revised 11 /3/05 , and site . utility plan and details , building floor plans and elevation drawings , Boundary and Topographic Survey ( December 12 , 2003) , Conceptual Sketch Plan (SK 1 ) dated September 8 , 2004 revised 12/29/04 and 11 /3/05 , and other application materials , conditioned upon the following to be completed prior to . the granting of Final Site Plan Approval , unless otherwise. noted : a . Rezoning of the proposed project site by the Town Board ; and f PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005-125 PAGE 6 b . Preparation and submission of final design and construction details of all proposed structures and improvements , including drainage and storm water management facilities , roads/driveways , parking areas , curbing , walkways, sewer and water facilities and other utilities , design of the play area , and sedimentation and erosion control measures , for review and approval by the Town Engineer; and C, Submission of final details of size , location , design , and construction materials of all proposed signs and lighting (including any building. .wall mounted lights and proposed recessed ceiling porch lights) , including the proposed entrance sign ; and d . Submission of final , detailed building elevations and floor plans including descriptions of building materials and colors , and accurate . dimensions of buildings , including building heights ; and e . Provision of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from other , county , state , and/or federal agencies and obtaining the necessary curb-cut . and road work permits from the New York State Department of Transportation , prior to issuance . of any building permits ; and f. Submission of a revised site plan modifying the placement of the two stormwater management facilities , identified on the plans as "Proposed Detention Basin of the Conifer Road right-of-way; and g . Submission of a stormwater "Operation , Maintenance , and. Reporting Agreement between the property owner . and the Town of Ithaca , satisfactory to the Director of Engineering , prior to issuance of a building permit, and h . Obtaining the necessary height variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals , and i . Documentation from TCAT that bus service will be extended to the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community and that access accommodations for buses on that site will be adequate , and j . Provision of curb cuts necessary for ADA access on the sidewalk on the site . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED : 1 . That the provision of the emergency access will be adequate to serve Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community, but that no further development on the PB RESOLUTION NO . 2005=125 PAGE 7 remaining portions of the Conifer roe beyond the senior apartments , will be 9 P property ,rtY , allowed without the installation of a permanent, secondary means of access ,. and that this emergency access will be removed once a secondary means of access is provided to the site . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED : 1 That the Planning Board hereby grants Site Plan Modification for the Linderman . Creek Apartment Phase II and III project, to allow construction of a secondary "emergency only access drive for the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community project. The proposed modification would allow emergency . access from the proposed senior apartments onto Cypress Court (the existing private . road for Linderman Creek Apartments Phase. II and III ) , and involve construction of a short driveway segment from Cypress Court through a previously disturbed but undeveloped portion of . the Linderman Creek Apartment Phase II and III site , to Route 79 , on Tax Parcel No' s . 27- 1 - 13 .18 and 27- 1 - 13 . 17 ; as shown on drawings and details entitled Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II & III/Conifer Village Senior Apartments Emergency Access , including : Site :Plan and Details ( L- 1 ) , Enlarged Site Plans and Details ( L-2) and Fire Truck Access and Analysis . (L-3) each dated April 15 , 2005 , and other application materials ; conditioned upon the following to be completed prior to the granting of Final Subdivision Approval , unless otherwise noted : a . Provision of the necessary curb-cut and road work permits from the New York State Department of Transportation , prior to . issuance of any building permits ; and AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED : 1 . That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby authorizes a reduction in the number of required . parking spaces , pursuant to Sec. 270-227 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca , from the +/- 96 parking spaces required in Section 270-227 , to the +/- 82 parking spaces shown on the proposed site plan , finding that such reduction will not adversely affect traffic flow on the project site , will . leave adequate parking for all the reasonably anticipated uses or occupancies in . the project, and will not otherwise adversely affect the general welfare of the community, and 2 . That the Town of Ithaca, Planning Board hereby waives the conditions relating. to the reduction in parking spaces outlined in Section 270-227 (A) (3) of the Code of the Town of Ithaca . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : PB RESOLUTION NO, 2005-125 PAGE 8 AYES : Wilcox , Hoffmann , Conneman , Mitrano , Thayer, Howe , Talty, NAYS : None . The motion was declared to be carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 20th day of r, December 2005 . n , ,1 r IDWuty Town CI Town of Ithaca eYlaIi _ r—._..._._.�,.._.. •SL'. r 1, IV IN., ' ' �• N•\\Ol c S- p � t_ L 1t pz `_� VlVfill uVN r A QO � yq er,10Y • i y_ lgfl ,i - e9 � u ,(� 1 T3'ty ' i T l < r. T. � j _ •° 3 vm r Y It. } Elr �ti - T1fttr1 Cj S' �Ft��' ii( = tit MR if L "- ::a:y In P n i J O n C 2 — P — •ir _ fQ op in RL EL k3 Iop Io Io L 1 O nn ^ mu 9 D V ' T F F ... ^ °e 4 O tJlI ' i z it - 9 ut li❑ CC<. A I ' T Property Description Report For Mecklenburg Rd in Ithaca (Town) Page l .of 2 . FVEZ41'�U Property Description Report For Mecklenburg Rd in Ithaca (Town) Y- . Owner Information Conifer Realty LLC , 183 E Main St Rochester NY 14604 Conifer Realty LLC Status Active Roll Section Taxable Swis 503089 Tax Map #: 27 . -1 -13 . 12 . Zoning Code Site 1 Neighborhood 30020 Property Class Rural Vac > 10 Land Assessment $ 102 , 000 Total Assessment $ 102, 000 Total Acreage 29 . 07 School District Ithaca Deed Book 2506 Deed Page 4414 Structure Area Building Style 0 - Unknown Living Area 0 sqft Bathrooms 0 First Story Area 0 sqft Bedrooms - 0 Second Story Area 0 sqft Kitchens 0 Half Story Area 0 sqft Fireplaces 0 Additional Story Area 0 sqft , Overall Condition Unknown 3/4 Story Area 0 sqft Overall Grade Unknown Finished Basement 0 sqft Porch Type Unknown Number of Stories 0 Porch Area 0 sqft Year Built Basement Type Unknown Basement Garage Cap . 0 Attached Garage Cap 0 Utilities Last Sale Sewer Type None Sale Date 05/08/2002 Water Supply None Sale Price $ 150 , 000 Utilities Electric Valid 0 Heat Type Unknown Arms Length N Fuel Type Unknown Prior Owner Ceracche Anthony- Estate, Central Air No Improvements No Improvements Land Types Land Type: Residual Acreage : 29. 07 Size : 0 x 0 httn o //a cm qd a .tomnkins-co. ora/imate/nri ntahle . &sn?ima=httn ://asmsde .tomnkins-co . orE/i . . . 12/28/2005 Property Description Report For Mecklenburg Rd in Ithaca (Town) . Page 2 of 2 Special Districts Code Description Units Percent Type Value Ithaca fire 1 Ithaca water 301 4 . 36 Ithaca sewer 4 . 36 Exemptions No Exemptions htt„ • //acmcda tmmnkinc-rn . nru/invite/nrintahle .asn?img=httU ://asmsdiz .tomvkins-co .ora/i . . . 12/28/2005 ® n } (585) 324 0500 voice if 1 (585) 324 0556 fax 183 East Main Street, 6th Floor Rochester, NY 14604 www.cc)niferllc. com December 29 , 2005 s ! JAN 3 2UU6 Jonathan Kanter, AICP t��w:+ of R t Director of Planning -- Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE : Conifer Village Ithaca — ZBA Application Dear Jon : Per your email to Carol of December 28t ' enclosed please find 11 sets of the O ' Brien & Gere balloon test to be submitted for the January 23rd ZBA meeting . Please note Photo 13 was not taken from Route 96B as requested by the Planning Board . It was our intention to the photograph from the requested location ; however, we erroneously took the photo from an incorrect location on Route 96B . Should you have any questions or anything further, I may be reached at (585 ) 324-0535 or Carol directly at (5 85 ) 324-0521 . Sincerely, 14t pL� 01pt "Z� Hope Capizzi Project Assistant Eric . 1' :\709\WORD\Develop\Kanter.addtl zba mtg info. 122905 .doc J.11'�.Y.HLyrl<.Y.-lY. �.Vl':.lJ[nve aiWVassvi. I E Yc9 VlW[��$ ��qgy E R[ '1/,nV (\\��•�j� Ott= nr:sa=�arrar-:� •-r...c�:uax a-r. cr_oai� ,SAN - 3 MW January 7, 2005 TOWN OF ITMACA SUILDING/20NING Ray Wetherbee Project Coordinator Conifer Reality, LLC 183 East Main Street, 6`h Floor Rochester, NY 13214 Re : Conifer Village Senior Living Community Town of Ithica Subj : Balloon Photographs File : 8526/36097 Dear Ray: Enclosed please find six (6) copies of the balloon photographs and a location map showing where each photograph was taken in relationship to the balloon locations . On January 5 , 2005 , we floated two (2)-5 % ' diameter balloons at the northwest corner and two (2)-5 %z ' diameter balloons at the southeast corner of the proposed building for the above referenced project. The tops of the red balloons were flown at elevation 968 USGS (top of roofline) . The tops of the orange balloons were flown at the zoning ordinance height of 36 ' above existing grade . Weather conditions during the time the photos were taken were light snow and light breeze (2 to 5 mph) . The attached map shows the locations where all the photos were taken with the exception of photo number 13 which was taken along NYS Route 96B . at the Scenic Overlook. This location was approximately two miles south of the limits of the location map and: the balloons were not visible as shown in the photograph. Due to the distance the photographs were taken from the balloons, some of the balloons are difficult to see; therefore we have inserted a circle into the photographs to better identify the locations of the balloons . If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very Truly Yours, O 'BRIEN & GERE ENGINEERS , INC. `17 Mic ael . Petrie Senior Project Designer cc . Mr. John Fennessey O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc., an O'Brien & Gere company = +r p Y µ 5000 Brittonfield Parkway / P.O. Box 4873, Syracuse, New York 13221 - 4873 (315) 437-6100 / FAX (315) 463 -7554 • http:// www.obg.com l.:;.Yr k.FSY .. y �3•y:j . . . and offices in major U.S. cities 1 $ LEGEND Pp((1\ , o c ® BALLOON LOCATION a+- PHOTO NUMBER AND LOCATION • £ GA , \ K k t i It cgi- •i♦> � pa i eta° 96 SF PDr�r :_\.... Gal P (\1 4(po . � 1 ` � It 1 .0 i' r sr Williams . `, ...... .��� ��`�, '"�� , \ � . 'uaA*`�• � '• 1 � ' '•c . No As It viltil 13 V�i 1 Yi (O IT II ` 1 IyVJ 1 r� GalR^ i h+f i10 no ' 49 .1 s; ' .`(n1(' �ii a�� `�1c � Vk .. III ' I (n(E % sixt him is \. � \ \ ao� Ni11 •�1�•� „� �; . ; _ FlLE NO. = � QBAIEN6OERE 8526 / 36097 ENGINEERS INC. CONIFER VILLAGE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY DATE 1 / 5 / 05 BALLOON PHOTO LOCATIONS DWG No. 1 C (D O :r . TI ::3 D 0 cn O (D 0 r Z .t. .. < < 0 � � w cn r C7 , (D m 0 f ! r 0 o �'y� at U, CDO � � O' � O L . r Z ' 3 ,t � CS• �i ■ Z w OD ° < w 1 mo z Oo . >,< CD I O z cn ■ ■ I u) l/ -o i. Cjj (D O 3 O O _, ,-r ■I Ui (D O ■ r Z ■■■ o MEN T now •■■ CD o 3 c 'i �c i � 1 ..r � � t ,a I o � r w J CL v � I r CIO " 0 1 i. CD . . can •• cD ■ a � • • • cn r • .. co • D CD M` , !ARV�. 1��.}y�.� •�♦ .i.� f'�•��_ •rat- .�'V' 1 . N i U) n _0 C CD O S 1. U1 < O i (n Q) a.. � � I 00- (D I < { � Off ° , • ;� ° I' -n c ° co (D D r � - CD f: O (n o t r co n -a (J1 (D O =r :3 :3 O y C) O A. CJl p , r- OF o 3 r• :," " C r ( ?l LL O CD - k CD CD C .:.j (D Z O (D co II cj O O S D Q t O �' ;; A. Cn cD O <_ < O 7 00 n (D O 3 C D r P t i� D zmz Ocn � < O ;o m = o c OD � {y D-0 r c O (D O Cl) s z cn i U, 4— lKe • = r • �. r.rt CD cn i.1r r. .k .:t�• , • 'mot�.,.t•v�..��• , t., . t �y • CD } i • j • o • • 0 \ Z \ .. • • M" . • \ •, Y ,•4� • r`, -•mss.. � jr Jf 111.WO Ara JIF 1 ��.�,.1 Aft• • p: R, orb• ! 1 •;r:f r . tea 1 - r f.�••'.'f''��,,..^ • • — 4 ' i co • CN� 'K r• ;�lir 1�i. 'r u • • La. • Lo < � , • • CL 0 co r �,IT , :t 7 r 4F- 7t/'` I ISM �r •. - .. � A r •• #a i is �. it �•;c.% IS fit 4 , r OL er ~ ^;aa s •�`~ !r •ma y /4 r IS • AA k !� a ' 6 \ 1 7 / / O ©` © O \\' } 0 -J a p \,' E 03: 44\ f . m > .\ f w O \ 2 2 � , \ � ^�a� . , . .. . .� ! 1x@ \ > � w . AT E ,\6 = U c d ./ � / J, 2 � 2 o ƒ § o tea ? >\a r o 0 9 CL U Cl) ia. co • co z f ` r • i • .:j \{{ 0 • u r R • i r r •i{D :.� i Y4' { ; • ti i �f •� �y. I, ti ' • r • r � L5 Ur y � t Letter of Transmittal ; rt on i fer JAN V6 i 183 E. Main St., Suite 600 Rochester, New York 14604 TO"IN OF I Hl,CA (585) 324-0500 (Phone) PLPr�n!I_ niG 70'r�flt.!G, Et-YGINEERING (585) 324-0555 (Fax) DATE: January 4, 2006 JOB NO: 709 TO: Town of Ithaca ATTENTION: Jonathan Kanter Planning Dept. RE: Conifer Village at Ithaca 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 WE ARE SENDING YOU via UPS the following items: ® Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑Copy of Letter ❑ Change order ❑ Report ❑ Other COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 11 Scheme B - Flat Roof Sketch THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval • For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution • As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ FOR BIDS ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US DUE REMARKS COPY TO File SIGNED: Hope Capi=i Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273 - 1747 AGRICULTURAL DATA STATEMENT In accordance with Section 283 -a of the New York State Town Law, the Town of Ithaca will use the data in this statement to assist in evaluating the impacts of proposed development projects on farm operations in Agricultural Districts. 1 . Name of Applicant: Conifer Realtv , LLC Address : 183 E . Main St . , 6th Floor Rochester , NY 14604 2 . Project Name/Location: Co nifer Village of Ithaca , Town of Ithaca . 3 . Description of proposed project. 72 -unit senior apartments complex with a community building and parking areas . 4 . Tax Parcel Number(s) 27 - 1 - 13 . 12 5 . Number of total acres involved with project: 9 . 0 6 . Number of total acres presently in Tax Parcel 29907 7 . How much of the site is currently farmed? 0 Acres 81 Please identify who is farming the site . N / A 9. Please indicate what your intentions are for use of the remainder of-the property, over: Five years : Senior housing facilities Ten years : Senior housing facilities Twenty years : Senior housing facilities 10. Who will maintain the remainder of the property not being used for this development? Conifer Management , LLC page 1 of 2 Revised 11 / 14/05 11 . Please indicate crop(s) or vegetational cover for the site None exists 12 . Are there any drainage ways or underground tile systems located on the site? No Will this project alter existing drainage patterns? Yes If yes, please describe Drainage flows will routed through - detention basins for stormwater quality and quantity mitigation . 13 . Is the parcel included in a farm plan prepared by the Tompkins County Soil and Water District of the USDA Soil Conservation Service? No Are federally funded cost sharing practices in place for the parcel? No Name of program(s) . N / A 14 . Is the parcel currently granted an agricultural tax exemption? Yes X No Signature of Applicant: Date: 12 / 23 / 05 FOR TOWN USE ONLY: NOTE : This form and a map of the parcel(s) should be mailed to County Planning as part of the GML m and n referral. It should also be mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property boundary along with the Notice of Public Hearing (Attach list of property owners within 500 feet) . Name of Staff Person - Date Referred to County Planning - Page 2 of 2 Revised 11114105 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, APRIL 154, 2002 7 : 00 P .M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Monday, April 15 , 2002, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P.M. , on the following matters: APPEAL of Deborah Valentine, Appellant, Attorney Paul Tavelli, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain an existing two-family home with a north side yard building setback of 7 ± feet from an attached garage ( 10 foot setback required) at 120 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58-2-20, Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of Conifer Realty LLC, Appellant, John Fennessey, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 and 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law, to be permitted to create, by land subdivision, building lots not having frontage on a Town, County, or State highway near 1300 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27- 1 - 13 . 12 and 13 . 16, Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of John Tilitz, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirement of Article V, Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a single-family home on a building lot having a lot width of 60 feet at the roadside and at the maximum front yard setback, whereas 100 feet and 150 feet respectively is required, near 1447 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23- 141 .2, Residence District R-30. APPEAL of Michael and Lorie Lupo, Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law, to be permitted to build a residence on a building lot having a lot width of 60 feet at the roadside and at the maximum front yard setback, whereas 100 feet and 150 feet respectively, is required, near 125 Iradell Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 1 -7 .2, Residence District R-301 APPEAL of George Blanchard, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law, in order to create by subdivision, a building lot that does not front on a Town, County, or State highway near 165 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44-2-7, Residence District R-30. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7 : 00 p.m. , and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request. desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior sa u q uest. P g to the time of the public hearing. Andrew S . Frost Director of Building and Zoning 273 - 1783 Dated : April 4, 2002 Published : April 8 , 2002 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA MONDAY, APRIL 15 , 2002 7 : 00 P . M . 1 ) Decision on College Circle Apartments, adjourned from March 25 , 2002, 1033 Danby Road. 2) Appeal of Deborah Valentine, 120 Pine Tree Road. 3) Appeal of Conifer Realty, Mecklenburg Road. 4) Appeal of John Tilitz, Trumansburg Road. 5) Appeal of Michael and Lorie Lupo, Iradell Road. 6) Appeal of George Blanchard, King Road East. Andrew S . Frost Director of Building and Zoning 273 - 1783 Dated: April 4, 2002 1 1 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 15, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Krantz - I think we 've shown that Ithaca is still kind and gentle . The second appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Conifer Realty LLC , Appellant , John Fennessey , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 and 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law , to be permitted to create , by land subdivision , building lots not having frontage on a Town , County , or State highway near 1300 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27- 1 - 13 . 12 and 13 . 16 , Residence District R- 15 . Mr. Frost - I just wanted to make it clear that Conifer Realty's request here while it is a part of what is happening with Linderman Creek Apartments really has nothing to do specifically with any kind of site plan . It is a byproduct of land that is basically becoming landlocked by way of the subdivision of lands that are part of the Linderman Creek Phase II apartments . John Fennessey , Conifer Realty - I am the Vice President of Conifer Realty . I am here tonight in the capacity to seek a variance for the back open lots that wouldn 't have access onto a public highway . Just for background , this is Mecklenburg Road here . This is the line between the City and the Town . A few years ago we developed this parcel of land right here with 56 apartments . At that time we entered into a purchase agreement with Mr. Ceracche to buy half of his property here . In the process , the Mr. Ceracche dedicated the Town a park. Then we went ahead and finished Phase I and now we want to begin Phase II . That would be this area here outlined in orange . We have Conifer Drive coming in here . Now all of a sudden we find ourselves with two remaining lots here with no access to a public road . So that is the purpose of our being here . We have an easement agreement that will give access over Conifer Drive into this piece of property for the future . Our hope is that this will be a temporary measure and that we will continue the developments back up in through here . This road is actually proposed to connect up to Bundy Road up here . In the interim until that happens , these two pieces of property here in the green and the blue will not have access to a public road . So this easement here in the hashed mark will enable that to take place . Mr. Ellsworth - There is a road that comes in and circles around . Mr. Fennessey - Right now the road comes in here , turns to the right and down around here . The plan that the Planning Board has given preliminary approval to has another circle here . Mr. Stotz - What are the long term plans for those two parcels ? 4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 15, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Fennessey - We are exploring ways to develop this balance of land with single-family homes and possibly some elderly housing . This is one of the schemes that we are working on . This would be the road that comes up . We were looking at 70 lots . Mr. Frost - Was part of the proposal for our parkland . . . did you say that Ceracche ' s land was adjacent to land from Dick Perry? Part of the parkland that the Town got from Ceracche is also part of the adjacent land owned by Dick Perry , or not ? Mr. Smith - There are two parcels there to combine to make a park . Chairperson Sigel - At this time you are not asking for any permission to build on these lots , just the creation of lots that don 't front . Mr. Fennessey - This easement agreement will . . . Mr. Frost - I think the wisdom , if I can speak for John Barney , is this is not unique where the Town has been involved with granting subdivision approvals that left some portion of land landlocked . We have preferred that the part of the subdivision include any of the necessary variances . The Town theoretically is creating a landlocked parcel by the way of the variance . Mr. Ellsworth - If you don 't straighten out we have a landlocked park , too . Mr. Niefer - There was one item that I am somewhat concerned about or interested in and that is in granting this proposed variance , I noticed that this one plot plan show an unopened street going into Oakwood Lane that goes into the back corner of this large parcel . I know at the time that this whole development was proposed that the people on Oakwood Lane were very much concerned about the change in the character of the neighborhood . That I guess was litigated and not successful . However, this unopened street situation , granted I know the unopened street is in the City of Ithaca , but that little plot plan that you have showed us shows a connecting street that very well could go to the unopened street thus dumping traffic from this development over into the City of Ithaca . The City of Ithaca people on Oakwood Lane were very much concerned about . Although I realize this is somewhat in the future , it is a concern to me that this could have a significant impact on our neighbors in the City of Ithaca . Dumping a lot of traffic into Oakwood Lane , which as such would I don 't think necessarily the Town of Ithaca is being a good neighbor to the Oakwood Lane residents . This concern may be much premature . It may not even be addressable at this time . I don 't know . I raise it and make it part of the record . I have expressed my concerns for this development in the future . Mr. Fennessey - That is an issue that we have known existed ever since we have been involved with the property. We would not propose to have any traffic come from this development to that street . We would suggest , if the Town wants it , to have some type of a - break away barrier there for fire emergency access . We tried to do the same thing down here , but DOT wouldn 't allow it . This is also the Town ' s access to its property . Our intent in moving ahead with other areas of development would be not to , under any circumstances , for us to propose to the Town that that should be an ingress/egress to serve this property . It could be for emergency access only . 5 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Chairperson Sigel - Any other questions ? Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 36 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 37 p . m . Chairperson Sigel - The environmental review is the same situation . Mr. Smith - Yes . It was a Type I action . The Planning Board is the lead agency. You should have a copy of the neg . dec . in your packet . Chairperson Sigel - Okay, we don 't have to deal with that unless someone wants to voice a different opinion with the Planning Board . Chairperson Sigel - If there were no further questions , would some one like to make a motion ? Mr. Krantz - Kirk , is that considered two building lots ? Is that what you said ? Chairperson Sigel - That is what I said . It is two lots . Mr. Krantz - Even though each one will encompass so many houses? Chairperson Sigel - Right now they are just two lots . They would have to be further subdivided . RESOLUTION NO 2002- 16 - Conifer Realty, Tax Parcel Nos. 27. - 1 - 13. 12 and 27. - 1 - 13: 16, April 1592002m MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Conifer Realty, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 and 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law, to be permitted to create by land subdivision, two building lots not having frontage on .a Town, County or State highway near 1300 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 - 1 - 13. 12 and 27 - 1 - 13. 16, Residence District R- 15, based upon the following: Finding: a . The requirements for an area variance have been met. Condition : a . That the Attorney for the Town approve the proposed easement. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. 6 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The fourth appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of John Tilitz , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirement of Article V, Section 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a single-family home on a building lot having a lot width of 60 feet at the roadside and at the maximum front yard setback , whereas 100 feet and 150 feet respectively is required , near 1447 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 23- 1 -41 . 2 , Residence District R-30 . Bob Shaw , Shaw Real Estate - John sends his regrets that he can 't be here . He 's had to go with his family to California on Friday . So he asked me to stand in for him tonight . I do have a little bit of history with the property. I sold it to him back in 1991 as a realtor representing the owners of the property. He at that time through the Town of Ithaca created a 9 - lot subdivision with the intent fully to build 9 properties out there at a certain range and dollar value . That fell by the wayside especially as the housing market went sour. He has held onto it . I think recently he sent it back out of subdivision . Mr. Frost - He consolidated . He never actually followed through . The tax map did show the subdivision . Mr. Shaw - So intent now , although there is 60 feet and the 60 .feet originally was for a road to go in there and to have 9 lots off that road . Now it 's just a matter of a driveway going in and building a more substantial house back there on the 9 acres . The intent is to build again with the cul -de- sac . Mr. Frost - It is basically the same thing , but I believe it 's with the subdivision . Mr. Shaw - That is why he needs the variance in order to do that . It is a hardship at this time to go back and make 9 lots out of it . Mr. Frost - So what would have been a 60-foot wide area for a Town road now becomes a driveway , the 60-foot width being what is fronting on the road . It 's the same with the maximum front yard setback . Mr. Stotz - So there are no plans that you know of after he builds this house to go back and subdivide the land again . Mr. Shaw - No , not that I know of . Mr. Frost - If he did , he would have to go back before the Planning Board . Mr. Krantz - That is a fairly rural area up there . The only problem I saw with it is when you drive down that road it gets more and more narrow , the rough road , and it ' s impossible to turn around . 7 FILE. DATE ISO p � RESOLUTION NO . 2002- 16 - Conifer Realty, Tax Parcel Nos . 27 . -1 - 13 . 12 and 27 . -1 - 13. 16 , April 15 , 2002m MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED , that this board grants the appeal of Conifer Realty, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 and 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280a of New York State Town Law , to be permitted to create by land subdivision , two building lots not having frontage on a Town , County or State highway near 1300 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27 . - 1 - 13 . 12 and 27 . - 1 - 13 . 16 , Residence District R - 15 , based upon the following : Finding : a . The requirements for an area variance have been met . Condition : a . That the Attorney for the Town approve the proposed easement . The vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Stotz , Krantz , Niefer . NAYS : None . ABSTAIN : None . The motion was declared to be carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA : I , Carrie Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 15th day of April 2002 . moo Town Clerk/Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca I O V 1 ° WCIS Q TOWN OF ITHACA FEE: $80.00 215 North Tioga Street RECEIVED: 3 - ib oa Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-1783 CASH APPEAL CHECK - to the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer ZONING: and the Zoning Board of Appeals For Office Use Only of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been denied permission to: Subdivide lands which create lots that do not have direct access to a public road , street or highway 27 - 01 - 13 . 16 at N . Y . S . Route 79 , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 2 7 - 01 - 13 . 12 , as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents, for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of. Section 280A or N . Y . S . Town Law Article(s) IV , Section(s) 14 & 16 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Appeal from such denial and, in support of the Appeal, affirms that strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary.) Strict application of the law would require applicant at considerable expense to construct Conifer Drive to Town of Ithaca road standards and connect the road from Rt . 79 to the land north of the Linderman Creek bed . The applicant proposes as an interim measure to prepare an access easement from the current terminus of Conifer Tr=ve to north of the Linderman Creek bed , as described on the attached legal description prepared by C . T . Male Associates and depicted on the attached survey ( shaded area prepared also by C . T . Male dated 3 / 4 / 02 . By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in conne4Feney.) application . Signature of Owner/Appel an : Date: Signature of Appellant/Age Date: _ � S o 2 Print Name Here: John H . Vice Presi dent Conifer Realty , LLC Home Telephone Number: 315 - 446- 3812 Work Telephone Number: 315 - 451 - 8876 NOTE: If construction of work in accordance with any variances given does not commence within 18 months, the variance will ire. Your attendance at the meeting is advised. MAR 18 2002 � / I Town Assigned Project ID Number Town of. Ithaca Environmental Review TOWN OF ITHACA BUILDING/ZONING SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY ONLY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION o be com feted by A pplicant or Project Sponsor) 1 . Applicant/Sponsor: 2. Project Name: Conifer Realty , LLC Linderman Creek Apartments 3. Precise location (street address, road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map): Conifer Drive at N . Y . S . Route 79 Tax Parcel Number: 27 - 01 - 13 . 16 and 27 - 01 - 13 . 12 49 Is proposed action : NEW? EXPANSION? MODIFICATION/ALTERATION? 5. Describe project briefly: (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant Items): Applicant seeks an area variance to avoid cost now of building a dedicated road from Rt . 79 north to vacant land the applicant intends to develop with homes in the near future . As an alternative , the applicant has proposed giving an ingress / egress easement to this land . (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) 6. Amount of land affected: Initially (0-5 yrs) 57 Acres (6.10 yrs) Acres (> 10 yrs) Acres 7. How Is land zoned presently? R- 15 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? YES NO X If no, describe conflict briefly: Proposed subdivision would leave land not fronting on a public road . 9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new: Public Road? YES NO X Public Water? YES NO X Public Sewer? YES NO X 10. What Is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Park/Forest/Open Space R Other Please Describe: 11 . Does proposed action involve a permit, approval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, Local)? YES X NO Town of Ithaca subdivision , If yes, list agency name and permIUapprovai/funding : zoning and site plan approval, in addition Town of Ithaca building permit . 12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES NO X If yes, list agency name and permiVapproval. Also, state whether it will require modification. I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Appllcant/Spon Name (Print or Type) : John H . Fennessev , Vice President Conifer Realty , LLC Signature : Date : March 15 . 2002 Rev. 8/92 12-12-79 (3199)-9c SEQR State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non - Significance Project Number 0103381 Date : March 5 , 2002 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 ( State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board as lead agency , has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant environmental impact and a Draft Impact Statement will not be prepared . Name of Action : Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III SEQR Status : Type 1 Unlisted ❑ Conditioned Negative Declaration : ❑ Yes ❑✓ No Description of Action : Consideration of Subdivision Approval and Site Plan Approval by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , and Rezoning of +/- 15 . 266 acres from Residential R- 15 to Multiple Residence MR by the Town Board , for the proposed Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III development located on Conifer Drive ( a private drive) , just off Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No' s . 27- 1 - 13 . 12 and 27- 1 - 13 . 16 , Residence District R- 15 . The proposal includes 96 apartment units (72 units to be built initially in Phase II , 24 units to be constructed in Phase III ) in twelve buildings on 14 +/- acres . The proposal also includes a community building , access drives , parking , sidewalks , landscaping , and a recreation area including a pavilion and play structures . A bus stop and bus turnaround area is proposed for the northern end of Conifer Drive . The proposed development would consist of affordable housing units with 36 of the units being handicapped accessible or handicapped adaptable . The applicant is also requesting to subdivide Tax Parcel No . 27- 1 - 13 . 12 into three lots and Tax Parcel No . 27- 1 - 13 . 16 into additional lots for ownership purposes . Variances will need to be obtained from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals regarding road frontage and lot width requirements for the two larger northern - most parcels . Approximately 57 acres will remain undeveloped initially , but will be retained by Confer Realty for possible future residential expansion . Estate of Anthony Ceracche , Owner (Tax Parcel No . 27- 1 - 13 . 12) , and Home Properties of New York , Owner (Tax Parcel No , 27- 1 - 13 . 16) ; Conifer Reality , LLC , Applicant ; John Fennessey , Agent . Location : ( Include street address and the name of the municipality/county . A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended . ) see attached SEQR Negative Declaration Page 2 of 2 Reasons Supporting This Determination : ( See 617 . 7 ( a)-(c) for requirements of this determination , see 617 . 7(d ) for Conditioned Negative Declaration ) see attached If Conditioned Negative Declaration , provide on attachment the specific mitigation measures imposed , and identify comment period ( not less than 30 days from date of pubication In the ENB ) For Further Information : Contact Person : Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning Address : 215 N . Tioga Street , Ithaca , New York 14850 Telephone Number: (607) 273- 1747 For Type 1 Actions and Conditioned Negative Declarations, a Copy of this Notice is sent to : Chief Executive Officer , Town 1 City 1 Village of Other involved agencies ( If any) see attached Applicant ( If any) Environmental Notice Bulletin , Room 538 , 50 Wolf. Road , Albany NY , 12233- 1750 (Type One Actions only) Attachment to Negative Declaration Form Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Date : March 5 , 2002 Project Name : Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III Project No. , 01 -03 -381 Location : Mecklenburg Road, approximately 1000 feet west of the Town of Ithaca/City of Ithaca boundary (Tax Parcel No . 27- 1 - 13 . 12 and 27- 1 - 13 . 16) , Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Planning Board Reasons Supporting This Determination : Based on review of the project at Planning Board meetings held on February 1. 9 , 2002 and March 5 , 2002 , a negative .deten-nination of environmental significance has been made for the above referenced actions by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and on behalf of the Town Board as an Involved Agency , in accordance with the requirements of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law . Given the proposed design of the project, its location and the character of surrounding land uses , the existing character of the site , and the proposed uses and activities associated with the project , no significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified . The Planning Board, at a meeting held on February 19 , 2002 , began review of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I prepared by the applicant and other application materials . The applicant submitted revised page 2 of the EAF Part I , date stamped 2/ 19/02 . At the March 5 , 2002 meeting, the Planning Board reviewed and accepted as adequate the revised Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I prepared by the applicant, Parts II and III of the EAF prepared by the Town Planning staff, and reviewed other application materials , including that revised as indicated above . The above-referenced EAF incorporates specific studies and reports prepared and submitted by the applicant , including, but not limited to , a Site Impact Traffic Evaluation (January 2002) , Stormwater Drainage Report (January 17 , 2002), and report on the wetlands delineation from Terrestrial Environmental Specialists , me . (June 29 , 2001 , with additional maps and information submitted January 28 , 2002 and February 71 2002 ) , and a visual assessment form . The EAF and other application materials include relevant references and analysis of the cumulative impacts associated with possible future phases of development on remaining portions of the property being acquired by Conifer Realty Corporation. In particular, the following specific conclusions were reached by the Planning Board : 1 . Transportation A Site Impact Traffic Evaluation report for Linderman Creek Development Phase II (January 2002), prepared by SRF & Associates was submitted by the applicant and is incorporated into this assessment. The traffic study analyzes the impact of the Phase II development, anticipated to be completed within one year, as well as potential future development on the parcels north of Phase I and Phase 11 . The analysis indicates that the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding road system or on nearby neighborhoods . The following are some specific comments regarding the traffic evaluation report . ( 1 ) Proposed Development (pg 3 � : The description of the proposed development indicates that the proposal consists of 96 apartment units and 90 single-family detached homes , and also includes an analysis of "potential future development" that could include an additional 128 single-family homes (in Section X) . Table I on page 4 contains the total site generated trips for both the 96 apartments and the 90 single-family homes . This is somewhat confusing because the actual proposal before the Planning Board is only for the 96 apartment units and the rezoning to MR Multiple Residence needed for those apartments . The traffic study should have separated out the "proposed" 90 single-family homes to be considered as "potential future development" along with the additional 128 single-family homes . (2) Trip Generation Analysis (pp . 3 - 5 ) : Aside from the confusion resulting from the project description referenced above, it turns out that the traffic analysis in this format provides an even more conservative estimate of traffic that would be generated from the Linderman Creek development. Based on the combined site generated volumes , Figure 5 indicates that the majority of vehicles exiting Conifer Drive in the morning peak hour are expected to end up at the Hector Street/Floral Ave . intersection heading into the City (58/71 or 82%). The results indicate that a very small number of those morning peak hour vehicles exiting Conifer Drive are anticipated to use neighborhood streets (3 vehicles onto Warren Place and 2 vehicles onto Campbell Ave . ) . Only 6 vehicles exiting Conifer Drive in the morning peak hour are expected to head west on Mecklenburg Road, and of those , only 1 vehicle is expected to turn south onto West Haven Road . Results are of a similar scale for afternoon peak hour vehicles returning to Conifer Drive . Overall , the trip generation analysis appears to be very realistic because the ITE trip generation rates were supplemented with actual generation rates from the Phase I apartment development. (3 ) Capacity Analysis (pp . 5 - 7) : The capacity analysis results (summarized in Table 11 on page 6) indicate that most of the intersections included in the study will have acceptable levels of service (LOS ) under "full development conditions" (meaning the 96 apartments plus the 90 single- family homes) . Vehicles southbound on Conifer Drive will experience somewhat longer delays under full development conditions , with LOS in both the morning and afternoon peak hours changing from "B " to "C", which is still acceptable . The eastbound Hopkins Place approach to Route 96 currently operates at LOS "E", which degrades to LOS "F" under background growth conditions . Under full development conditions, the delay for eastbound traffic on Hopkins Place increases by about two 2 seconds per vehicle . Therefore , the proposed development does not significantly contribute to the delays at this intersection . Northbound traffic exiting Floral Ave . onto Hector Street already experiences significant delays in the morning peak hour at LOS "F". Delays will increase further under both background growth conditions and full development conditions . This is an existing problem, and is not caused by the proposed development, although delays are anticipated to increase . The afternoon peak hour LOS also declines from "C" to "D" between background and full development conditions . This is still in the acceptable range for side road delays at an unsignalized intersection at a high volume roadway such as Route 79 . (4) One possible note of concern : The "Analysis of Potential Future Development Conditions" (Appendix A -7) , which evaluates the impact of the additional 128 single- family homes for the year 2008 , indicates that the LOS for southbound vehicles at the Conifer Drive intersection at Mecklenburg Road deteriorates to "D" for both morning and afternoon peak hour traffic . While this is still an acceptable LOS for a side road entering into high volume traffic on a state highway, it signals future issues for the Town to consider relating to the future planned through road extension from Conifer Drive between Mecklenburg and Bundy Roads . This issue does not pertain, however, to the current proposed development of the 96 Phase Il apartments . It should be noted that Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) has indicated that it will extend Bus Route No . 65 to enter Conifer Drive to pick up and discharge passengers . To accommodate this bus route extension , the Linderman Creek Phase II and III site plans show the addition of a bus turnaround area at the north end of Conifer Drive with a bus shelter. This is a beneficial addition that will provide for safer, more efficient bus service for the existing and proposed Linderman Creek developments . 2 . Stormwater Runoff The project will result in the conversion of 4 . 5 +/- acres of meadow and forest to impervious concrete and asphalt surfaces , for buildings, sidewalks , driveways, parking areas and play areas , and conversion of 7 . 15 +/- acres to lawn . Increases of impervious surfaces warrant concern for increased rates and amounts of surface water runoff, as well as concerns about contaminated urban runoff, during and after the construction period . The project site is sloped , with drainage patterns generally tending in an easterly direction. Drainage from the project site ultimately flows into Linderman Creek , which traverses the northern boundary of the project site, as well as wetlands associated with Linderman Creek. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management study entitled " Stormwater Drainage Report", dated January 17 , 2002 , which is incorporated into this environmental assessment. Based on this document, it appears that the proposed Stormwater drainage plan adequately addresses the control and treatment of stormwater runoff, and minimal adverse environmental impacts from stormwater runoff are anticipated. A detention basin is proposed for the northeastern area of the site to control stormwater runoff. Details of drainage improvements will 3 need to be addressed in the final site plan and construction drawings . Of particular interest is how the wetland will function and be utilized in the detention basin . Sedimentation and erosion control is a very important concern given the slope of the land and the proximity of Linderman Creek and its associated wetlands . The plans indicate that silt fencing will be installed all along the perimeter of the project site, on the downhill slopes . Also proposed are temporary sediment basins located within the project site to collect and trap sediment laden stormwater for the protection of the wetlands and Linderman Creek . Because the project disturbs more that five acres of total land area , the project must comply with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( SPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharge from Construction Activities (GP-93 -06) . Specific SPDES permit requirements include submission of the Notice of Intent (NOI) and the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will need to be prepared in conjunction with the final construction documents. 3 . Aesthetics/Visual Impact The character of the site and the areas to the west, north, and south is a mix of largely undeveloped land of meadow/forest, agricultural , and low density residential . Immediately east of the proposed project is Phase I of the Linderman Creek Apartment development, consisting of 56 apartment units in seven buildings . The Phase 11 proposal , which includes 96 apartment units in twelve buildings (72 units to be built initially, and the additional 24 units to be built in the future) , would continue this transitional use between the Phase I apartment project, and the suburban residential development further to the east in the City, with the less developed areas to the west . As indicated in the Visual EAF Addendum (Appendix B) , the site is adjacent to Mecklenburg Road, NYS Route 79, a heavily traveled state highway . According to NYS Department of Transportation traffic counts for Mecklenburg Road , there was an average of 4, 187 vehicle trips per day (both directions) on Route 79 (counts taken near Ithaca/Enfield town line) in 2000 . Although this results in a relatively high number of travelers on the state highway , it does not appear that the proposed project would significantly affect views in this area. The view analysis completed for the Phase I Apartment complex project ( 1998) is pertinent and appropriate for the Phase Il proposal . This analysis indicated that the visibility of the site from Mecklenburg Road consisted of foreground and mid-range views of predominantly old field and shrub upland area . Analysis of views from East Hill and South Hill locations toward the project site indicated that potential views of the proposed development would be minimal . Residential development in the West Hill neighborhoods of the City already dominate the views , and the project site is below the crest of the hill , so it is not likely that proposed buildings would stand out more than others in the surrounding area. Careful attention to landscaping and buffering in the site plan nonetheless will be an important additional means to ensure that the visual impact of the project be kept to a minimum . In particular, a stronger buffer area around the perimeter of the developed portion of the site would help to prevent visual intrusion on the surrounding area. Additional landscaping and possibly berming along the road frontage could help to further reduce the visual impacts of this project on the state road . Additional landscaping within the developed portion of the project would further minimize potential visual impacts . 4 . Agricultural Resources The character of the site and the areas to the west, north , and south is a mix of largely undeveloped land of meadow/forest, agricultural , and low density residential . Immediately east of the proposed project is Phase I of the Linderman Creek Apartment development, consisting of 56 apartment units in seven buildings . The Phase II proposal , which includes 96 apartment units in twelve buildings (72 units to be built initially, and the additional 24 units to be built in the future) , would continue this transitional use between the Phase I apartment project, and the suburban residential development further to the east in the City, with the less developed areas to the west. As indicated in the Visual EAF Addendum (Appendix B) , the site is adjacent to Mecklenburg Road , NYS Route 79 , a heavily traveled state highway . According to NYS Department of Transportation traffic counts for Mecklenburg Road , there was an average of 4 , 187 vehicle trips per day (both directions) on Route 79 (counts taken near Ithaca/Enfield town line) in 2004 . Although this results in a relatively high number of travelers on the state highway, it does not appear that the proposed project would significantly affect views in this area . The view analysis completed for the Phase I Apartment complex project ( 1998 ) is pertinent and appropriate for the Phase II proposal . This analysis indicated that the visibility of the site from Mecklenburg Road consisted of foreground and mid-range views of predominantly old field and shrub upland area . Analysis of views from East Hill and South Hill locations toward the project site indicated that potential views of the proposed development would be minimal . Residential development in the West Hill neighborhoods of the City already dominate the views, and the project site is below the crest of the hill , so it is not likely that proposed buildings would stand out more than others in the surrounding area. Careful attention to landscaping and buffering in the site plan nonetheless will be an important additional means to ensure that the visual impact of the project be kept to a minimum . In particular, a stronger buffer area around the perimeter of the developed portion of the site would help to prevent visual intrusion on the surrounding area. Additional landscaping and possibly berming along the road frontage could help to further reduce the visual impacts of this project on the state road . Additional landscaping within the developed portion of the project would further minimize potential visual impacts . 5 . Character of Community The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan ( September 1993 ) designates the project site and adjacent areas to the north and south as " Suburban Residential , " which anticipates additional residential growth that can be served by public water and sewer facilities . This area is also zoned R- 15 Residence , which can have a maximum residential density of 3 . 5 dwelling units per acre . 5 The proposed Phase II development would have a density of approximately 6 . 3 dwelling units per acre (96 apartment units on 1. 5 . 26 acres) , which appears to be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan . A rezoning from R- 15 Residence to MR Multiple Residence would be required . This site is on the edge of the anticipated growth area in the town. The proposed density appears to appropriate as a transition between the urban/suburban densities of the City to the east and the lower residential densities and agricultural use to the west in the town . The Phase II development will require community services (e . g . , recreation , education , police , fire protection, etc . ) . Although there are continuing pressures in municipal budgets to continue such services at acceptable levels and the resulting pressures on the local property tax base, there are no known capacity deficiencies in these service systems that would be impacted by the proposed development . The Town of Ithaca Town Board has adopted the Park , Recreation and Open Space Plan , which identifies future park and recreation needs for the town . In particular, this Plan identifies the need for a community park on this area of West. Hill . As noted in the section regarding Transportation , the applicant has indicated the possibility of future development of the remaining lands north of the project site . In a discussion with the Planning Board on February 19 , 2002 , the applicant discussed possible future plans for additional dwelling units , with the possibility of approximately 70 single family homes and 64 apartment units, at some unspecified future time . These areas are currently zoned R- 15 Residence and are designated as " Suburban Residential " in the Comprehensive Plan. This additional residential growth would be consistent with the Town ' s stated planning objectives . Specific environmental impacts will be evaluated when and if specific development proposals are submitted . Meanwhile , the Transportation section indicates that the future development of up to 218 single- family homes would still not have significant impacts on the surrounding transportation system . This Notice is being distributed to , Involved Agencies : Erin M . Crotty, Commissioner, NYS Dept . of Environmental Conservation Janis M . Gross, Associate Transportation Analyst, NYS Dept. of Transportation Kevin R. Carlisle , Assistant Commissioner for Community Development, NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal Nathan L . Rudgers , Commissioner, NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets Richard M . Lord, NYS Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation John B . Rintoul , Deputy District Engineer, US Army Corp of Engineers , Buffalo District John M . Andersson, Tompkins County Department of Health Catherine Valentino , Supervisor, Town of Ithaca Town Board Kirk Sigel , Chair, Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Others : Kenneth Lynch, Director, Region 7 , N . Y , S . Department of Environmental Conservation Gordon Reimels , Resident Engineer, N . Y . S . Department of Transportation, Region 3 Fernando DeAragon , Director, Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council 6 Mayor Alan Cohen , City of Ithaca Julie Conley Holcomb, City Clerk, City of Ithaca H . Matthys Van Cort, City of Ithaca Dept . of Planning & Development Edward C . Marx , Commissioner, Tompkins County Department of Planning Dwight Mengel , Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit Brian Wilbur, Fire Chief, City of Ithaca Fire Department Stacy Crawford, Better Housing for Tompkins County Russell DeMond, Chair, Tompkins County Agriculture & Farmland Protection Board Clifford Blizard , Chair, Town of Ithaca Conservation. Board John Fennessey, Conifer Realty Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering, Town of Ithaca 7 FI LE DATE 1 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : RESOLUTION NO . 2002-19 Preliminary Site Plan Approval , Preliminary Subdivision Approval , and Recommendation to Town Board Regarding Rezoning Linderman Creek Apartments , Phase II & III Mecklenburg Road ( NYS Rte 79) Planning Board , March 5 , 2002 MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano , seconded by George Conneman . WHEREAS , 1 . Conifer Realty, LLC has requested a Rezoning , Site Plan , and Subdivision approval for the proposed Linderman Creek Phases II and III development to consist of 96 apartment units (72 units to be built initially in Phase II , 24 units to be considered in Phase III ) in twelve buildings to be located on 15 . 2 acres to be located off of Mecklenburg Road ( NYS Rte 79) at Conifer Drive , a private drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos . 27- 1 - 13 . 12 and - 13 . 16 , Residence District R45 . The proposal also includes a community building , access drives , ' parking , sidewalks , landscaping , and a recreation area including a pavilion , and play structures . The proposed development would consist of affordable housing units with 36 of the units being handicapped accessible or handicapped adaptable . The applicant has requested a rezoning of the proposed housing site from R- 15 Residence to MR Multiple Residence . Estate of Anthony Ceracche , Owner; Conifer Realty , LLC , Applicant ; John Fennessey, Agent , and 2 . The Town of Ithaca Town Board , in a resolution dated April 9 , 2001 , has referred the petition to rezone the above- referenced parcel to the Planning Board for a recommendation , and has authorized and requested that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board act as lead agency for environmental review of the proposed rezoning , and 3 . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board , at its meeting of February 5 , 2002 , declared its intent to act as lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed Rezoning , Site Plan , and Subdivision Approval for the proposed Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II , and circulated a notice of intent to serve as lead agency to . involved and interested agencies , and 4 . The proposed Rezoning , Site Plan and Subdivision Approval are Type I actions pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act , 6 NYCRR Part 617 , and Town of Ithaca Local Law No . 5 of the Year 1988 Providing for Environmental Review of Actions in the Town of Ithaca , and I ' 5 . The Planning Board , at a meeting held on February 19 , 2002 , began review of the Full Environmental Assessment Form ( EAF) Part I prepared by the applicant , and other application I materials , and L 6 . The applicant has submitted preliminary plans , Sheets 1.- 1 through L-6 and C- 1 through C-4 , dated January 17 , 2002 , Sheets A- 101 through A- 104 , dated January 17 , 2002 and January 21 , 2002 , and other application materials and drawings , and 7 . The Planning Board , at a meeting held on March 5 , 2002 , has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form ( EAF) Part I prepared by the applicant , the Parts II and III of the EAF as well as a Visual EAF Addendum , prepared by the Town Planning staff, and has reviewed other application materials , and 8 . The above- referenced EAF incorporates specific studies and reports prepared and submitted by the applicant , including , but not necessarily limited to , a Site Impact Traffic Evaluation (January , 2002) , a Stormwater Drainage Report (January 17 , 2002 ) , and a Wetland Delineation Report (June 29 , 2001 , with additional maps and information submitted January 28 , 2002 and February 7 , 2002) , and 96 The . EAF and other application materials include relevant references and analysis of the cumulative impacts associated with possible future phases of development on remaining portions of the property being acquired by Conifer Realty LLC , and 10 . The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Rezoning , Site Plan , and Subdivision Approval , and 11 . The Town Planning Board established itself as lead agency at the March 5 , 2002 meeting , and made a negative determination of environmental significance , and 12 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing held on March 5 , 2002 , has reviewed and - accepted as adequate preliminary plans entitled , "Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II , Preliminary . Site Plan & Details ( L- 1 ) , Overall Grading Plan , Erosion Control Plan , & Details ( L-2) , Enlarged Grading Plan -West ( L-3) , Enlarged Grading Plan - East (L-4 ) , Storm System Plan & Details ( L- 5) , Planting Plan & Details ( L-6) , Site Utilities Plan & Details (C- 1 ) , Site Electric & Lighting Plan (C-2 ) , Site Utility Details (C-3) , and Site Utility Details (C4) , " prepared by Carl Jahn & Associates and dated January 17 , 2002 ; floor plans entitled "Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II , One Bedroom Unit Plans & Elevations (A- 101 ) , Two Bedroom Unit Plans & Elevations (A- 102) , Three Bedroom Unit Plans & Elevations (A- 103) , " dated January 17 , 2002 , and "Community Building Plan & Elevations (A- 104) , " dated January 21 , 2002 , all prepared by DLK Architecture , P . C . ; a preliminary subdivision plat entitled " Revised Final Plan , Linderman Creek Apartments , Lands Now or Formerly Anthony Ceracche , Part of Military Lot 56 , Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York, " prepared by C .T . Male Associates , P . C . , and dated January 29 , 2002 ; a revised sheet L-6 dated March 4 , 2002 , a sheet L-7 dated March 5 , 20021 and a revised Final Plan last revised March 4 , 2002 , and other application materials . NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED : 1 . That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , pursuant to Article XIV , Section 78 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , hereby finds that : a . There is a need for the proposed Linderman Creek Apartments Phases II and III in the proposed location , and in particular, there is a need for affordable housing of the type proposed by the applicant , and b . The existing and probable future character of the Town of Ithaca will not be adversely affected by the proposed rezoning and apartment development , and c . The proposed rezoning from R- 15 Residence to MR Multiple Residence is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town , which designates the project site as appropriate for "Suburban Residential" development , and in addition , is adequately served by public water and sewer facilities and will be served by public transit , and 2 . That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board enact the proposed local law to amend the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance by rezoning those portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos . 27- 1 - 13 . 12 and 27- 1 - 13 . 16 which are proposed for the Linderman Creek Apartments Phases II and III development , as shown on the plan entitled " Proposed Zone Change for Phases II and III Linderman Creek Apartments , Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York, " dated January 30 , 2002 , to be more specifically described in a "Schedule A" to be included in the proposed Local Law , AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED : 1 That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Tax Parcel No . 27- 1 - 13 . 12 , 42 . 9 +/- acres total , into three lots of 10 .415+/- acres , 2 . 772+/- acres , and 29 . 069 +/- acres ( . 736+/- acres part of. DOT highway) ; and the subdivision of Tax Parcel No . 27-01 - 13 . 16 , 32 . 44+/- acres total , into three lots of 1 ', 634+/m acres , 2 . 079+/ acres , and 28 . 7+/- acres , as shown on the plat entitled " Revised Final Plan , Linderman Creek Apartments , Lands Now or Formerly Anthony Ceracche , Part of Military Lot 56 , " dated January 19 , 2002 , and prepared by C . T . Male Associates , P .C . , conditioned upon the following : a. Rezoning by the Town Board for the proposed project site as described above from R- 15 Residence District to Multiple Residence District , prior to the consideration of Final Subdivision Approval , b . Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals of any variances related to the subdivision , prior to Final Subdivision Approval , !, c . Submission of easements guaranteeing access of the large remaining parcels to Conifer Drive , for review and approval by the Attorney for the Town , prior to Final 1 Subdivision Approval , d d . Revision of the subdivision plat to include accurate proposed acreages and labeling and clarification of the proposed subdivided parcels as well as the necessary easements to ensure access to the future development sites , prior to Final Subdivision Approval , e . No building permits for future phases or development of the remaining large parcels located north of Phase I and Phase II shall be issued until the access road , extending from Conifer Drive and over Linderman Creek is reviewed and approved by the Town Highway Superintendent and Town Engineer, f . Before construction of the future access road is commenced , any required wetland permits shall be obtained and a copy -forwarded, to the Town of Ithaca for review, g1 compliance with all of the conditions set forth below with respect to the site plan approval . AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and 111 development to consist of 96 apartment units (72 units to be built initially in Phase 11 , 24 units to be considered in Phase III ) in twelve buildings and a community building to be located on 15 . 2 acres of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos . 27- 1 - 13 . 12 and 27- 1 - 13 . 16 , as shown on plans entitled "Linderman Creek Apartments Phase 11 , Preliminary Site Plan & Details ( L- 1 ) , Overall Grading Plan , Erosion Control Plan , & Details ( L-2 ) , Enlarged Grading Plan-West (L-3) , Enlarged Grading Plan- East ( L-4) , Storm System Plan & Details (L-5 ) , Planting Plan & Details ( L-6) , Site Utilities Plan & Details (C- 1 ) , Site Electric & Lighting Plan ( C-2) , Site Utility Details (C-3) , and Site Utility Details (C-4) , " prepared by Carl Jahn & Associates and dated January 17 , 2002 ; floor plans entitled "Linderman Creek Apartments Phase 11 , One Bedroom Unit Plans & Elevations (A- 101 ) , Two Bedroom Unit Plans & Elevations (A- 102) , Three Bedroom Unit Plans & Elevations (A- 103) , " dated January 17 , 2002 , and "Community Building Plan & Elevations (A- 104) , " dated January 21 , 2002 , all prepared by DLK Architecture , P . C . ; a preliminary subdivision plat entitled " Revised Final Plan , Linderman Creek Apartments , Lands Now or Formerly Anthony Ceracche , Part of Military Lot 56 , Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York, " prepared by C .T . Male Associates , P . C . , and dated January 29 , 2002 ; and other application materials , conditioned upon the following : a . Rezoning by the Town Board for the proposed project site as described above from R- 15 Residence District to Multiple Residence District , prior to the consideration of Final Site Plan Approval , b . Obtaining of the necessary Final Subdivision Approval , prior to or concurrent with , Final Site Plan Approval , j r c . Preparation and submission of final design and construction details of all proposed drainage , stormwater management , sanitary sewer and water supply improvements for review and approval by the Town Engineer, prior to Final Site Plan Approval , d . Submission of a description of building materials and colors for the proposed buildings and cut sheets for luminaries on the light poles , prior to Final Site Plan Approval , e . Revision of plans to show the addition of a sidewalk from the Phase II development area to the proposed TCAT bus shelter and submission of details of the bus shelter and method of installation , prior to Final Site Plan Approval , f . Revision of the planting plan to include proposed landscaping for the Phase III portion of the site , located on the western edge of the property, as well as additional landscaping throughout the development , as discussed at the meeting of March 5 , 2002 , including additional plantings along Route 79 and along the entrance road , I . Submission of final detailed sedimentation and erosion control plan , as per the requirements of the NYS Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES ) permit for review and approval by the Town Engineer, prior to Final Site Plan Approval , m . Submission of details for the proposed stormwater detention basin , including a description of how the existing wetland will function and be re- landscaped and treated , prior to Final Site Plan Approval , n . Provision .of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county , state , and/or federal agencies , prior to issuance of any building permits , j . Revision of Sheet L-2 , "Overall Grading Plan , Erosion Control Plan , & Details , " to include the name and seal of the registered land surveyor or engineer who prepared the topographic and boundary survey, prior to the issuance of any building permits , and k. modification of the site plan to show the proposed access easement running north from Conifer Drive , to be 100 feet in width rather than 60 feet , and to show a proposed turn - around at or near the end of such access easement north of the north line of the Phase II parcel ( area 12 . 494 ± acres) , L no berms are to be constructed higher than shown on the plans , and all other construction is to be fully in accordance with the approved plans , M , provision of a copy of the market study demonstrating the demand for the additional units prior to final site plan approval , no submission of written evidence of comment by Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit to extend Bus Route No . 15 to enter Conifer Drive to pick up and discharge passengers and to provide the bus shelter to be installed at the proposed turn around , 1 AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED : That the Planning Board hereby finds that there is a need for an emergency access as shown on the site plan sheets L- 1 ; L-21 C-2 and others , for safety purposes , and that such emergency access should . be gate controlled and not open for public access , and therefore , requests that the New York State Department of Transportation consider approval of such emergency access . The vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Wilcox , Hoffmann , Conneman , Mitrano , Thayer, Howe Talty . NAYS : None ABSTAIN : None . The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Whitmore , TOWR—Clerk/Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 51h day of March 2002 . aVL ,c�� vWw 42 •o7•D� Town Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca C . T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P. C . f • 200 Gateway Park Drive, Bldg . C , P. O . Box 3246, North Syracuse, NY 13212-3246 (315) 458-6498 FAX (315) 458-4427 www . ctmale . com I r LEGAL DESCRIPTION L•i `�,�, 18 2002 60 FOOT INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT 81JILD1 OF 1THACA ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND , situate in the Town of Ithaca, o N1NG of Tompkins and State of New York, being part of Military Lot 56 and being a 60 foot wide access easement and being more particularly bounded and described as follow : Commencing at the intersection of the division line between the lands now or formerly of Anthony Cerrache as described in Book 565 of Deeds at Page 882 on the west and the lands now or formerly of Conifer Realty Corporation as described in Book 853 of Deeds at Page 260 on the east with the northerly margin of N.Y . S . Route 79 (Enfield Center - Ithaca Road, S .H . No . 1001 ) ; thence North 14 deg. 54 min . 53 sec . East, along said division line, a distance of 397 . 00 feet to the Point of Beginning ; thence North 13 deg. 04 min. 40 sec . East, continuing along said division line, a distance of 353 . 09 feet to a point ; thence through the said lands of Conifer Realty Corporation the following three (3) courses and distances : 1 ) South 76 deg. 55 min . 20 sec . East a distance of 59 . 89 to a point ; thence 2) South 12 deg. 15 min . 25 sec . West a distance of 355 . 21 feet to a point; and 3) North 75 deg. 05 min. 07 sec . West a distance of 65 . 02 ft . to the point of beginning, containing 0 . 508 acres, more or less . Subject to a portion Realty of a 30 foot access easement between Conifer y Co rp oration October 16 2000 and recorded in the Tompkins and the Town of Ithaca b deed dated O p Y County Clerk ' s Office in Book 898 of Deeds at Page 119 . Being a portion of lands conveyed by Anthony Cerrache to Conifer Realty Corporation by Warranty Deed with Lien Covenant dated July 1999 and recorded July 19 , 1999 in the Tompkin County Clerk ' s Office in Book 853 of Deeds at Page 260 . Prepared by C.T. Male Associates, P .C. CTM Project No. : 01 .4028 Dated March 4 , 2002 M �F`# fib �0 F� ND SJP Architecture & Building Systems Engineering Civil Engineering Environmental Services Survey & Land Information Services Tompkins County DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 121 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Edward C . Marx, AICP Telephone (607) 274-5560 Commissioner of Planning Fax (607) 274-5578 February 26, 2002 Ms . Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re : Review Pursuant to § 239 -1 . -m, and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law Action : Subdivision and Site Plan Review, Linderman Creek Apartments Phase 11, Conifer Drive (just off of Mecklenburg Road) , Tax Parcel Nos . 27- 1 - 13 . 12 and 27- 1 - 13 . 16 Dear Ms . Ritter: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to § 239 -1 , -m, and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law . The Department has reviewed the proposal , as submitted , and has determined that it has no negative intercommunity , County , or State impacts . The Department offers the following comments on this proposal : The Stormwater Drainage Report states that post-development flow through the 4" outlet pipe proposed for the detention basin will exceed the current 10-year storm event volumes , however the Report does not say by how much. This flow increase should be evaluated to determine if it will negatively impact any drainage systems downslope of the project area . Additionally, the Town Engineer should coordinate with the City Department of Public Works to look closely at any potential impacts to downslope properties in the event that there is an obstruction in the 4 ' outlet pipe and the emergency spillway actually needs to release 50. 3 cfs of stormwater flow . The Town and the City should also work together to provide for the continuation and connectivity of the street system along the Town/City border. In particular, since there is a reserved right-of-way in the City which adjoins the Linderman Creek Apartments property , the Town should require that the internal street pattern in this development connect to Oakwood Lane via the reserved right-of-way . We also note that there are differences in the number of units being proposed for Phase II, Phase III , and future units . The Environmental Assessment Form' s Description of Action section refers to 96 apartments in Phase II and III and potentially 79 future homes . _ SRF & Associates ' Traffic Evaluation refers to Phase II consisting of 96 apartments and 90 single -family homes . plus potential development of 128 additional single-family homes . This discrepancy of 139 single -family homes needs to be rectified . It is unclear from the drawings where exactly the 2. 8 acres of buffer along Linderman Creek ( mentioned in the EAF Description of Action ) will be located in relation to the proposed Phases II and III, as well as future areas contemplated for development . Finally, under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, the Tompkins County Planning Department is not an involved agency for this project . We have no comment on the designation of the Town of Ithaca as lead agency . Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record . Sincerely, fc�� i I Edward C. Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning cc : Tim Joseph , District 12 Barbara Blanchard , District 1 ■ w 1 C� inderman Creek 27.-1-13.12 27.-1-13.16 rf t I m ECKLENBURG D 4 1 c� Zones_compiled.shp CD LI R5 A D MR R9 AG ® E R15 S C I R30