Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2017-05-02 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, May 2, 2017 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox, Joseph Haefeli, John Beach,Yvonne Fogarty, Liebe Meier Swain, Jon Bosak, Melissa Hill Town Staff Present: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Thaete, Town Engineer; David O'Shea, Civil Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Furnas 2-Lot Subdivision, 113 Clover Lane Dawn O'Hara, Warren Homes, was present for the estate of Louise Furnas. Her sons are requesting the subdivision for two residential lots_The property being subdivided is where Mrs_ Furnas lived and it's currently under contract. The land being split off will be consolidated with 111 Clover Lane, which is owned by their father. Mr. Wilcox noted that there's a for sale sign for 113 at the corner of Mitchell and Clover Lane. That's an off-premise sign, which is not legal in the town of Ithaca_ He requested that Ms. O'Hara inform Warren Real Estate management that it's illegal. PB Resolution No. 2017.037: SEAR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Furnas 2-Lot Subdivision, 113 Clover Lane, Tax Parcel No.59:212 Moved by Joseph Haefeli; seconded by Jon Bosak WHEREAS: 1_ This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 113 Clover Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 59.-2-12, Medium Density Residential Zone_ The proposal involves subdividing 0.403 +/- acres from 113 Clover Lane, which will be consolidated with 111 Clover Lane (Tax Parcel No. 59.-2-13). Louise B. Furnas Estate, Owner; Jill Burlington, Agent; and 2_ This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the lead agency in the environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval; and 3_ The Planning Board on May 2, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Survey Map, No. 113 Clover Lane, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York", prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 11/11/2016, and other application materials; and Planning Board Minutes 05.022017 Page 2 of 15 4_ Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required_ Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak, Hill AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 113 Clover Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 59.-2-12, Medium Density Residential Zone_ The proposal involves subdividing 0.403 +/- acres from 113 Clover Lane, which will be consolidated with 111 Clover Lane (Tax Parcel No. 59.-2-13). Louise B. Furnas Estate, Owner; Jill Burlington,Agent Mr_Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.; hearing no one, he closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2017.038: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Furnas 2-Lot Subdivision, 113 Clover Lane, Tax Parcel No. 59.-2-12 Moved by Melissa Hill; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: 1_ This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 113 Clover Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 59_-212, Medium Density Residential Zone_ The proposal involves subdividing 0.403 +/- acres from 113 Clover Lane, which will be consolidated with 111 Clover Lane (Tax Parcel No. 59.-2-13). Louise B. Furnas Estate, Owner; Jill Burlington,Agent; and 2_ This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on May 2, 2017, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmen- tal Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by the Town Planning staff; and 3_ The Planning Board on May 2, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Survey Map, No. 113 Clover Lane, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York", prepared by T.G.Miller, P.C., dated 11/11/2016, and other application materials; Planning Board Minutes 05.022017 Page 3 of 15 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: I_ That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, hav- ing determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration of neither the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board; and 2_ That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located at 113 Clover Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No59:212, as shown on the survey map noted in Whereas #3 above, subject to the following condition: a_ Within six months of this approval, consolidation of Parcels A (0.403+/- acres)with Tax Par- cel No. 59.-2-13 (111 Clover Lane), and submission to the Town of Ithaca Planning Depart- ment of a copy of the consolidation request and filing receipt from the Tompkins County Clerk's Office_ Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak, Hill AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell University Peterson Parking Lot Reconstruction project located on the northwest corner of Tower and Judd Falls Roads on the Cornell University Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 67.-1-13.2, Low Density Residential Zone_ The project, which is part of Cornell University's Green Innovation Grant Program, involves converting the existing impervious asphalt parking lot to a porous pavement parking lot that includes pavement minimization, tree preservation and planting, bio-retention features and other green infrastructure and stormwater management practices, and new lighting_ Cornell University, Owner/Applicant, David Cutter, University Landscape Architect,Agent Mr_Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. Mr_ Cutter said this is a three-quarter acre, traditional asphalt lot that is being redesigned and rebuilt to provide improved environmental benefits_They're looking to improve stormwater management with green infrastructure, to improve lighting by putting in low-energy LEDs with full cutoff, and to incorporate a vegetative bioswale in the center of the parking lot to reduce heat island effect The proposal would reduce parking spaces from 107 to 101 and decrease the paved area by one-tenth of an acre_They're anticipating starting in June and finishing in August, with the exception of the plantings_All the concerns listed on the engineering memo dated April 14th have been addressed, and they'll submit a revised SWPPP_ Mr_Wilcox reminded the board that they made a SEQR determination back on April 5, 2016, and that this is a Type II action and therefore no environmental review will be necessary_ Planning Board Minutes 05.022017 Page 4 of 15 To a question from Ms_ Fogarty, Mr_ Cutter said that they've dug up parts of the parking lot in the past and have found no evidence of dump trucks_They've also done utility work through the lot and have installed two or three different lines_ Short of excavation, which will be done during construc- tion, there's no evidence of trucks having been buried at the site. Mr_Thaete said public works is in favor of this project. It's kind of a research/demonstration project on porous pavement in a parking lot Long-term, we will be interested in knowing how this works, especially in winter with salt and cinders_ One thing he's discovered in our town code is that this area is considered a hot spot, and there's argument over whether that's true. A hot spot is a commercial entity parking lot with a lot of turnover_ He's been in the parking lot and finds that the traffic is no different than going to a Walmart In a high-turnover parking lot, you'll see lots of dripped oils and other fluids where the cars park_ He has seen and heard lots of negatives about porous paving: it doesn't hold up as well as normal paving, it should only be installed in the parking spaces and not in the drive isles or vice versa_And with new regulations: how well does it meet the water quality volume as it's filtering and how well can it be maintained long-term?These are all things we don't know yet for this region_We have lots of clay soils that don't infiltrate very well, and people think that with porous paving, the water goes in and it's gone, but it's not: it reemerges somewhere and generally, we see underdrains, or in this case a French drain outlet along the perimeter of the parking lot_ It does mitigate some stormwater and it does slow down the runoff factor_ We feel that maintenance on porous pavement is huge, so this will need to be part of an O&M agreement to ensure that it's vacuumed and swept Mr_Wilcox noted that at some point a number of years ago, the planning board talked about sidewalks on Warren Road being porous pavement and how well they were working,but that using porous pavement for parking lots and roads was untested at the time. His concern is that the density of the asphalt for porous pavement is different from that of normal pavement, and with car tires sitting in the same places all day, every day, you'll get small depressions in the pavement where the tires sit, or as cars back up, the tires rubbing on the asphalt as they turn might dig it up_He'll be interested in seeing how the experiment works_ Mr_Thaete reminded the board that Montessori has had a porous pavement parking lot for two years, but he's unsure how it's holding up_ Mr_ Cutter said that's why the Environmental Facilities Corporation was interested in having a place to test the current best practices they have for the construction of a porous pavement parking lot and monitor what it does_They've done some research on the other porous pavement lots in Ithaca and have seen mixed results_ He's seen places where there were depressions where tires sit in the pave- ment; he's seen others that remain unchanged; he's seen some where no maintenance has been done for 15 years, and yet they continue to work, specifically at Cayuga Medical Center_They spent a whole day speaking with CMC's facilities crew regarding their lots, which are pretty impressive_They studied CMC's particular formulation versus what they plan to use.They've also had several discussions with the guru of porous pavement for the DEC out of Albany, who said they recommend yet a different specification. To a question from Mr. Bosak, Mr. Cutter said they'll do water quality monitoring both in the soil under the pavement as well as at the outlet areas_They're aware of the risks and will monitor and adjust as need be. Planning Board Minutes 05.022017 Page 5 of 15 Mr_ Bosak asked what the special permit is for and whether the spaces are smaller than those he's been complaining about up until now. Ms. Balestra responded that it's an educational use in a residential zone, so that always requires special permit approval. The spaces are actually smaller than in her memo: they measure 8.5-by-16 feet, which is 136 square feet They're slightly smaller than the parking spaces in the back of town hall, which are 144 square feet Mr. Wilcox said the Montessori spaces are 85-by-18 feet His problem is not the length,but the width_ He measured the two cars he owns: one is 6.1 feet and one is 6.4 feet; a Prins is 5.8 feet and a Ford F150 is 7.2-feet wide_The problem is that when you have only two doors, they're big doors. We want less pervious surface_We can make parking spaces smaller and make smaller parking lots by allowing fewer spaces_But the width started at 10 feet and is now 8.5 feet, and the length has gone from 18 feet down to 16 feet, which makes it more difficult to pull out We are at the edge or over the edge of how small parking spaces can be. However, he can't think of a reason why he would approve the Montessori lot and then vote against this one. Mr_ Bosak pointed out that one of the advantages of smaller parking spaces is that we want less space to be taken up with parking lots_ Ms_ Fogarty said she understands that this new lot is experimental, and it will be exciting to see how it works out She asked what will happen if runoff is a problem_ Mr. Cutter responded that they have a budget item for repair. If it ends up being a problem, they'll remediate immediately_That might entail collecting the water and putting it into a treatment facility; it depends on the issue_ Ms_ Fogarty said she just wants to make sure that it's been thought through and that the experiment has controls and that if the fluids are going into the water, there are people monitoring it and there's some backup plan_ Mr. Haefeli asked how that's different from now. Where does the oil and gas go now on a standard parking lot? Mr. Cutter said it's not being filtered at all and it's running off directly into the environment As for vacuuming, they have the equipment and it would be included in the O&M agreement Joel Harlan suggested Cornell build more parking garages_ Ruth Mahn, 103 Judd Falls Road, said that if we're looking toward the future, we should be looking toward doing away with parking lots_The town of Ithaca has a sustainability ethic. In a conversation she had with Mr. Cutter, she requested that the lighting have no negative visual impact on the immediate Forest Home neighborhood_ From her house, the parking lot is visible, so she hopes there will be a lesser impact_ Regarding aesthetics, she's pleased that there's a concern to improve the aesthetics of the parking lot Right now, it's a normal parking lot and therefore not aesthetically pleasing_That brings up lighting again because despite the attempt to make it more aesthetically pleasing, the light poles are to an industrial scale, more suitable to Walmart than to a residential area. Planning Board Minutes 05.022017 Page 6 of 15 She talked to Mr_ Cutter about considering shorter, more pedestrian-scale poles with the light directed downward_The lot is rarely used at night; it's more a commuter lot. Mr_Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Ms_Balestra said lights need to be fully shielded so the glare is reduced and there's no spillage off the property. Mr_ Cutter said there is currently one large, tall lighting structure right in the middle of the lot that has heads spacing out four ways so light is pushed off into the parking lot in the four directions to provide even lighting throughout the parking lot_They recognize that that's not a sensitive approach to a residential community, so they've reversed that plan and instead of having the lights in the middle shining out, they're putting the pole structures on the perimeter so the lights shine into the parking lot_The poles are 30 feet high, which is 10 feet lower than the current poles_There's a relationship between how high the poles are and how uniform and broad the light is shed_The lower the poles, the more fixtures are needed, so it's a balance between height and number of fixtures_The fixtures are LED with full cutoff and are International Dark Sky Association listed_The same fixtures are in use on campus, along Tower Road and in other parking lots_ Mr_ Haefeli said his pet concern is that he wants to see a more warm-color temperature than 4000 K. The cooler-color temperature has bluer peaks that tend to trigger biological phenomena_ If you line a highway with cool lighting, it throws off circadian rhythm_A nice byproduct of sodium light is that it doesn't have a lot of blue, so it's inadvertently good for the environment_ Mr_ Cutter said they can get the fixtures at 3500 K. He would prefer that. Ms_ Fogarty wondered whether the lights are on all night_ Mr_ Cutter said he assumes so, for security purposes: there are labs open 24/7_ PB Resolution No. 2017.039: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Special Permit, Cornell University - Peterson Parking Lot Reconstruction, Tax Parcel No. 67.-1.13.2, NW Corner of Tower Road and Judd Falls Road Moved by Melissa Hill; seconded by Liebe Meier Swain WHEREAS: 1_ This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell Peterson Parking Lot Reconstruction project, located on the northwest corner of Tower and Judd Falls Roads on the Cornell University Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 67_-1.13.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The project, which is part of Cornell's Green Innovation Grant Program, involves converting the existing impervious asphalt parking lot to a porous pavement parking lot that includes pavement minimization, tree preservation and planting,bio-retention features and other green infrastructure stormwater management practices_ Cornell University, Owner/Applicant, David Cutter, University Landscape Architect,Agent, and Planning Board Minutes 05.022017 Page 7 of 15 2_ This is a Type II Action, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Section 6175(c)(2) of the regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated pursuant to the State Envi- ronmental Quality Review Act,because the Action constitutes a "replacement, rehabilitation, or reconstruction of a structure or facility, in kind, on the same site, including upgrading buildings to meet building or fire codes_" Thus, approval of the site plan and special permit are not subject to review under SEQR, and 3_ The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 2, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a project narrative, drawings titled "Peterson Green Parking Lot, Cornell University, Ithaca NY," prepared by Cornell University Facilities Engineering, including Sheets T-001, 0000, G101, G111, G121, G122, G141, G301, C-302, E-000, E-100 and E-400, dated March7, 2017, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby finds that the Special Permit standards of Article XXIV Section 270- 200, Subsections A- I, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, specifically that: a_ the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community in harmony with the general purpose of Town Code Chapter 270, Zoning are being promoted and the proposed use will fill a neighborhood or community need, because the principal purpose of the proposed recon- struction is for educational research on green infrastructure stormwater management practic- es, and the results of such research will provide the surrounding community with information on environmentally sustainable stormwater management methods, b_ the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, as the existing premises are used as a parking lot and the use will not change, c. the proposed use and the location and design of the parking lot is consistent with the charac- ter of the district in which it is located, since there is no change in the use as a parking lot and the location and size of the lot will be the same, d_ the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devalue the neighborhood property or seriously inconvenience the neighboring inhabitants, as the parking lot character that exists will not change and the recon- struction into a porous pavement lot will create an educational and research opportunity for the students at Cornell, which is the neighborhood character that exists in the area, e_ the presumed benefit of such a use is not outweighed by the objectionable impacts of such use on nearby properties, for the reasons stated above, £ community infrastructure and services, including but not limited to protective services, road- ways, garbage collection, schools and water and sewer facilities are currently, or will be, of ad- equate capacity to accommodate the proposed use, g_ the proposed use, design and site layout comply with all provisions of Chapter 270, Zoning, and, to the extent considered by the Planning Board, with other regulations and ordinances of the Town, with the Building Code and all other state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and with the Town Comprehensive Plan, Planning Board Minutes 05.022017 Page 8 of 15 It. the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safely designed and the site lay- out provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, i_ the presumed benefit of such use is not outweighed by the detrimental effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and general welfare of the community, for reasons noted above, j_ the lot area, access, parking, and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed use and ac- cess, parking, and loading facilities are adequately buffered to minimize their visual impact, k_ natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good engineering practices and in accordance with any applicable Town local law or ordinance, and existing drainageways are not altered in a manner that adversely affects other properties, and L the proposed use complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Town Code Chapter 270, Zoning; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1_ That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration of neither the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2_ That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary& Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Peterson Parking Lot Reconstruction project, located on the northwest corner of Tower and Judd Falls Roads on the Cornell University Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 67--l-13.2, as described on the drawings listed in Whereas#3 above, subject to the following condition: a_ Inclusion in the campus-wide Stormwater Operations, Maintenance, and Reporting agree- ment of the maintenance and operating procedures and corresponding schedule for the Peter- son Parking Lot project, and 3_ That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby authorizes, according to Section 270.227 (A) (4) of the Town Code, the standard 180 square foot parking space to be reduced to no less than 136 square feet, finding that the reduction will not cause any adverse effects on the project, on the surrounding properties, or on the neighborhood_ Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak, Hill AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Continuation of consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 15- lot subdivision located off King Road East between 132 and 134 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43.1.322, 43.1.3.32 and 43.1.3.4, Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential and Conservation Zones_ The proposal involves creating 11 residential lots on two new roads plus a 1.6 +/- acre lot reserved for a Town park, with the remaining lands reserved for potential future Planning Board Minutes 05.022017 Page 9 of 15 development The project will also include new storm water facilities, a walkway along one of the newly proposed roads leading to the park, and a landscaped area adjacent to the entrance road at King Road East Evan N. Monkemeyer, Owner/Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, Agent Mr_Wilcox opened the public hearing 8:06 p.m. Mr_Wilcox said that at the previous meeting, we finished our discussion,but that two people weren't there: Ms_ Collins and Ms_Meier Swain_ Mr_ Fabbroni said Mr_Monkemeyer had just hired a lawyer the day of the last meeting, but he discovered he had a conflict with some people Mr_Monkemeyer does business with.Mr_Monkemeyer is happy with everything proposed,but would still like to go on the record as objecting that Lilium Circle is not being considered as a public highway_ He was prepared to proceed despite that Mr_ Fabbroni said the final plat will show lots I through 4, which are the two remainder lots, the park, and the little strip at the end by lot 8_ Mr_Thaete said he wrote his engineering review letter for the last meeting and since then they've addressed some of the concerns,but in doing so, they submitted new information: a revised sketch for the water line relocation from the original concept that's shown on the plans the board has seen to a new concept where it crosses Rock Cress and connects onto Mr_Monkemeyer's property_ Mr_ Fabbroni said that would be done only if they have to. What's before the board is the original intention to connect on the Cohen side of the military lot line_The other was a failsafe to prove that if they couldn't do it that way, they'd have a backup_ Mr_Thaete just wanted to make it clear that the board is voting on the original concept If there is a change in the future, that change would have to go through the normal approval process_ He wanted to state that from an engineering perspective, we don't think the alternate proposal is acceptable_ Mr_ Fabbroni explained that the county lost a lawsuit a few years ago, and that's what the alternate proposal is about They now have to get an easement to cross from the center line to the water main, where they didn't have to prior to that court finding. He's happy to work with Mr_Thaete if it comes to their having to remedy_ Mr_Thaete said it was also mentioned in the email that the pricing of installing the road might be too high and they might potentially eliminate the concrete gutter_ Mr_ Fabbroni said that after six years, they're not sure of the cost, so they we won't know until they bid it Mr_Thaete stated that changing from a concrete gutter to a ditch is a significant change in the drainage pattern_ He said he only brought it up because it was mentioned in a response to his engineering memo, and he just wanted to state that the plan being approved is the plan the board has seen.Any change of that magnitude to what's being approved may require other approvals and might involve some SWPPP modifications_ Planning Board Minutes 05.022017 Page 10 of 15 Ms_Meier Swain asked about access to the park. Mr_ Fabbroni said there would be an easement and there would be a paved walk to the park, which is a northern extension of Rock Cress Road_ Somewhere along the line, the deed they gave for the park was lost. They'll have to provide another one. Ms_Meier Swain asked whether there would be parking for non-resident vehicles_ Mr_Wilcox said that the board has seen various plans over the last 15 years on the land Mr_ Monkemeyer controls. There's been discussion of combining parkland from all of them to create a big park instead of a bunch of little ones_ He sees the piece of parkland for this development as the start of something that could potentially grow as Mr_Monkemeyer moves on to future phases of the development With each new phase, another piece of parkland will be created and it will hopefully be next to this small piece, and so on until maybe it's large enough for a soccer or baseball field rather than just being a little pocket park_ Mr_ Bosak said that vision gives force to the question of where people will park_There is no parking for the park_ Mr. Wilcox said they'll have to park along King Road East. Mr_ Bosak asked if a park that most people can't get to is a park. Ms_Balestra said there are other ways to get to a park besides driving_ Mr_ Fabbroni added that there was quite an analysis done by the town board and staff at the time of the original approval, and this was the beginning parcel to what will someday be a bigger parcel_ Mr_Wilcox said the idea is that as Mr_Monkemeyer and his successors continue to build on the land, additional parkland will be set aside, and as the pieces are joined, it will create a contiguous piece of parkland that's big enough to accommodate picnic tables, parking, playing fields. Ms_ Ritter added that this is typical_ On West Hill, there were subdivisions and now there are a few undeveloped parks that will someday be developed when there are more people living there and it makes more sense to start developing them. It's typical to set aside land so that someday it can be developed_ Mr. Fabbroni said there's a walking path to the park in the first stage that could eventually go all the way to the Ithaca College campus_ Mr_ Harlan stated that he thinks this is a nice development Mr_Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. Ms_Meier Swain asked where lots 1 through 4 are on the plat Planning Board Minutes 05.022017 Page 11 of 15 Ms. Balestra responded that we've had many projects in the past where the lots were so large that the subdivision plat we got didn't show the entire parcel, it just showed the portion that was being subdivided_The final plat will show where the remaining lots are. She described where the other plots are on the subdivision plat in front of the board: lot 1 is next to the North arrow; lot 2 is off the plat where the parkland would be (north of lot 1); lot 3 is the remaining lands of Ithaca Estates Subdivi- sion III LLC; lot 4 is in the lower right-hand corner, where it says "to be sold." Mr. Bosak asked if the county will accept a plat that doesn't show the boundaries of those lots. Ms_Balestra responded that the county has accepted plenty of plats like this in the past Mr_Wilcox wondered whether the county assessment would accept boundaries for lots 1, 2, and 3 if they don't have metes and bounds. Mr. Fabbroni said he could ask,but there are a lot of farms that you take 20 lots out of and don't do the boundaries of the entire parcel. It's a big project to survey the remainder of lots 1 and 3.You're going to get a deed to lot 2 and if you want, he could put metes and bounds on lot 4_Tompkins County Assessment will go by acreage because they have GIS maps now for the remainder_ Ms_Meier Swain asked about emergency vehicle access_ Mr_Thaete responded that the road was designed to meet our standards, and our standards meet fire access requirements, hence the cul-de-sacs aren't dead ends. PB Resolution No. 2017.040: Final Subdivision Approval, Ithaca Estates Subdivision - Phase III, King Road East, Tax Parcel No's. 43.1.3.22, 43.1.3.32 and 43.1.3.4 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Liebe Meier Swain WHEREAS: 1_ This action is consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 15-lot subdivision located off King Road East (between 132 and 134 King Road East), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43.1.322, 43.1.3.32 and 43.1.3.4, Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential and Conservation Zones_ The proposal involves creating 11 residential lots on two new roads and a +/- 1.6 acre lot reserved for a Town park, with the remaining lands being reserved for potential future development The project will also include new storm water facilities, a walkway along one of the newly proposed roads leading to the park, and a landscaped area adjacent to the entrance road at King Road East Evan N.Monkemeyer, Owner/Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbroni,Agent, and 2_ This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on May 4, 2010, acting in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after reviewing and accepting as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and Planning Board Minutes 05.022017 Page 12 of 15 3_ The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 4, 2017 and continued to May 2, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a narrative and final subdivision plans titled "Ithaca Es- tates III," prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., LS, including sheets labeled "Subdivision Plat," dated 03.06.10 and revised 04.15.17, "Sewer and Drainage Easement," dated 12.30.10, "Grading Plan," dated 03.06.10 and revised 11.17.10, "Standard Storm Sewer Details Town of Ithaca," dated 03.06.10, "Highway, Storm Sewer, Sewer&Water Profiles," dated 03.06.10, revised 11.17- 10 and 04.15.17, "Standard Water Main Details Town of Ithaca," dated 03.06.10, "Standard Sewer Details," dated 03.06.10, "Survey Map, R.O.W. & Sewer &Drainage Easement," dated 04- 15.17, "Watermain Easement," dated 04.15.17, "Survey Map, Ithaca Estates Phase III Park Deed & Park Access Easement," dated 4.0210 and revised 5.31.10, "Road Concept Plan Monkemeyer Lands," dated 6.29.10, an "Erosion& Sedimentation Control Details" sheet, prepared by L.J.R. Engineering, P.C., dated June 23, 2004, and other application materials; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed Ithaca Estates Phase III Subdivision located off King Road East(between 132 and 134 East King Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 43.1.322, 43.1.3.32 and 43.1.3.4, as described in Whereas#3 above, provided that the following conditions are satisfied: 1_ Before the chairman of the Planning Board signs the final, approved subdivision plat: a_ Submission to the Attorney for the Town for review and approval of draft easement language providing access to the Town of Ithaca to all storm water management facilities, sewer and water mains, and access to the park, and indication on the Final Subdivision Plat of the location and dimensions of all such easements to be conveyed to the Town, b_ Submission of evidence of the necessary approvals by the Tompkins County Health Department on the final plat, c. If access to lots 13 and/or 14 will be provided by Lileum Lane, submission to the Attorney for the Town, for review and approval, of a draft easement and shared driveway or access agreement binding on all current and future owners of Lots 13, 14 and 15; indication on the Final Subdivision Plat of the location and dimensions of such easement to be conveyed and of the agreement to be recorded; and if one of the lots is conveyed, filing in the Tompkins County Clerk's office of the shared driveway agreement and easement at the time of the recording of the deed for the conveyed lot, and submission to the Planning Department of proof of such filing, within 5 days of the filing, d_ Submission to the Attorney for the Town, for review and approval, of draft deed restrictions or other legally sufficient mechanisms binding on all current and future owners of Lots 8 and 9 to assure the fence on Lots 8 and 9 remains in place, is maintained in a structurally sound condition, and is replaced by a substantially similar fence if replacement occurs; and indication on the Final Subdivision Plat of the existence of such restrictions to be recorded, e_ Submission to the Attorney for the Town, for review and approval, of draft deed restrictions or other legally sufficient mechanisms binding on all current and future owners of Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8, to assure the functionality of the drainage ditch along the southern lot lines is not Planning Board Minutes 05.022017 Page 13 of 15 impaired by property owner actions; and indication on the Final Subdivision Plat of the exist- ence of such restrictions to be recorded, and £ Submission of one mylar and four dark line prints of the subdivision plat, all signed and sealed by the licensed surveyor who prepared the survey, for signing by the Planning Board Chair, all revised according to the above conditions; 2_ Before issuance of a building permit: a_ Review and approval by the Attorney for the Town and Director of Public Works of the draft operation, maintenance and reporting agreement for the stormwater management facilities, specifying the ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the stormwater system and pond, including: (i) Submission of a stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement" be- tween the owner of the Ithaca Estates Subdivision and the Town of Ithaca, (ii) Submission of a drainage easement or other mechanism to assure the Town of Ithaca access to all stormwater facilities, (iii) Town Board authorization to allow the Town Supervisor to sign any necessary ease- ments and the stormwater Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement associ- ated with the project, and (iv) Filing and full execution of any necessary easements and the stormwater Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement with the Tompkins County Clerk Office, b_ Completion of all roads, stormwater facilities, and required utilities to the satisfaction of the Town of Ithaca Department of Public Works, c. Conveyance to and acceptance by the Town Board of the proposed park and easement for the bikeway/walkway and park access, d_ Conveyance to and acceptance by the Town Board of the proposed roads and utilities, and e_ Consolidation of the strip of land labeled as "To Be Sold" adjacent to the lot in the Phase I subdivision (owned by Gray) with one of the adjacent lots prior to the issuance of any building permits for Lot 8; 3_ Before issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any of the approved lots: a_ Completion of the eight-foot wide bikeway/walkway to the satisfaction of the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department, and b_ Provision of record of application for and proof of receipt of all necessary permits from other county, state, and/or federal agencies; 4_ General conditions of final subdivision approval: a_ Obtaining the necessary curb-cut permit from the Tompkins County Highway Department prior to construction of Rock Cress Road, and b_ Submission of, for review and approval by the Attorney for the Town, a draft license agreement for applicant's installation and maintenance of landscaping and a neighborhood entrance sign, prior to dedication of Rock Cress Road to the Town_ Planning Board Minutes 05.022017 Page 14 of 15 Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Hill Abstentions: Bosak Discussion of the Chain Works District DGEIS comments and draft responses. Ms_ Ritter said the city is the lead agency and they are reviewing all the comments submitted from the public and determining whether they're adequate. We, as an involved agency, don't necessarily take part in the review, but as a courtesy, the city wanted us to look it over because so much of the land involved is in the town_Ms_Balestra is looking at all the comments we submitted a year ago and figuring out where they are and how they were responded to. Mr_Wilcox said he hadn't had time to look the document over yet. Ms_Balestra said we provided them 13 pages of comments, and she had taken most of two days to look through the document to find out where those comments are. She hadn't gotten to the content yet to see if they've answered our questions or even transferred our comments over appropriately. She will email board members a list of where to find our comments_ Mr_ Bosak asked whether staff was looking for substantive comments regardless of whether they originated with us_ Staff said yes_ Ms_ Ritter said if board members email their comments in advance, staff can compile them and have them ready for the next meeting_ AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard- No one came forward to address the board_ AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2017.041: Minutes of April 18, 2017 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Melissa Hill RESOLVED, the planning Board approves the minutes of April 18, 2017, as amended_ Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak, Hill AGENDA ITEM Planning Board Minutes 05-02-2017 Page 15 of 15 Other Business Mr. Bosak reminded everyone that the DEC is revising the SEQR regulations and the deadline for comments is 5 p.m. on May 19th. -Riese are regulatory changes, not statutory changes. It's the first revision since 1995. For Type I, they're lowering the threshold for residential subdivisions. If it's four lots or less, it's not a Type 1. They've also added a threshold for parking spaces in small communities. For Type II:they put on the Type II list anything having to do with green infrastructure, the coloca- tion on cell antermas and repeaters, the installation of fiber in existing rights of way, solar energy, minor subdivisions (smaller than or equal to four lots), sustainable development, reuse of commercial or residential structures, the acquisition or dedication of parkland, transfers of land for affordable housing, conveyance of property by public auction, brownfield cleanup agreements, organic digesters at publicly owned wastewater treatment plants and landfills. Changes to the EIS process: they'll require scoping for all EISs, they'll clarify when an EIS is considered adequate, information submitted after a final scope is done can't be a basis for rejection, information submitted after a final scope and not in the DEIS may require a supplemental DEIS, subsequent reviews must be based on the list of deficiencies identified in the prior review. Adjournment Upon a motion by Melissa Hill, the meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, chra DeAugistii �Dchuty Tow C lrrk