HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2003-05-201
:7
•
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2003
K7
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, May 20, 2003,
in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano,
Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty,
Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the
Town; Creig Hebdon, Assistant Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director
of Planning ;Michael Smith, Environmental Planner.
EXCUSED: George Conneman, Board Member
ALSO PRESENT: Lisa Smith, 128 East King Road; Clare George Wiedmaier, 12419
Shelter Lane, Bowie, MD 20715; Paul Tavelli, 405 North Tioga Street; Timothy Buhl,
Locke, New York; Lauren Bishop, Ithaca Journal; John Rudan, 204 Summerhill Drive;
Janet Jonson, 217 Berkshire Road; Peter Meskill, 64 East Seneca Road, Trumansburg;
Karissa Woodin, 111 West King Road; Doralee Woodin, 111 West King Road; Gary
Wood, Post Office Box 37, Groton; David Auble, Post Office Box 3945, Bules Creek,
North Carolina; Jennifer Terpening, 207 West King Road; Patricia Fain, 133 West King
Road; Mary Lou Carlucci, 123 West King Road; Rose Teeter, 215 West King Road;
Nicholas Atkinson, 209 West King Road; Diana Vrabel, 209 West King Road; Marty
Nickles, 610 Coddington Road; Tony Ingrahm, 368 Stone Quarry Road; Dawn Auble, no
address given /found
Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:06 p.m., and accepted for
the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public
Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on May 12, 2003 and May 14, 2003,
together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the
City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of
Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the
applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on May 14, 2003.
Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by
the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m. With no persons
present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:07
p.m.
1
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval for the proposed locker room addition at the Elizabeth Ann Clune
Montessori School located at 117 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
43 -2 -7, Residence District R -15. The project involves a 285 +/- square foot locker
room addition on the northwest corner of the building. Elizabeth Ann Clune
Montessori School, Lisa Smith, Owner /Applicant; Ernie Bayles, Architect, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7: 07 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Who is here this evening? Would you please come to the
microphone Ms. Smith.
Lisa Smith, 128 East King Road — I'm the business administrator of Elizabeth Ann Clue
Montessori School.
Chairperson Wilcox — Brief overview, if you would.
Ms. Smith — Traffic flow in our annex, comings and goings of children is noisy. The
original design of the building is very open in the front. There are some classroom
spaces that create lots of noise with children coming and going. We want to create a
little locker room area and move the traffic flow a little bit to the right, so that when they
actually enter the school from unloading their backpacks, it can be a little quieter in the
actual entry into the classroom space.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions? How are the buildings doing?
Ms. Smith — They're doing well.
Chairperson Wilcox — Roman is holding steady?
Ms. Smith — Yes. I apologize that Andrea Riddle is not here this evening, who usually
comes to these. She is accompanying the chorus concert this evening on the piano and
couldn't make it. She has fond feelings about coming to these Board meetings in the
past.
Chairperson Wilcox — You may have a seat. Thank you. If there is any member of the
public who wishes to address the Planning Board this evening on this particular agenda
item, once again, we ask you to please come to the microphone. We ask that you give
us your name and address and we'd be very interested to hear what you have to say.
Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 7 :09 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Cut and dry?
6
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Board Member Hoffmann — I don't see any problem with this at all. It doesn't disturb any
landscaping or parking. It looks like, actually, it might have been there all the time from
the drawings anyway.
By the way, I'd like to compliment you on preparing very nice materials this time.
Sometimes, in the past, we have seen things that have been a bit sketchy. Too sketchy
for some of us. But, this was very nicely prepared and I appreciate that.
Chairperson Wilcox — I also realize you've changed architects.
Ms. Smith — Yes we have.
Chairperson Wilcox — For the record, there is no SEQR determination because this
qualifies as a Type II action because it's an educational use under 10,000 square feet.
Would someone like to move the Motion?
Board Member Hoffmann — I'll move it.
Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Eva Hoffmann. Do I have a second? Seconded by
Kevin Talty. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Is
there anybody opposed? There are none. The Motion is passed four to none.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -033, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval
Montessori School — Locker Room Addition,117 East King Road, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -7
MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Kevin Talty.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed locker room addition at the Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School
located at 117 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -7, Residence
District R -15. The project involves a 285 +/- square foot locker room addition on
the northwest corner of the building. Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School,
Lisa Smith, Owner /Applicant; Ernie Bayles, Architect, Agent, and
2. This is a Type 11 Action, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, State Environmental
Quality Review Act (SEQRA), requiring no further environmental review, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 20, 2003, has reviewed
and accepted as adequate, a plan entitled "Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori
School — 117 East King Road'; dated 4 -30 -2003, prepared by Ernie Bayles,
Architect, and other application material, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
3
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
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 neither a significant alteration of 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 and Final Site
Plan Approval for the proposed 285 +/- square foot locker room addition on the
northwest corner of the Montessori School located at 117 East King Road, as
shown on the plan entitled " Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School — 117 East
King Road ", dated 4 -30 -2003, prepared by Ernie Bayles, Architect, subject to the
following condition:
a. submission of an original of the final site plan on mylar, vellum or paper, to
be retained by the Town of Ithaca.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Conneman
ABSENT FOR VOTE: Mitrano
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox — You're all set. Thank you very much.
Good evening Mr. Barney.
Mr. Barney — Good evening sir.
Board Member Hoffmann — I think I'd like to extend a complement to you, Michael, as
well because I'm sure you had something to do with it also that all the materials were
there and in good shape.
Mr. Smith — Actually, they submitted them like that.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, that's very nice.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Summerhill Apartments Phase 2
Modifications, Summerhill Lane.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Representing the applicant is? Pick one. I need you to come to
the microphone so we can record you. Name and address if I may, please.
El
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Timothy Buhl, Locke, New York — I'm a licensed engineer in the State of New York.
Chairperson Wilcox — Would you like to provide a brief overview of what's being
proposed this evening?
Mr. Buhl — Quite simply, I was retained by the Jonsons to revise the site plan to take
into consideration the fill that was placed on the corner of the property and bring the site
plan back into compliance as far as the storm drainage retention for the project. After
reviewing what was done on the property, I recommended that he take the fill out of the
area and build a new, smaller retention basin to the south of the driveway, which you
have shown on the site plan. It's located in the Phase I part of the property. I've since
learned this morning from Mike that I guess your Engineering Department now has
reviewed the site plan and now they're thinking that they don't even want to see that
there for a variety of reasons. We have no objections to not doing it as well because we
also feel that the existing area, once the fill is removed, will be adequate.
Chairperson Wilcox — Did you see a copy of the memo from the Engineering
Department?
Mr. Buhl — He read it to me.
Chairperson Wilcox — So, you're aware of his comments?
Mr. Buhl — So, in general, we're going to put it back the way it was. I think this comes
pretty close to doing it. The only thing that we've added to the property was to add a
pedestrian walkway to get from one corner of the residential units over to the garage
area, which was what the fill was placed in there in the first place for. I think this is a
much better solution, it keeps the drainageways open and back to the original intent.
Chairperson Wilcox — Creig, any comments?
Mr. Hebdon — Not really. I think that what Dan feels is happening is once they get rid of
the fill back there, they'll pretty much be back to the way they were.
Tracy Mitrano joins the meeting.
Chairperson Wilcox — Welcome Tracy. Questions in regard to the Environmental
Review?
No comments from staff?
Board Member Hoffmann — I'm a little bit concerned about what's going to happen.
understand that you will be excavating and taking away the fill along the eastern
boundary that was put in recently along with some work. But then, it also seems from
the text here as if there will be some excavation done in the wetland area to remove silt
that has been deposited there. Is that right?
6i
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Mr. Buhl — We're proposing to do a minor amount of excavation in some siltation, but
not where any of the designated wetlands are occurring. There have been some
siltation due to runoff from the Cornell property that accumulated in the retention area
and we feel that by taking that out where we can, we're not touching the wetland area,
in areas not designated as such, it will help with the storage volume. It was originally
intended to have that volume, it's silted since the project has developed.
Board Member Hoffmann — So all the excavation that would happen would be mainly
east of the wetland area between Buildings 8 and 9?
Mr. Buhl — Right.
Board Member Hoffmann — It seems to me that, from the very original outline of the
wetland area, as well as the buffer zone that was supposed to protect the wetland area,
there has been some fill put in which maybe should not have gone in there. That's why I
was wondering if you were going to do something to make the holding capacity of the
wetland a little greater that way too.
Mr. Buhl — What I think we have there from the calculations, it was over - designed in the
first place and we had offered to compensate for the fill that was placed to do the new
smaller retention base itself at the driveway. What your engineering staff has looked at,
and we concur, is that with the removal of the fill that was placed, we should be back
very close to what we need, if not there, as far as the storage required on what was
originally approved.
Board Member Hoffmann — Just driving by there recently, I agree that it's not just that
there are some sewer pipes buried under that Phase I property, but in the area where
you had indicated, you might dig out some more. That's about the only somewhat larger
green space there is on this property, on either Phase I or Phase 11. It's very densely
developed.
Mr. Buhl — We were going to try to dig out there, we were going to try to place the berm
around. From an engineering and technical perspective, I don't believe it's necessary
either. I think we have plenty of room there, especially when you look at how the flows
come in from the Cornell Ag lands there. I think we've got plenty to slow things down.
Board Member Hoffmann — I'm just thinking with everything that's gone on there, there
has probably been stuff going into the wetland already during the construction from the
very beginning and this is not a pristine wetland. I'm just wondering if maybe there
should be some excavation in the actual wetland. I'd like to know what staff thinks about
that too.
Mr. Smith — The original wetland delineation and storm water plan acknowledged that
the wetland was more important for storm water quality than any specific plants or
anything like that in there. It was still in the approval that at silt fence and protection
10
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
would be offered around the wetland for construction. I believe, except for the one
small finger on the western side the wetland has been preserved.
Board Member Hoffmann — Do you remember that one time when there were roof
trusses lying in the wetland? There's probably other material that has come in there too,
maybe that has not been removed.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions or comments with regard to the
Environmental Review? Would someone like to move the Motion? So moved by Rod
Howe. Seconded by? Seconded by Tracy. There being no further discussion, all those
in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Anybody opposed? There is no one opposed.
The Motion is passed five to nothing.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -034: SEAR: Site Plan Modifications, Summerhill
Apartments Phase 2, Summerhill Lane, Tax Parcel No.'s 62 -2 -1.127 and 62 -2 -1.122
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Tracy Mitrano.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed modifications to the approved site plan for Summerhill Apartments Phase 2,
located on Summerhill Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62 -2 -1.127 and 62 -2-
1.122, Multiple Residence District. The proposed modifications include converting back
to the original site plan for the stormwater facilities by removing areas recently filled
along the eastern edge of the property and the excavation of sediment from the main
retention basin. The proposal also includes new excavation to create additional
retention volume on the Phase 1 Summerhill Apartments site (Tax Parcel No. 62 -2-
1.122) and construction of a new elevated wooden boardwalk for pedestrians on the
eastern edge of the site. Ivar & Janet Jonson, Owners /Applicants; Timothy C. Buhl,
P.E., Agent.
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with
respect to Site Plan Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on May 20, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part
11 prepared by Town Planning staff, plans entitled " Summerhill Apartments Phase 2
Site Plan With Townhouses," revised 4 -2003 (received on APR 23, 2003), prepared
by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., and revised by Timothy C. Buhl, P.E., and
"Proposed Boardwalk Detail"; dated April 23, 2003, prepared by Timothy C. Buhl,
P.E., and other application material, and
7
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination
of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Conneman
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox — You may have a seat sir.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:20 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Once again , I look to the audience, this is a Public Hearing, if
there is a member of the audience, even john Ruedan, who would like to address the
Planning Board this evening we ask you to come to the microphone and give us your
name and address. We'd be very interested to hear what you have to say.
John Ruedan, 204 Summerhill Drive — I have spent a year in the Town of Ithaca, the
rest of my life in the City, I'm sorry to say. In regard to Eva Hoffmann's comment about
stuff in the wetlands, there isn't any and there hasn't been any in the year that I have
lived there. Maybe in the early parts of construction that may have been the case, but
certainly not now. It's a very pleasant place to live. Actually, there are a number of
retirees moving into there like me and we find it quite pleasant. Probably the worst thing
is the Cornell Fields, but other than that, it's a good place. I'd like to encourage the
Board to consider having the project finished because I think the Jonsons are doing a
very nice job there. It's pleasant, it's quiet, they've very attentive to our needs. So I think
they are responsible landlords and I'd like you to acknowledge that by approving their
plan as it stands. I think it's a good thing the way they're trying to do this. I support their
request.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you John. Good to see you again.
Anybody else.
E:
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 7:22 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Well we had a quagmire before, but this looks like a good
resolution is my feeling. We couldn't come up with a solution that involved Cornell and
now we're at least getting back to what looks to be something very close to the original
site plan that we approved a few months ago. I think that's good overall. Any other
questions, comments? Would someone like to move the resolution as written? We're
going to have to make a couple of changes. So moved by Kevin Talty. Do I have a
second? Seconded by the chair. John 2c comes out?
Mr. Barney — Yeah, 2 c would seem to come out because we're no longer having a plan
of — I assume that the approval probably ought to put some sort of a statement or a
condition in that the plan be revised so that the final plan is submitted to eliminate the
pond on Phase I and with that I think 2 c and probably 2 d, although I would like to hear
John Kanter or Mike on 2-
Mr. Smith — The letter "c" can definitely come out, but "d" would need to be revised so
that it's just referring to the excavated area, we still don't have anything for the
sedimentation/ erosion control for the area along the eastern side. So, on the second
line from "and the new retention basin.." that part of it can be eliminated.
Board Member Hoffmann — Can you repeat that? How it should be changed?
Mr. Smith — In letter "d" on the second line, where it starts with the word and "and the
new retention basin on Phase I ". That Councilman Niederkorn be eliminated.
Mr. Barney — Should "a" maybe be modified?
Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin, are those changes acceptable? They are to me as well.
John Barney, we're all set with those changes?
Mr. Barney — Mike?
Mr. Smith — The only one that I didn't put in here that was mentioned to me since, was if
the removal of the culvert and excavation is done, it should be done before any C.O.'s,
final C. O's or anything like that.
Chairperson Wilcox — Let's see.
Mr. Barney — How long would it take to prepare a landscaping plan and an erosion
control plan?
(inaudible speaking away from the microphone)
Mr. Barney — How many units do you have?
X
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Chairperson Wilcox — Can I ask whomever is speaking to come to the microphone?
Paul Tavelli, 405 North Tioga Street— I used to sit on this Board 30 years ago. I'm
Summerhill's attorney here. There's apparently sixty units that are rented as of June first
and with people ready to move in. I've looked at the proposed resolution, obviously the
landscape plan may take a week, but we've got a holiday weekend coming up here. I'm
concerned about getting people in there by June first. Jon, with respect to the owners,
Mr. Jonson controls both of the entities. If you look at "c" on the resolution, the two tax
parcels, he controls both entities, so there's not a problem.
Mr. Barney — That's coming out anyway because that would only apply if there was this
retention basin on Phase I. "C" is out altogether.
Mr. Tavelli — So all we have is, I'm afraid if this staff can't review this landscape plan by
next week what we're going to do with all the tenants that are prepared to move to move
in, over 60 of them.
Chairperson Wilcox — The other issue is the modifications to the detention basin and
whether we hinge C.O's on that.
Mr. Barney — How much work has got to be done on that Phase II detention basin?
Chairperson Wilcox — How long would you estimate it would take for these modifications
to be made to the storm water detention facility?
Mr. Buhl — I'm estimating probably Friday.
Mr. Barney — I think what he's directing it to right now is the physical work that needs to
be done.
Mr. Buhl — Physical work is probably going to be on the order of two to three weeks. A
pretty short time.
Mr. Hebdon — I think we would be fine if, once they removed the berm, if they hadn't
gotten the walkway up yet that would not be a problem.
Chairperson Wilcox — The walkway is an amenity, getting that berm out of there is what
you want.
Mr. Hebdon — Getting that berm out of there is the important part. Making sure that we
have that opened up and the drainage taken care of and it isn't just sitting there all
summer.
Mr. Barney — Paul, how many units? Did you say 60 people, is that 60 units?
Mr. Tavelli — 60 units, correct Ivar?
10
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Janet Jonson — It's just the rest of the units, that's a total of 11.
Mr. Barney — 11 more units?
Mrs. Jonson — Right.
Mr. Barney — One way you can go here is to say no permanent C of O's be issued unit
the work is done, but Temporary C of O's, pending completion of the site. That would
allow you to get your people in. It would mean you have to go through a double C O
process unfortunately, but at least it gets the people in.
Chairperson Wilcox — It gives reason for the work to get done.
Mr. Barney — Actually, there is a double charge. You get a Temporary C of O and you
have to pay again to get the permanent. It's not without it's adverse ramifications.
Chairperson Wilcox — I saw some head nodding. Does that sound reasonable to this
Board?
We'll have to put up a sign that allows only two lawyers in this room.
Mr. Barney — What nasty comment were you making there?
Chairperson Wilcox — I said that I thought we should put up a sign which limits the
number of lawyers in this room.
Mr. Barney — You should be thankful we're here.
Chairperson Wilcox — We just waiting for John to see what language he comes up with
here. Please bear with us.
30 years ago you sat on this Board?
Mr. Tavelli — Sixty- seven, sixty- eight, sixty -nine.
Board Member Mitrano — What drove you off?
Mr. Barney — How about adding a condition "d" that all site work and mapping is to be
completed prior to issuance of any further permanent Certificates of Occupancy, but not
prior to the issuance of any temporary Certificates of Occupancy.
Chairperson Wilcox — What was the first couple of words?
Mr. Barney — "All site work and mapping.." because you have to have the original site
plan "...to be completed prior to the issuance of any further permanent Certificates of
Occupancy, but not to be required prior to the obtaining of the temporary Certificates of
Occupancy."
11
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Chairperson Wilcox — We have a Motion, we have a second. Is there any further
discussion? There being none, all those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Is there
anyone opposed? No one is opposed, there are no abstentions, we're all done.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -035, Site Plan Modification, Summerhill Apartments
Phase 2, Summerhill Lane, Tax Parcel No.'s 62 -2 -1.127 and 62 -2- 1.122.
MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Fred Wilcox.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed modifications to the approved site plan for Summerhill Apartments
Phase 2, located on Summerhill Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62 -2-
1.127 and 62 -2- 1.122, Multiple Residence District. The proposed modifications
include converting back to the original site plan for the stormwater facilities by
removing areas recently filled along the eastern edge of the property and the
excavation of sediment from the main retention basin. The proposal also
includes new excavation to create additional retention volume on the Phase 1
Summerhill Apartments site (Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.122) and construction of a
new elevated wooden boardwalk for pedestrians on the eastern edge of the site.
Ivar & Janet Jonson, Owners /Applicants; Timothy C. Buhl, P.E., Agent.
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on
May 20, 2003, made a negative determination of environmental significance,
after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by
Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 20, 2003, has reviewed
and accepted as adequate, plans entitled "Summerhill Apartments Phase 2 Site
Plan With Townhouses," revised 4 -2003 (received on APR 23, 2003), prepared
by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., and revised by Timothy C. Buhl, P.E., and
"Proposed Boardwalk Detail ", dated April 23, 2003, prepared by Timothy C. Buhl,
P.E., and other application material;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT 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 neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control
nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
12
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval for the proposed site modifications to Summerhill Apartments Phase 2
located on Summerhill Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62 -2 -1.127 and 62 -2-
1.122, as shown on plans entitled "Summerhill Apartments Phase 2 Site Plan With
Townhouses," revised 4 -2003 (received on APR 23, 2003), prepared by Lawrence
P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., and revised by Timothy C. Buhl, P.E., and "Proposed
Boardwalk Detail ", dated April 23, 2003, prepared by Timothy C. Buhl, P.E., and
other application material, subject to the following conditions:
a. submission of an original of the final site plan on mylar, vellum or paper,
modification to show the removal of retaining basin from Phase I to be
retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to the issuance of any Final
Certificates of Occupancy, and
b. the 26 parking spaces designated along Summerhill Lane shall be
temporary only and shall be removed prior to or simultaneously with the
conveyance of that portion of Summerhill Lane to the Town as a public
road or prior to or simultaneously with the issuance of the first building
permit for any development that occurs north and northwest of the
Summerhill Apartments, whichever event is earliest, and
c. submission of a landscaping plan and sedimentation and erosion control plan
showing the revegetation of areas being excavated to be approved by the
Director of Engineering and the Director of Planning, prior to the issuance of
any Temporary or new Final Certificates of Occupancy, and
d. all site work and mapping to be completed prior to issuance of any further
final Certificates of Occupancy, but not to be required prior to issuance of
Temporary Certificates of Occupancy.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Conneman
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the proposed five -lot
subdivision located at the intersection of Burns Road and Slaterville Road, Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56 -4 -1.22, Residence District R -15 and Conservation
District. The proposal includes subdividing the 16.7 +/- acre parcel into four
residential lots located primarily within the R -15 District and one 12.3 +/- acre
residential lot located within the Conservation District. All five lots will be
13
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
accessed by one common drive fronting on Slaterville Road. Clare George
Wiedmaier, Owner /Applicant; Brian M. Klumpp, L.S
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:31 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Good evening sir. Thank you for being here.
Clare George Wiedmaier, 12419 Shelter Lane, Bowie, MD 20715 — I had Brian develop
this because I am interested in moving back to the Ithaca area and bringing my large
family with me. So we came up with this and that's as far as Brian can go and now I'm
getting an engineer, David Herrick, to do some other calculations. We came up with the
one single driveway to make the minimum so we don't take out that much vegetation.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions, comments?
Board Member Mitrano — I want the one that's in the corner.
Chairperson Wilcox — I get the feeling that either you or Mr. Klumpp or whoever's been
looking at this has been pretty sensitive to the area, to the slopes, to the Conservation
Zone.The lots, at least fronting on Slaterville Road, are very large. Certainly the lot in
the back is of good size. I assume that you'd be interested in owning that large lot.
Mr. Wiedmaier — Yeah, that's where I plan on living, right there. No further development
of any kind. I discovered that somebody has been taking dirt out of the back corner, so
I'm going to investigate that. Somebody has been getting back there and doing that, I
just found that out today.
Board Member Hoffmann — The main concern that I have is the steep slopes there.
Since the lots are fairly large and a limited number of houses are going to be build on a
fairly large piece of land, I'm sure one can do things to prevent bad consequences from
building.
Mr. Wiedmaier — We're going to put that silt fence around and some other stuff around.
I'm going to re -plant all around.
Board Member Hoffmann — The driveway would be very steep. I mean the road going
in. I guess you're calling it a shared driveway. I would be quite steep. It looks like it
comes — it doesn't come straight up, it makes a little bend at the top.
Mr. Wiedmaier — Right.
Board Member Hoffmann — Is that because you avoid some really steep slope right at
the very end?
Mr. Wiedmaier — And he had done some calculations and came up with 1,000 cubic
yards of fill or what ever you call it, so that we don't take any away from anywhere else.
14
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
We don't disturb anything else. We go as narrow as we can, which is 30 feet wide. I'm
doing it the smallest I can.
Chairperson Wilcox — Can you show me the layout of Lot 4? Does Lot 4 actually have a
unique-
Mr. Wiedmaier — Lot 4 goes here and goes all the way around in here and, apparently,
this dirt road that used to be the old Burns Road is on it. Someone had messed up and
didn't know when they build it in 1929, so that's gated, but is supposed to be locked and
only used by the City and that's the way it's going to remain. I didn't want to fool with
any of that, I wanted to leave it all natural back through there.
Chairperson Wilcox — So that's all connected to Lot 4?
LVAMUTICX%liM153- �Vd=
Chairperson Wilcox — No, I asked about Lot 4 . Lot 4, which is right there. Can you just
trace it's outline?
Mr. Wiedmaier — He's got it going back here.
Chairperson Wilcox — That gets frontage on Burns Road. A uniquely shaped lot.
Anybody?
Board Member Howe- It makes sense.
Board Member Hoffmann — There were some suggestions in the comments we got from
Christine Balestra. That you'd need to submit an erosion control plan and sedimentation
details for the entire proposed developed site. That you do cut and fill calculations for
the driveway and any future buildings on the property. It is also suggested that you
submit a storm water management plan for the proposal, all because of the slopes and
the streams that cut through the property.
Ms. Ritter — Creig, do you want to just comment a little bit on — I guess the Engineering
Department wanted to see what is going to be cut and fill down on the site.
Mr. Hebdon — We got that little bit that Brian had done on just the road area and, given
the steepness and the amount of fill and stuff, Dan and I looked over the site and
decided that we'd like to see the grading for the whole area, not just the road, where the
road was going to come in, but what was going to happen on the building areas behind.
How they're going to get flat areas for those houses and where that fill was going to
come from and how much that was going to be. Given the steepness of this, we really
feel that we need the whole site grading plan at once, rather than just the road and then
piece the rest of it in. We'd like to see it all at once.
Chairperson Wilcox — You know this is a difficult site because of the slopes?
15
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Board Member Mitrano — How long have you owned it sir?
Mr. Wiedmaier — About four months, maybe more.
Mr. Barney — Is this going to require this new equivalent of a SPEDES permit for a
disturbance of more than an acre of land?
Mr. Smith — Yes, it's going to need it.
Ms. Ritter — In New York State permitting where you need to submit a storm water plan,
but if you have David working with you, he could help you on that as well.
Chairperson Wilcox — David Herrick. We like David Herrick. You said his name and —
Board Member Mitrano — Won approval.
Ms. Ritter — I would just comment that the Environmental Review Committee went out
on the site last week to just take a look and their comments were pretty much the same
as Chris'. Just saying that they wanted to minimize vegetation removal, erosion control.
One thing that they added was that they would just like to see having a buffer along any
of the creeks maintained.
Board Member Mitrano — Where do the creeks flow, just roughly?
Mr. Wiedmaier — I guess this is one of them right here. Along in here, along the property
line.
Ms. Ritter- It goes down right into Six Mile Creek.
Board Member Mitrano — Oh yeah I know it goes down. I was wondering if it's on any of
the other properties, apart from the one that you intend to buy.
Ms. Ritter — Oh, I see.
Mr. Wiedmaier - I think it runs right along the edge. You can see here.
Board Member Mitrano — Right along the edge of those property lines, yeah.
Chairperson Wilcox — Well, I appreciate your willingness to work with us on this
particularly difficult site. I assume you're coming back at some point to request an actual
sub - division approval and provide the materials that, very often we don't need with
subdivision, but because of the uniqueness of the site.
Mr. Wiedmaier — Well, I'll have David get in contact with somebody and work directly
with you all.
Mo
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Chairperson Wilcox — Very good. That is most appreciated. Anything else ladies and
gentlemen? Is there anything else you need sir this evening from us? Then I think we're
all set. I appreciate your coming.
Mr. Wiedmaier- Thank you
Board Member Mitrano — Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentleman, when you came in there was a good
number of letters, e-mail messages, etcetera in front of you so I want to make sure that
each of us has a chance to read those and digest it. So I'd like to take a five minute
recess, if we may.
Chairperson Wilcox declared a recess at 7:43 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox re- opened the
meeting at 7:50 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM : Continuation of consideration of Preliminary Subdivision
Approval, Preliminary Site Plan Approval, and a recommendation to the Town
Board regarding the Zoning Change for the proposed 8 -lot subdivision and
associated development located at the intersection of West King Road and Danby
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 37 -1 -17.1 and 37 -1 -18, Multiple Residence
and Business Districts "C" and "D ". The proposal is to subdivide the 15 +/- acre
parcel into 5 lots for single - family residences (to be zoned R -30 Residence), two
lots totaling 4.63 +/- acres for 20 apartment units in four buildings (to be zoned
Multiple Residence), and reserve the remaining 5.01 +/- acre lot along Danby Road
for future commercial development (to be zoned Business "C" in its entirety).
David C. Auble, Owner /Applicant; Gary L. Wood, P.E. and Brian M. Klumpp, L.S.,
Agents.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Gary Wood — I'm going to speak.
Chairperson Wilcox — Good evening Mr. Wood. Can I have a name and address
please?
Gary Wood, PO Box 37, Groton
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you prepared to provide the information about what's different
tonight versus what we had the last time you were here?
Mr. Wood — I believe I am. There were two issues, I believe that were left on the table.
One was the matter of the number of bedrooms and whether this constituted something
that could be eventually student housing. You have with you, I believe, floor plans that
show very clearly a two bedroom unit with a loft. There also was a question raised
17
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
regarding the floor plan for the basement. The concern was that that might turn into
something of a dormitory nature. There is no floor plan for the basement because there
is no plan for the basement . Units that may be built with a basement will be simply an
open basement for storage.
The other issue that was before you was the matter of providing the extra 33 recent
parking, which you didn't have before. You have a plan before you that we submitted
that shows the additional parking places. However, they encroached upon the front yard
setback. Since Mr. Auble has been back in Town, we've discussed it, I think this is a
little better way to solve that problem. Since we're asking for preliminary approval this
evening, I'd ask that you might preclude that this is simply to make that conform to your
requirements.
Chairperson Wilcox — In effect, you would not want to go for a potential variance?
Mr. Wood — I would prefer not to. I think we can avoid that issue, I know we can.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you prepared to take questions from the Board?
Mr. Wood — I certainly am. Since I'm the "b" team, I may need some help.
Board Member Mitrano — What does it take for someone to get a building permit to
finish a basement?
Mr. Barney - A plan if it meets code.
Board Member Mitrano — So, those units equipped with unfinished basements, certainly
could finish them.
Mr. Wood — But I think not, the old building code, a basement could not be considered a
habitable space. I have to admit, I'm not total conversant with the new building code, but
suspect it's similar.
Mr. Barney — Whether or not it's habitable space, it could be finished. Whether it's
legally habitable space is a different issue and that's spatially defined as a space where
people can sleep.
Board Member Mitrano — With certain degrees of egress and that kind of thing?
Mr. Barney — And I think windows have to meet certain sizes. The definition, I think
Gary's right, used to be if more half of the structure or the basement was below grade it
was theoretically not habitable space, if more than half is above grade, it was. I think
that's it. Then again I'm not conversant with the building codes either, very few people
are.
Mr. Kanter — Gary, is there a need for the basements? And maybe Dave can answer
this too. Could it be designed so the just wouldn't be basements in any of the buildings?
M-0
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Mr. Wood — In our discussions, and I'll let him answer this as well, but in our discussions
he has said that some of the units might have a basement.
Mr. Auble, Post Office Box 3945, Bules Creek, North Carolina — I had in mind, possibly
under one of the buildings to have basement space that could be utilized if people
wanted to use it for storage. It would be a community storage area. It would be an
amenity. It wouldn't be anything that would be potentially utilized for habitable space.
Board Member Mitrano — So it's not located under individual units Mr. Auble, but it's
segregated from everything.
Mr. Auble —No.
Board Member Mitrano — Would it be at all finished or are we talking about a dirt floor
surface.
Mr. Auble — Probably a concrete floor.
Board Member Mitrano — But a crawl space would not be appropriate to describe it?
Mr. Wood — A crawl space may be another option that we're looking at under some of
the other units for the mechanicals.
Board Member Mitrano — And access to this area would be?
Mr. Auble — From outside the building.
Board Member Mitrano — And available to certain tenants who have signed up for it?
Mr. Auble — Right. With lockers and space partitioned off.
Chairperson Wilcox — So there wouldn't be a stairway from the first floor to the
basement? That's what I heard.
Mr. Auble — Correct. There would be an outside entrance.
Board Member Hoffmann — And you're saying that one of the buildings would have such
a basement under the whole building, but available to all the tenants in the twenty units?
Mr. Wood — If we do it, it would most likely be the last building built, which would
probably be the one deepest into the development , which is furthest south. Because of
the concrete, depth of the soil, etcetera. So ,we're looking at that as we say as an
amenity that would be for people who move out of their homes, who want to live in an
apartment and still have items from their home that they can store.
19
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions?
Board Member Hoffmann — You would have more refined details about this available for
the final approval?
Mr. Auble — Correct.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sure we would require that.
Board Member Mitrano —As I recall, moving on to the floor plan, when last time we met
one of the issues was how the upstairs might be used in the event that more than two
people were living in one unit. What's the use of the loft area and can you or anyone on
the Board refresh me as to how and what ways the description of this area outlined in
the floor plan, the second floor plan, saying "loft " would in some way be distinguishable
from what could otherwise be used as a bedroom for a third occupant.
Mr. Wood — Mr. Kanter gave you, I think a good description of that because he said,
there's not closets for one thing. And for another thing, it's not enclosed on one and '/4
sides or something like that. So there is no privacy, there's no storage closets. It just
simply is not intended that way.
Mr. Auble — You have to go through that space to get to a bedroom.
Board Member Mitrano — Which room?
Mr. Auble — You have to go through the loft to get to the bedroom.
Chairperson Wilcox — Possibly temporary space when you have your grandchildren
over for the night or something like that.
Mr. Wood — Maybe a tv room, a library, an office and yes if you have children, and you
want a play area.
Board Member Mitrano — Well, as you know, one of the concerns or at least one of the
concerns that is raised by many of the residents in the area is that this be used for
students. I know that you have declared you intention is that it not be used for students,
but there's only so much that one can control in these matters so I'm trying to evaluate
how and what way it might be used by students. Maybe they would be less concerned
about the privacy matter. I don't know.
Mr. Wood —To some extend we've tried to belay those concerns by making it something
that could not easily be converted. There is not an attic, there is not a basement that's
convertible to habitable space. The loft is not enclosed. It would be not a convenient
thing to do. I think we've done everything that we can.
20
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Board Member Mitrano - How un- enclosed is it ? Say for example, if someone took
some kind of a lovely House of Shalimar type of fabric and strung it over an area, would
that enclose it.
Mr. Wood — You've got this much area.
Board Member Mitrano — Unopened? Okay, that's helpful. My uninformed reading of a
plan looked like that was a wall.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else at this point?
Board Member Talty — Is there any access to the attic space above the garage?
Mr. Auble — There are just trusses.
Board Member Talty — I didn't see any in the plan. I just want to make sure I'm not
overlooking anything.
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Wood, can I get you in front of the microphone? We're just
having a hard time picking you up, thank you. Just want to make sure we record you.
If no one has any questions, I'll give the public a chance at this point.
Mr. Auble — It might be helpful to the public if we put these up on a board. I have two
site plans. One that was the old site plan before selling the property to the State and
then the new site plan superimposed.
Chairperson Wilcox — Would you like to show it to us?
Mr. Auble — I would like to.
This was the site before selling off thirty -three (33) acres to the State Park. So, we
have, this is the remainder of the property and this is the 96 B. So here we have the
entry road and the apartments are separated quite a bit, we thought, from the
neighboring property. We buffered the State Park with the single family lots. I plan to
build on one of these lots, my preference is this lot.
The site plan, before selling the property, was for 312 apartment units, 25 building lots
for the duplexes and 151,000 square foot shopping center. So, I feel, I've coming down
from 312 units to 20 apartment units is a pretty big reduction. I think I was sensitive to
the neighborhood in trying to move the apartment units in, away from the road and the
neighboring properties. So, where quite a bit of distance from, I think, the Terpening's
land. Is it here? A stream is right here. So, I think there's a tremendous buffer.
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney, since you are sort of our historical perspective,
because of your many years of service to the Town. The current zoning was enacted by
the Town Board some time ago reflecting a plan similar to this one?
21
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Mr. Barney - I would imagine so. I don't recall how this got zoned the way it's been
zoned, but the zoning that Mr. Auble has referred to has been in place, the old plan
zoning, has been in place , the old plan for zoning, has been in place for, since I've
been doing work for the Town, which was the late eighties.
Mr. Kanter — No, earlier than that, at least 35 years.
Mr. Barney — Since the sixties.
Chairperson Wilcox — So, we'll say for potentially forty years this large MR. The
business district, the gas station.
Mr. Barney — David, who did you buy from? Who was the prior owner?
Mr. Auble — We bought it from a group in Syracuse. I can't remember the name, but
they were developers.
Mr. Barney — Were they the ones that put the plan up? This was not your plan, was it.
Mr. Auble — Somehow there was a plan that was recorded with the change in zoning,
guess that was the system at the time. Of course, that was the motivation to buy it
because of the density that was on the site.
Mr. Barney - We pretty much always require the zoning to go a commercial or multiple
residence is usually in reaction to a plan or proposed development. Then it is zoned to
meet that plan. That's probably what happened here. I suspect that they proposed that
plan and than the Town Board re -zoned it and it's been that way ever since.
Chairperson Wilcox —And that zoning still exists today. Thank you. Mr. Auble, Mr. Wood
are you all set for now? Okay, have a seat.
Ladies and gentleman, as I said two weeks ago, the Public Hearing has been held, but I
will provide those members of the audience the opportunity to address the Planning
Board this evening. We ask that, as always, you give us your name and your address.
We hope that your remarks reflect new information or new thoughts or opinions on this
project, rather than simply just restated what you might have told us two weeks ago.
I look out and see Mr. Meskill. Are you here to address the Board and if so, I would let
you do that first so that you can get out of here and go and protect our citizens.
Peter Meskill, 64 East Seneca Road, Trumansburg — Sheriff of Tompkins County. I'm
here before you because of this and because of some other development that has
occurred in this Town over the last year or two that strikes me as the density increasing.
It causes us, from the Sheriff's office a tremendous amount of response to the Town of
Ithaca in relation to the traffic complaints and in relation to domestic violence and
instances of drug activity. Just a couple of weeks ago we made a large bust in the City
of Ithaca on Stone Quarry Road, which is maybe a long stone's throw from where you
are talking about. Stone Quarry, as we all know has been a traffic problem, as well as
22
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
East King. We're working with Susan right now, along with the State Police putting
together a traffic plan trying to mitigate speeders in certain areas in the Town of Ithaca.
This is on the fringe of that particular area. If this is going to be zoned, if someone could
notify me when the Town Board actually meets on the zoning, I'd like to address them
as well about the zoning change because it's a constant impact to us. I know the County
budget is not the Town, nor the Planning Board's problem, but the fact of the matter is
that my staff has been reduced over the last two or three years. From a law
enforcement perspective, the criminal activity and the amount of response to calls that
we have to make has increased. We were very fortunate. Last year I stood here and
spoke in favor of Ithaca College developers taking over that large dinosaur, real
problem for me on the edge of the campus and that has mitigated the problem for two
reasons. Number one, it's under Ithaca College control so they have strict policy and
regulations where they can literally throw a student out. Number two, they have a
security force in place that can respond to any given call on their campus or on the
fringe of their campus within a few minutes. For me, my average patrol is a sergeant
and three deputies. If I'm really lucky, on a good night, unless I'm paying over time, I've
got four deputies out to cover almost 485 square miles of the County, for 3 to 11, which
is our busiest shift. I just want you to understand the complexity of what we run and the
State Police has similar or typically less staff. So, there is not a lot of us compared to a
lot of activitey that can range from someone's dog barking to a double murder. I just
wanted to bring that issue to your attention and realize that our County is covering four
specific zones and I think, Susan, you have a map of that. All of South Hill is covered in
zone 327 which goes all the way towards Brooktondale and all the way towards Danby
and to the north edge of Tioga County and up the other side of Newfield and all the way
to the County line in Schuyler. So, it's a large area for us to cover and the only good
thing is that I don't have to cross the lake. However, if I don't' have four cars on post,
that post is always combined with what's known as 328, which is the rest of the west
side of the County, Ulysses, the western part of Ithaca and Enfield. If I've got a car
addressing a complaint in Trumansburg and I've got to get the other side of Ithaca
College, it takes some time to get there. So, all I'm asking you to consider, not only with
this development, but with other developments is, we hear the concerns from the
constituents of the Town every single day about traffic congestion, which I can do
nothing about, but traffic complaints and enforcement, which I can do the best I can with
our limited resources. We hear it from your own staff about how we want to work
together to mitigate the problem, so I'm going to ask that you keep that in mind because
when we start plugging in a lot of apartment units very close to a college campus, lofts,
dens, you call them what you want, there is going to be density of people there that will
increase traffic in and out of the building. If it becomes student housing of some sort,
which I have no idea whether it will or not, the fact of the matter is it could become
another party haven. When we lost the big dinosaur on this side of the college,
everything shifted over to Pennsylvania and Kendall Ave with all the activity and all the
problems and all the complaints. We have hundreds of people walking from the campus
to there because the campus is accessible, which is a problem outside of the campus.
I just really wanted to make you aware of those circumstances that surround this and /or
other future developments especially apartment complexes.
23
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Chairperson Wilcox — Can we ask a few questions?
Mr. Meskill — Yes, absolutely.
Board Member Hoffmann — Could you tell me which apartment developments that you
are referring to as the ones where there are more problems.
Mr. Meskill — Oh, I blocked the name out of my mind. The large one that Ithaca College
took over?
Board Member Mitrano — College Circle.
Mr. Meskill — I truly blocked that out of my mind.
Board Member Hoffmann — Right and we've heard about that one before. We've also
hear references to the ones off — Linderman Creek as a problem spot. Could you tell us
a little more about that. This information doesn't come to us, except from people in the
audience and they often don't tell us the details.
Mr. Meskill — I did deliver a stack of complaints to the Town last year. The Supervisor
and I had a conversation and I gave her a copy of the complaints. For a while things
stopped, but it started back up again. We run a fair amount of activity there and
unfortunately it is just outside the City edge. I wish it was in the City because then they
could handle it and I could go about my business, but it's not so it becomes our problem
or the State. The problems are the exact same as I mentioned to you before. We're
called there for harassment, domestic violence, drug activity. We have a joint tactical
team with the City of Ithaca to try to save the tax payers money and still be able to
provide a service County wide and City wide, that's a very expensive process.
So, that's what we run into there. I don't run into student housing there. I run into
student housing on the south side of town, on Pennsylvania, Kendall, the group of
apartment units that are there.
Board Member Hoffmann — Just for comparison, do you have similar complaints from
other areas where there are similar housing units, in a sense, to what is proposed here
tonight? For instance, Deer Run or the housing developments north or south of
Honness Lane, Eastern Heights?
Mr. Meskill — Deer Run, if I ever get there, it's a parking complaint or tag a car in the
snow for the Highway Department to move. It's a non - issue. We do a swing through to
have a presence, but we just don't have calls there. Honness Lane, the only complaints
I get in that area are speed complaints. We're not in there for complaints of people not
getting along or criminal activity.
Board Member Hoffmann — I'm trying to think of places where there are buildings that
have more than one or two units in them.
24
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Chairperson Wilcox — Can I follow up?
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, go ahead.
Chairperson Wilcox — Just to keep you here. How about Warren Wood Apartments or
North Wood Apartments? Two rather large complexes.
Mr. Meskill — With the exception of a rash of burglaries we had there last Fall, we've had
virtually nothing there. We go down once in a while on the other side of Triphammer
Mall, just inside the Village of Lansing, Savanna Park. But very rarely do we go to
Warren Wood, one in a while, but it's just rare. They're close by the office.
Board Member Hoffmann — The other area that doesn't have, it has single family homes
with two units in them often is the Eastern Heights area. Or along Snyder Hill Road in
the Town of Ithaca and I know there are a lot of students living there. Do you have
complaints in that area?
Mr. Meskill — No. What I surmise from looking at the complaints and from hearing in
terms of the people who work for me is that you're not talking about a large group of
students populated in one building or a series of buildings, like the old College Circle.
If it was all student housing, I'm not saying that it is, I have no idea what it's going to be.
If it was, I could guarantee that we'd be up there. With the Ithaca College kids looking
for a place off campus so they could consume alcohol, it's just a fact of life in a college
town.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — All set? Thank you.
Board Member Mitrano — No, wait, I have some questions.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry.
Board Member Mitrano — For one, I appreciate your contributions very much tonight and
we invite you anytime, even if it were unrelated to a specific project. The question I have
tonight may be one that you really don't want to answer, but we have a specific site plan
tonight to either approve or disapprove or something gray in between. Am I to take from
you comments a suggestion about a direction we should be taking or are you just giving
us an overview?
Mr. Meskill — I guess what I'm trying to tell you, and I don't even know whether I'm
talking to the right body versus the Town Board for the overall zoning and the Master
Plan that comes back to you, I know that your job is different and your duties under the
law are different. I guess what I'm saying to you is I need the Town of Ithaca to look
hard at what it's doing in the future in relation to these things. The Town, you've got a
great setup and I love your supervisor, she's a fantastic person and the Board does a
25
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
good job and you keep your taxes low. Your taxes are low because you don't have to
pay for law enforcement service, except for a couple of tiny contracts you have. If you
were paying for law enforcement services, or you check with other municipalities, you'd
find law enforcement and fire contracts are your two most expenses services, in the
amount of cost of payroll, retirement fringes, etcetera and all the related training and
hardware that goes along with those two tasks. That's just a fact of life. What I'm saying
to your is that with the constant developing as this town does with putting things
together to do a nice job with it, it has an impact on my business every single year,
forever and forever because the end density is there , the building are there. It's more of
an awareness issue. I can't comment whether this is or isn't a good project. I can only
tell you, if you're building 20 places with two bedrooms and a loft close to a college
campus, where there is limited off campus housing now because the college took over
a substantial portion, you're going to see it push out. If any body else tries to develop a
certain area around that, I believe you'll see some more of that same thing, regardless
of who the developer is.
Mr. Barney — Can we take from that that you are suggesting that we shouldn't be
approving multiple residences?
Mr. Meskill — I'm just asking you to look at that issue. Did you do a SEAR process and a
SEQR review? For me that's a real big issue to be mitigated. We've got some meeting
of the minds and a general sense that this is a real cost, it's a real expense and a real
burden to the entire community, as well as the Town of Ithaca when these types of
things happen. We're not as fortunate as the City, where twice as many people are on
shift and more importantly, they have a much more smaller, denser geographic area to
respond to calls. My under sheriff, when he first came to work for me, said great we'll
swap with the three cars. I said that will take 25 minutes. In the City, he could have
three cars in two or three minutes. That's the problem we face out in rural law
enforcement. The Town of Ithaca is essentially rural law enforcement.
Board Member Mitrano — Do you happen to know anything about the demographics, is
there a population shift from the City into the Town? Does anybody know? In other
words, is the general population of Ithaca, as it varies from summer to academic year
calendar time, changing overall in aggregate or is what your suggesting that there is a
shift from the population focus within the City.
Mr. Kanter — There's not a major shift. The City of Ithaca was relatively stable between
1990 and 2000. The Town of Ithaca grew at a rate of about' /2 percent a year, which is
not huge growth, between 1990 and 2000. So, between the City of Ithaca and the Town
of Ithaca there hasn't been a huge shift, but of course, the student population is a big
part of both of those municipalities as well as Cayuga Heights, actually for that matter.
Mr. Meskill — You're the donut around the circle of the City and the lake. So, when you
go from one campus and wrap around the other and take you over to West Hill or the
other side of Town, we don't run much over there. Except for Conifer Circle.
U0
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Board Member Mitrano — Thank you, that was very interesting.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, Conifer Circle is a special case, as we all know. So,
it's maybe not fair to compare that with what we're looking at tonight. Part of the reason
that I asked about other developments where there are students, whether they are
apartments in units, like what we're looking at tonight or whether they are in single
family homes, was to see if there was a difference and there is a difference.
Chairperson Wilcox — Not that we've let the Sheriff go protect us all, if you'd like to raise
your hands, I will recognize you and we'll just give you all an opportunity to speak this
evening.
Marty Nickels , 610 Coddington Road — I've been at three of four of these meetings, just
kind of watching this whole thing and seeing what's going on and that type of thing. Just
looking at Mr. Auble's plan and seeing the old plan and the new plan up here, I think
that the plan that's he's presenting is a pretty darn good plan. I think he should be
commended for doing that considering what could possibly be up there. I think it's a real
thought out plan and it's very sensitive to the neighborhood. Personally, I've been
looking at that area up there and I'm really considering buying one of the lots to build a
house myself. Like I said, I do live on the South Hill, I do have a house there now, but I
would like to move over into that area. I don't really see the apartments being a problem
for me if I was living there. The other thing that I remember you brought up the last time
about the footprint of the apartments and then again today about the loft, the study area,
tv room, whatever that is. Personally, I've been a student here, I was a student at Ithaca
College. I've been a professional here for twelve (12) years. I've worked at the high
school, I've worked at the college. So I know what you're all concerned about, what
you're talking about. But, living in Town here as a single person or a professional
person, it's awfully hard to find a good place to live, especially on South Hill. I lived in
the college housing when I was a professional here until I finally bought a house about
four (4) or five (5) years ago, for six (6) or seven (7) years. That's hard to do. That's
why there's not a lot of places for people like myself to live, or someone who just got
married, or someone who works at Cornell, or Ithaca College, it's hard to find places to
live. All the people that I've known live way outside of Town and they'd like to move into
a good place in the Town, that has some space to live in. Common sense wise, I don't
think any of us here would buy or rent an apartment with two bedrooms and nothing
else in there if you're going to live there as a professional and some other professional
is going to live there, or I you're going to be there with your wife, whatever it might be.
You obviously need a place for your kids, you need a tv room, you need a study, you
need an office. Personally, I would not rent a place unless I had something like that
being a professional. I have to have that. I've rented out three bedroom apartments. Me
and another person would rent out a room and we'd use the other room for an office,
but there's nothing like that on South Hill. Again, I think it's a great plan. I think he's
done a great job. There a so many things that could happen at that site, could have
happened at that site. He used a lot of common sense with what needs to be done in
that area. As you can see, 312 apartments to 20 units is an unbelievable difference from
what it was. Also, the tax base, if those apartments go up, the tax base is going to be a
27
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
lot better for us. My house itself has gone up $60,000 in assessment in four years.
That's a lot of money, $60,000 in four years and anything we can get up on South Hill
in that area, in the Town to help the tax base and help everybody in the neighborhood to
live there and stay there, is going to be a heck of a lot better. Again, about the place to
live, I know several people who have talked to me about "do you know any places to
live. Do you know other places to go ?" I know a couple of people who are retiring from
Ithaca College, one guy wants to move down to Texas with his daughter in the winter
and we wants to rent out a place in Town here to come back. I mentioned to him that I
might buy a piece of property up there, he asked me what was going on. I told him I
came down here and he said "If you see Mr. Auble, tell him that I'd like to talk to him to
maybe rent an apartment in the summer time." He wants to stay here with his friends
and golf and that kind of thing.
So there's a lot of different things that I know from being here, from watching and
listening. I would hope that all the politics and those things don't blur people's vision of
what is a good thing and what should be done up there. I know every one is concerned
about the students and those types of things, but if it's done right, I think that a lot of
professional people would live up there. 1, like I said personally, am planning on buying
a lot and building something up there and that's what I see happening. Again, like I said,
think it's a great plan and hopefully it will follow through with what you're doing here.
Thanks.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Yes sir. Your hand was up first.
Tony Ingram, 368 Stone Quarry Road — I own my home there. I've been there a couple
of years and I've lived in the neighborhood for most of the last 15 or 16 years. I used to
live up on Nelson Road. Some of you probably know that I have worked for the Finger
Lakes State Parks for more than two decades, just recently retired. I've been in charge
of the Environmental Education Program. Kara Hagadon who used to be the Chair of
the Conservation Advisory Board was my employee for ten years and she was also a
neighbor of the upper Buttermilk area. So, I'm very familiar with the neighborhood, both
as a resident and as a park professional. I'm a late comer to this so, I didn't make the
Public Hearing, I've been out of Town a lot. Although, I have been aware of this
development over the years since it was first proposed years ago. We went to some of
the meetings over that. One of the things that has, from the park standpoint — first of all I
want to say that it's excellent that Mr. Auble bought the acreage and sold it to the State
Park. That's obviously consistent with the spirit of the Town's open space plan,
conservation zone goals, so I think that's excellent. By the way, I did send to Jonathan a
communications today, did that get to all of you? So, I'll try not to repeat myself with
that. A couple of other things did come to mind in looking at Holly Creek, which, of
course the development is named after. It starts up here across the road and it comes in
through the Park and through Owl's Gorge and down to Stone Quarry Road. The quality
of Owl Gorge and Holly Creek within the State Park depends on the whole water shed,
of course. So, what happens up here effects what goes on in the Park. Both from an
erosion control standpoint and flows from things like parking lots and roofs and this sort
of thing and sedimentation that would effect aquatic life. If you go down to Owl Gorge,
you will find things that have migrated down there like old tired and buckets and things
KE:
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
like that. They obviously came from upstream. So, the stuff does get moved down and
sediment does get moved down. That's obviously a huge concern, protecting Owl
Creek. It looks pretty protected to me, I'm not an environmental engineer, but it looks
pretty protected to me, between the area of the State Park and the newly acquired
property to the west of the development. However, to the south of the development, I'm
concerned.
To the south of the development, actually Holly Creek comes quite close to the
boundary. There is a ridge that goes through the development here, so there is some
drainage into the Holly Creek watershed, here. So my concern is that there be some
mitigation measures along this edge of the development to prevent any drainage that
would come off the roves, the parking lots and roads that would go into Holly Creek at
this point. I want to make sure that the drainage goes over to the sedimentation pond.
Another concern that's come to mind is wildlife. Now, with this development you are
moving into wildlife habitat. There animals that live there now; deer, foxes, there's
raccoons, there's possums and so forth. If you're going to have rental housing units, I
expect, but I don't know, you're probably going to be relying on those dumpsters.
Chairperson Wilcox — Can I ask you to address the Board please?
Mr. Ingram — Well, we know from our work in the state parks and campgrounds that
raccoons love dumpsters. They come down and they do rather disgusting things there,
like licking the stuff that drips out of the bottom. I'm worried about attracting the wildlife
to the dumpsters. And the wildlife -human interaction in the area because of that. So that
is something that would have to be addressed. Now, I'm concerned that having the
rental units on this side of the highway, even though there is a buffer with the State
Park, it is a departure from the kind of land use that is going on there in terms of
residential land. Virtually everything else around there is single family homes, which,
think for issues like noise, and pets getting into the park and things like that; and traffic
levels, I think is as high a level of development that you want to have next to a park. It
would be ideal if you didn't have the single family homes. Perhaps, not even my own.
But, adding all these rental units is going to add more traffic, it's going to add more pets,
it's going add more noise.
I just thought about a place I used to live in the Town of Ithaca a number of years ago,
back in the mid - eighties, Commonland Community. Commonland Community is,
perhaps, a similar distance from Cornell. Commonland Community has, perhaps, a
similar layout of townhouse -like units, but Commonland Community did not fill up with
student housing. Why? People bought their units. People didn't rent them. I think that's
the big difference. There was a community association. This was a place where people
moved in. They may have only moved in for a few years because they were graduate
students or they were a single parents or whatever that needed a transition home or
something like that. These were mature people, perhaps, had beginning families, had
responsible positions, they were not in transition from adolescence. Because they
bought their units, they had affordable housing, but we were not dealing with the
problems of student rentals off campus.
My other points about traffic on Stone Quarry Road, I think you've all had a chance to
see. I'm particularly concerned about anything that's going to increase the traffic on
29
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Stone Quarry Road. It's dangerous to go out there. It's dangerous to pull out of your
driveway. It's dangerous to pull into your driveway. It's dangerous to get your mail.
Heaven help you if you've got kids because they can't go to the street, it's dangerous.
Don't walk your dog, it's dangerous. It's inevitable there will be more traffic going down
Stone Quarry Road, but if they're guys that are roaring on your tail and saying "why are
you stopping to go into your driveway ", it's a different quality than someone who says
"Oh, yeah you live there, I'll slow down."
That's all I got to say.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much.
Mary Lou Carlucci, 123 West King Road — My property directly boarders, I believe, the
proposed Lots 1 and 2 of Mr. Auble's plan. I can certainly appreciate this talk about the
buffers that he's creating or leaving and I'm not sure that I see anything in that plan for
leaving some type of a buffer along my property line. I would just wonder what the
thoughts were on that. I just moved into the area last September and part of the reason
I moved there was the access to the park land and the nature behind me. I hope that
you take that into consideration as well because I'd really like it to stay that way.
Chairperson Wilcox — Could you do me a favor? Is it possible for you to point to one of
the maps and show us where your lot is? Just to help me out.
Ms. Carlucci — Here's West King Road,
here, this is my property right here. So,
is Lot 2. According to my calculations,
from my lot.
proposed Lot 1 is right here, Lot 2 starts right
this boarder right here is on Lot 1 and right here
I think there's a proposed house about 100 feet
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Anybody else? Speak now.
Jennifer Terpening, 207 West King Road — I guess I have become confused here about
this old plan and new plan. I have a confusion here because I think that this old plan
and new plan is not accurate. I think part of this old plan now belongs to the state park.
think what we should be talking about is the proposal that Mr. Auble has which is this.
This is the old plan with changing the business districts and the multiple residences. I
believe the yellow is what he has for multiple residence now and everything else is
either Business C or D. Is that correct.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes.
Ms. Terpening — Why are we talking about the park land? Now it belongs to the park, it
has nothing to do with this new proposal he had.
Mr. Kanter — Can I say a word about the MR zoning on that map, since you referred to
it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes.
[ill,
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Mr. Kanter — Just to clarify. I ran some numbers and I did it through the MR portion as
well as the Business portions. That MR portion that's in the yellowish, tanish color there
is about two and a half (2'/2 ) acres and, under our current MR zone, theoretically, you
could actually end up with as many as, perhaps, twenty -nine (29) apartment units. Now,
likely, it would be difficult to lay them out on that particular shape parcel because it's not
a very good shape parcel. But strictly acreage wise and theoretical density with out MR
zone allowing up to about seventeen (17) units per acre, again theoretically, you could
get more than the twenty (20) units that Mr. Auble is proposing in the now proposed
MR, which is over here. I just thought that was an interesting number that the Board
was proposing. Again, it would be difficult to develop that tan area with twenty -nine (29)
apartment buildings, but it is adjacent to West King Road and it is a number. Since
we're throwing numbers around, I thought you should be aware of that one.
Board Member Mitrano — I'm glad you're bringing that up Jonathan because I think that
it's important, at least for me to clarify two categories of something that we have been
struggling with, with respect to this site plan for a couple of sessions now. On the one
hand, is it correct that, right now, and you use the word theoretically, it proposes greater
density than the proposal with which Mr. Auble is wiling to be consistent for a lesser
density. From a perspective of trying to have lower density, it's a better proposal.
Mr. Kanter — That's my opinion. The current zoning actually could allow a higher density
than the current proposal before us.
Board Member Mitrano — So, there's the question of the zoning. And then there is the
question of whether this site plan meets or does not meet the criteria as we must use in
order to make a decision about an approval for a site plan, as to whether it would be
consistent with the neighborhood and whether it would detrimental to it. John, if you
could read us those criteria again. That is a second category of something for us to look
at, that is in fact separate from zoning. It's not completely separate from zoning, but
zoning is it's own issue and has to be dealt with in it's own way.
Mr. Kanter — There are the environmental issues which we have already addressed.
That's something we might want to talk about more.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think we interrupted Ms. Terpening here.
Board Member Mitrano — I didn't mean to interrupt. I was hoping to clarify that the
zoning is looking better in terms of this, but that still doesn't address the question of the
consistency of the neighborhood and other things that I think you've been raising as
well.
Ms. Terpening — I guess the question that I have is, even if you could put, I mean,
you're saying lot wise, so many acres you can put a certain building there, but feasibly
could you do that with the water and sewer and building construction and the size of
units that you'd need to have and all that sort of thing on that parcel or are you just
31
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
talking about, well there's two acres there and you can do such and such with that
amount of acres?
Mr. Kanter — Well, when we're talking on the zoning level, we're just talking, again, I
mentioned the word "theoretical" and that's exactly what I'm talking about. I did not try to
lay out an apartment development on that site. I imagine it would be difficult, although it
would be possible and I can't tell you what number one would actually come out with
and how many stories it would have to be. Nonetheless, when we're looking at the
zoning changes, we need to clarify that we're not talking about increased densities with
the proposal. We're talking about shifts, basically, on the property of where the current
zoning is and, obviously, the proposed MR portion that's in the gray is a much more
usable, more logical place to have MR apartment development. It actually happens to
be, in my opinion, in a much better location on the site, not right adjacent to West King
Road, which is much more directly adjacent to single family homes. If you look at the
overall plan zoning and site development with the Business C zone remaining on Danby
Road, the MR zone in between and then the R -30, which actually is taking mostly
business zoning to a much lower density for five (5) single family homes, adjacent to the
State Park land, I think you've got, basically the ideal situation there, but that's my
opinion, that's all I can tell you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney, you look like you want to say something.
Mr. Barney — I think people probably ought to understand also that if it is not re -zoned
what you could put in as of right in a Business C zone. You start with anything that is
permitted in an A zone and in an A zone permits, as of right: business or professional
offices, bank or financial institution, bookstores, drugstores, hardware stores, smoke
shops, and utilities. You can also put anything that you can put in a B zone. B zones
permit, as of right : barbers, dry cleaning pick up stations, florists, beauty parlor, hand or
coin operated laundry, nursery, greenhouse, any other retail stores, except automobile
sales agencies, shoe shiner, shoe maker and repair, tailor, telegraph, and telephone
office. Then what you can permit, as of right in a C zone, on top of those is: building
supply, dry cleaners, dyer, electrical shop, heating shop, plumbing shop, printer,
appliance sales and services, arts and crafts studio, bicycle sale and repair, caterer,
confectioner, decorator, dress maker, furrier, optician, photographer, refrigeration sales
and repair, and upholsterer, and hotel or motel with thirty (30) sleeping rooms or less,
boat harbor or marina, and ambulance service. Those are as of right and then I can add
to that a number of uses that are permitted with a special approval and the test for
special approval is really whether they're going to do something that really, seriously
denigrates the neighborhood. I guess if I were living in that area, I would much rather
see a development where you are going to build five (5) single family houses, a fairly
well planned multiple and a great reduction of Business C, where all of these things can
come in. You can put up a fairly sizable shopping center there is you leave that all
Business C. So, I think that's why you're hearing from the staff, in spite of the concerns
that I think everybody has and we understand those concerns, but a feeling that this
proposal, compared to what was originally permitted there and compared to what is
even available today after you take away the land that you indicated that has gone to
E YA
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
the State, there still are some pretty dense and perhaps undesirable uses in what is a
residential area.
Board Member Mitrano — John, would it still be possible though, with all of those
permissible uses, in terms of zoning that a proposal comes forward that, for whatever
reason if the criteria that we must follow since we are not a zoning board, but a planning
board, that we would still reject it on the basis of that criteria, having no particular truck
with the zoning question?
Mr. Barney — No. You have some limits. You can't say to somebody, if it is zoned to
have, let's say for example and electrical shop, and they come in with an electrical shop
and the concern is that an electric shop will have shop and odors and noise , something
like that, that's not a basis for denying it. That's by right. We've already made the
determination, not we, but the Town Board has made the determination that that's an
acceptable use in this area and is permitted. The only kinds of things you really could
deny it on, I suspect, would be very major environmental things that aren't really tied to
these specific uses, but maybe a gross increase in traffic. Even that's difficult if the
items proposed is one of these items because then there's implicitly a finding that the
traffic generated by that is acceptable to the Town Board.
Board Member Mitrano — So the zoning does have an impact on how we must view the
criteria.
Mr. Barney —Absolutely.
Board Member Mitrano — That's what I needed to know.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you John. Would you like to add something.
Mr. Kanter — I can add later. Since we were talking about it, I had some numbers on the
commercial development as well, if you'd like to hear that now.
Chairperson Wilcox — Go ahead.
Mr. Kanter — Thank you. About thirteen point three (13.3) acres of Business zone
currently using the permitted thirty (30) percent building coverage that's in the zoning, I
assumed only a one -story commercial building, a shopping center, for instance. You
probably could get a second floor and then double the floor area, but I used a one -story
building with 30 percent coverage, resulted in 170,000 square feet. Then I looked that
up in the Trip Generation Report and, to my astonishment, the traffic resulting from
170,000 square foot shopping center would generate virtually an equal amount to the
daily traffic that is now on Danby Road, over 9,000 additional vehicles per day. So, if
you're talking traffic impact, you ain't seen nothing until you develop this 170,000 square
foot shopping center that could be built there. The types of numbers we're talking about
with the five (5) single - family lots and the twenty (20) apartments units pales in
comparison to the type of traffic that you'd be talking about with this level of commercial
33
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
development. That's a pretty conservative number. Whether somebody could actually
build, in today's market that big of a shopping center there, who knows. But, just from a
zoning perspective that's the kind of comparison that you have to make.
Ms. Terpening — I have a question on single - family housing. I guess I look at single -
family housing as a single - family, but I don't believe that that is what a single - family
housing is according to the planners. Is that correct? Single- family housing, could that
be a single - family house with apartments?
Mr. Barney —Yes.
Ms. Terpening — Is it a duplex.
Mr. Barney — No, it cannot be a duplex, but it can be a single family house with an
apartment in it that is less than fifty (50) percent in area of the larger house. If it's up and
down, it can be the entire size of the main unit if it's in the lower level. You can have,
technically, up to two (2) families or two (2) family dwellings where it shows the so-
called single - family language that we are talking about.
Ms. Terpening — So, these single - family houses could become multi - family?
Mr. Barney — Not multi - family, our definitions is three (3) or more. It can only become a
two - family.
Ms. Terpening — Okay two - family house with , I have no idea how many bedrooms can
have. I guess my question is, could these single - family homes become more apartment
units?
Mr. Barney — Well, there's nothing in our ordinance that prohibits you from renting out
your entire house, or if you have an apartment, renting out your house, plus the
apartment and there's nothing in this circumstance that would prevent that from
happening either. But, you've got to look at kind of what the market is and the way that
it's defined, it encourages, what we call subsidiary apartments because the Town didn't
want to prevent somebody from having an apartment to have the child or mother or
grandparent from living in. So, we've allow the apartments, the subsidiary apartments,
but it has to be constructed in a way that's truly a subsidiary apartment .
Ms. Terpening — My other question is the area that's going to be single - family. If the
multi - family is built and it comes to the point where people really don't want to buy these
single - family because of whoever the tenants might be, is there a possibility that
someone could comeback and say that this is not working I've got four (4) acres here,
I've got four (4) acres on the other side and I develop this twenty (20) unit apartment
complex, can I do that where a single - family used to be?
Mr. Barney — The zoning law doesn't come from mount whatever it is on a tablet of
stone, it can be changed, there's no question about that.
011
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Ms. Terpening — What stops this from being changed in three (3) or four (4) years to
another huge complex?
Board Member Mitrano — They need to come back before us.
Mr. Barney — They come back before us and before the Town Board and I think the
Town Board listens to what people have to say. I think in this situation, I can't speak for
the Town Board, but I think they feel that this is, in effect, a down zoning. This is
reducing the intensity of the use of that property up there and that's why I think that
they'd be looking at it reasonably favorably. What you're suggesting would be
increasing the density and the use and that, typically, is a harder case to make. That's
not to say it couldn't be made.
Board Member Hoffmann — I think if I could add something to that. It may not be as
likely to happen in this particular location as in other ones because it's adjacent to the
Park. I think that we have all looked very favorably on the fact that Mr. Auble has sold a
lot of the land already to the Park and we have looked favorably on this strip of land,
which is closest to the Park being less densely developed and having buffers along the
western edge. So, I think if someone were to come back and want to have more dense
development there, it might be a different Board sitting here at that time, but if people
are reminded of the history and reminded of the fact that the Park is there, I think that
even another Board might not be as inclined to approve that.
Chairperson Wilcox — Or recommend it to the Town Board.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes.
Ms. Terpening _ well, as someone who lives near to the students and hears them all
day all night, I guess I `d rather have a laundromat up there than housing. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — The lady in front.
Pat Fain, 133 West King Road — I've been listening very intent. I'd just like to say that
this is nothing personal, as you know, to Mr. Auble and as he referred to it before and
the last meeting that he developed Chase Farm. I think most of us living so close to this
area would love it if Holly Creek was being developed like Chase Farms and like the
houses there and there weren't going to be apartments and townhouses there. I know
it's his land and that he has the right to develop it, but we also own there and we, as a
community do not want to see a change in our neighborhood. I know you can't stop
development and you can't stop change, but we've invested a lot of time in it and we're
close to the Park. All of our neighbors and everybody on Stone Quarry has chosen to
keep up their homes and live there because of the proximity to the Park and because so
much of the apartments and most of the commercial has stayed up on Danby Road. Up
on East King Road, they seem to have developed that whole area up there with the
single homes, not as many apartments. Chase Pond has just finished being developed,
K
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
I talked to one of the developers up there across from Chase Farm, all the lots there
have sold, the houses are selling for over $200,000. 1 think it would be very nice if Mr.
Auble could consider the one road that comes in there and the cul -de -sac, to put homes
in there and to sell it to improve and keep the value of our neighborhood up and not
have apartments behind us with the noise and concern that we will have from it. Also,
my other concern, which it isn't in the plan now, but we looked back into the minutes of
last week, Business C isn't being developed in the main road up by Danby, but in my
reading that, he could also put a small business and also put in apartment units there
together with it because it says that's what the Comprehensive plan is from what I read
in the minutes of last time's meeting. So there's a chance that he could expand more up
on Danby Road with more apartments, with a business. I personally, don't want it, I wish
there was neither one, but I know that my husband feels that he's rather have a
laundromat, like Jennifer said or a small strip mall than having apartments behind us. At
least at nine (9) or ten (10) o'clock they go home and it should be closer to the main
road and you don't have the traffic and it shouldn't decrease the value of ours with more
rental units. Our is mostly owner - occupied homes.
I appreciate your time for listening to us and I pray that you would consider, those that
are home owners, I'm sure understand that is this was in your backyard, how would you
want this dealt with?
Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — I believe she misspoke when she said that apartment units would
be allowed in a Business C. I believe Business C does not allow any residential units.
Mr. Barney —Today.
Chairperson Wilcox — Today, yes.
Mr. Barney — Yes, but I guess in fairness to her, the new Zoning Ordinance, that is
proposed does permit mixed use.
Ms. Fain — In the minutes, on page thirty -four (34), last time. "The ordinance has been
thinking a lot about the idea of mixed use, in fact mixed use development is part of the
new Zoning Ordinance proposal where you could have apartments mixed, actually, with
a commercial development."
Mr. Barney — That's right. I'm not currently in the Zoning Ordinance, but the new
Ordinance is considering it —
Ms. Fain — (inaudible speaking away from the microphone)
Mr. Barney — You're absolutely right.
Chairperson Wilcox — The lady in red, I think had her hand up.
00
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Dawn Auble, (no address given /found)- I'm David's sister and I'm not going to talk about
the apartments themselves, but I just wanted to mention that I'm from Ithaca, as is
David. I can't think of anybody who would rather Ithaca stay as it was than myself. I've
been here my whole life. Ithaca was really small when I was growing up. We grew up on
Green Street. There were twelve (12) kids in my family. Green was a two way street
with great big trees. It was a beautiful street. Now it's a bulging city with lots of people,
lots of traffic. I live on South Hill and there are, in my back yard, I'm below Coddington
Road, I have skunks, deer, woodchucks, rabbits, besides birds and squirrels because
they've been kind of pushed up that way from the little woods behind South Hill School
that has been mowed down for a ball field and parking lots. So, that's growth. People
come to Ithaca to school or to work at Cornell or Ithaca College and they stay because
they love it here because it's beautiful. I understand that and I don't resent it. I love the
students who come, I enjoy them. I understand that we have to tolerate that. It's always
bothered me when people have fought against stores like Wal -Mart or the new book
stores or whatever because it's a part of the growth, we have to grow. I just wanted to
say that. Naturally, I want to see my brother succeed, but, at the same time, I guess I
accepted the fact that things changed a long time ago.
Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Anybody else.
I have a couple of comments, if I may. I've been pretty silent so far. There's been a lot
of discussion having to do with rental units and noise and parties and everything that
presumably comes with rental units. I live in an apartment complex with 180 units, 300
beds. The noise that I suffer from are the birds or the kids playing outside or the parents
calling the kids in for dinner. The apartment complex I'm in was not designed for
students, it was designed for maybe graduate students, maybe retired people, maybe
young professionals, but not for students and we don't have a noise problem. We don't
have a late night people getting drunk problem, like we might have at College Circle in
the past or, having lived on South Hill for nineteen (19) years on Pennsylvania and
Kendall, which has always been a bit of a problem. So the argument that it's rental,
therefore it's going to be noisy and therefore there's going to be trash and therefore
there's going to be problems doesn't sit well with me. Especially considering the design
of these would seem to be — the design of these apartments is one that I can't see two
or three students loading up into. You may have a graduate student in there or two (2).
You may have a young married couple. You may have a retired couple, but it just
doesn't strike me as they're going to have three (3) or four (4) students trying to fill
these things. They have other alternative, whether it's College Circle, if they're going to
live on the campus, if you will; or other units which either exist on South Hill or are being
built right now.
That's what I have to say.
Comments anybody?
Board Member Hoffmann — I need some clarification about the parking spaces because
I understand that the garages have been changed to be one -car, instead of two -car
garages. Then I understand that, in the space where the second car would have been in
the garage, there will be a parking space. That adds up to forty (40) spaces. I think it
ON
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
said that there would be — there's something about there being more spaces and I don't
understand where they would be. It could be that I am confused.
(inaudible speaking from the audience)
Mr. Wood — We're just trying to meet the parking requirement, the minimum parking
requirement basically, which again, we feel will discourage students because we are not
really creating a lot of parking area there. So, we're really trying to create the minimum
parking need. So, we have a garage and then a additional parking space, so if it's a
couple and they each have a car. We have room, the footprint of the building from our
original submission is about nine (9) feet less in depth. So, we have room to move the
units back to create a little more area for the parking in front because I think there was a
little concern about infringing on the fifty (50) foot setback from the Planner. So, does
that explain parking?
Board Member Hoffmann — Not really. The drawing that I have is very small. Where
would those additional parking spaces be? They are not shown here, so that's why it's
hard to tell.
Mr. Wood — Let me see.
Board Member Hoffmann - Right, and that I see on the smaller drawing too, but there
aren't any parking spaces indicated, so that's what I didn't understand where they would
be. I can see where the parking space would be next to the building, but not in the
larger, gravel parking areas to make up for the spaces needed. Is that something you're
going to bring in the next time?
Mr. Auble - What I was hoping and in talking to Gary and Jon, we have room to adjust
and meet the Town requirements and if we could get the preliminary site plan approval
contingent upon the Town Planner's approval of parking spaces. That would let us start
and proceed. We feel we have the space and it's just a matter of doing it in a tasteful
way and trying to put some landscaping in front of the units and then the parking in front
of some shrubbery there.
Chairperson Wilcox — If I may, Mr. Wood stated at the beginning of the meeting that
they would move the parking out of the front yard or sufficiently away from the lot line to
meet the fifty (50) foot setback requirement.
Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but that's what was not clear to me, that's why I
needed a clarification.
Chairperson Wilcox — And a quick review of the zoning here, at least as written up by
Jon, says they would need twenty -seven (27) parking spaces.
Mr. Kanter — Right.
U -01
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Chairperson Wilcox — One for the twenty (20), plus a third for each of the twenty (20).
So, twenty -seven (27) parking spaces would be required under zoning.
Mr. Kanter — that would be the minimum required.
Now, if you recall on the earlier site plan that we had from the last meeting, there
actually were, they looked like, long or planting islands coming into the parking area in
front of each garage. When the second garage space was deleted, it kind of became
just a big gravel area, an undefined gravel area in front of the garage and I would kind
of prefer seeing it back to the original way somewhat with landscaped islands kind of
coming into the gravel area so that it wouldn't be one massive gravel area. That would
also help to define the number of parking spaces too.
Mr. Wood — Which is fine with us. The reason that we reduced the garages is because,
architecturally, they were, first of all, they didn't look as good and number two, they
blocked off light into the front of the unit. So, we feel like we were doing something that
was positive in that regard from the standpoint of it being more architecturally tastefully
done unit. Also create more light for the tenants.
Board Member Hoffmann — I agree it's better to have a smaller garage for appearance
sake and also if the tenants don't have more than one car, they don't need that space
maybe too. But I would also like to see a little bit more defined in a drawing how this
gravel parking area and turn around area would work. How would people back up and
turn around and get out on the road?
Mr. Wood — Remember now, we're not on a major street. We're on a cul -de -sac street
and so, I think someone can swing out of that driveway back and then on out again.
That makes a little more gravel driveway than I would like to see personally.
Mr. Kanter — What I think a revised site plan could show would be basically, the
equivalent of a parking space dimension. Normally, you would see a striped area on a
paved parking lot to show the equivalent area of 180 square feet that is required in our
zoning as a parking space in front of the unit and that could actually just be laid out on
the site plan.
Board Member Hoffmann — Right, that would help.
Mr. Kanter — Even though we know it wouldn't be actually painted on the gravel, but it
would help to illustrate it.
Board Member Hoffmann — Also because the layout of the gravel drive looks a little
different from what we mostly see. I'm a grandmother to three (3) little children and I
know that a lot of accidents happen in driveways and so I'm concerned about the layout
of this from a safety point of view too. Not necessarily that there will be little children
living in these units, but in the one family houses and little children go sometimes where
they're not supposed to go. That's why I would like to see that developed a little more,
44;:
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
so we can see that it's safe and that it makes efficient use of the space and that there
isn't more driveway than necessary and all those things.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think that's just part of going from, and I don't know where the
Board's going tonight yet, but assuming that if we get through preliminary, when we go
to final then we get more detailed drawings.
Mr. Wood — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — You all set? Anybody else.
Board Member Mitrano — John, could you read the criteria again? Not the zoning, our
criteria.
Mr. Barney — Recommendation criteria or the site plan criteria? Your recommendation
to the Town Board, your criteria are, and this would be on the re- zoning: if there's a
need from the proposed use at the proposed location; the existing and probable future
character of the neighborhood in which the use would be located would not be
adversely affected; the proposed change or use is important to the Comprehensive Plan
and development of the Town. That's the criteria for recommendation to the Board for
zoning.
Site plan approval is 46 d. general considerations: 1. Adequacy, arrangement, and
location of vehicular access and circulation, including intersection, road widths,
pavement surfaces, off - street parking and loading areas, and traffic controls. 2.
Adequacy, arrangements, and location of pedestrian and bicycle traffic access and
circulation, control of intersections with vehicular traffic, and appropriate provisions for
handicapped persons. 3. Adequacy, location, arrangement, size, design, and outdoor
waste disposal facilities. 4. Adequacy, type, and arrangements of trees, shrubs and
other landscaping constituting a visual and /or noise - deterring buffer between the
applicant's and adjoining lands, including the retention of existing vegetation of value to
the maximum extent possible. 5. In the case of a residential property, and in the case of
other properties where appropriate, the adequacy and utility of open space for
playgrounds and for informal recreation. 6. Protection of adjacent properties and the
general public against noise, glare, unsightliness, or other objectionable features. 7.
Adequacy of storm water, drainage, water supply, and sewage disposal facilities. 8.
Adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency provisions. 9. The effect of the proposed
development on environmentally sensitive areas including but not limited to wetlands,
floodplains, woodlands, steep slopes, and water courses, and on other open space
areas of importance to the neighborhood or community. 10. Compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance, subdivision regulations, if applicable, and any other applicable laws,
rules, requirements, or policies.
Board Member Mitrano — Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — All set? Jon, you've said everything you need to say? Comment?
There being none the Chair will move for preliminary site plan approval, preliminary
H(
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
subdivisions approval are recommendation to the Town Board. Do I have a second?
Seconded by Rod Howe. Mr. Barney, are you reading? I am reminded of the late Mr.
Kennerson and thought about having somebody read this.
Board Member Mitrano — No way.
Mr. Barney — I think we want to deal with the issue of the site plan.
Chairperson Wilcox — With regard to the parking?
Mr. Barney — Yeah and I was trying to figure out where we wanted to put that.
Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on, we're going to change tapes.
Mr. Kanter — Question for the Chair. I had a number of things that I wanted to mention to
the Board in terms of the draft resolution, some things to consider, but I'd say that we
might want to get a sense of where this is going to go before we get into a lot of the
detail of it. So, you might want to get a consensus of the Board of see what type of vote
you'd be looking at informally before we go into more details to save time. I'd have to go
through all the little things that I have as comments and suggestions only to find out that
we're not going to be voting on the resolution is what I'm saying.
Chairperson Wilcox — You all set John.
Mr. Barney — Yes. Actually, Jon has got it sort of covered in his subdivision "c" under the
site plan, although we might want to be a little more — I think, unless we want it to be
made to Town specification, then we want to show it located — maybe " layout of parking
areas to include specific layout of required parking spaces."
Board Member Mitrano — Could I make a comment before we vote?
Chairperson Wilcox — Sure.
Board Member Mitrano — I'd like to comment that, based on the comments that the
public has raised, were I able to find criteria by which I could vote against this such that
it would not have multiple residence, otherwise I think it's a lovely plan, I would have,
but I don't and I've always promised myself that I would not unless I could find criteria.
So, I will be voting for it.
Board Member Hoffmann — I will too. But there are still some things that I would like to
see modified. There are details for me too. For instance, I think, if the parking areas for
apartment units were modified, it would be possible to have more landscaping, which
would make the project more attractive and more likely to attract the people that you
want, rather than students. I think you should put a lot of effort into doing that. I would
like to see, next time, what you are proposing to do. Especially in connection with,
maybe, re- shaping the parking areas.
M
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Mr. Kanter — Yeah, like we were talking about, with some landscaped aisles or
something like that.
Chairperson Wilcox — Alright, Mr. Kanter, hurry up and raise you points.
Mr. Kanter — Okay. Did you say hurry up and raise my points or did you say raise my
points? I wasn't sure what I heard.
Chairperson Wilcox — We only have about 35 minutes.
Mr. Kanter — I don't think I have that much. On page three (3), this is in the preliminary
subdivision approval section. "Submission of draft easement language providing access
and use for all residents.." and then in my italics I had "in the subdivision or just on Lots
6 and 7 ?" This refers to —
Chairperson Wilcox — The play area.
Mr. Kanter — Right. The original plan by the applicant was to have the play area and the
exercise trail open to all residents of the subdivision, including the single - family lots and
I think I had most recently heard from them that they were no longer considering that
and I just wanted to get that clarified on the applicant's part and on the Board's part and
whether the two (2) would be in agreement. I think the intent originally was to provide
access to those facilities for Lots 1 through 5 as well. So, if that's going to be something
different, then we should at least agree that that's no longer the case.
Is that a correct representation?
Mr. Auble — Was the question will we be allowing Lots 1 through 6.
Mr. Kanter — 1 through 5.
Mr. Auble — Lots 1 through 5 access to the playground?
Mr. Kanter —Yes.
Mr. Auble — We would allow that.
Board Member Hoffmann — And the exercise trail as well?
Mr. Auble — Yes.
Mr. Wood — So we'll strike what you have in brackets there, is that right?
Board Member Hoffmann — No, not the whole thing.
Mr. Kanter — For all residents in the subdivision.
151 VA
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Board Member Hoffmann — Just strike out "... or just on Lots 6 and 7."
Mr. Kanter — Yeah. Good. I might want to come back to "d ", but I'm not sure, let me just
think about that while I go on. "d" had to do with the pedestrian easement and
pedestrian access.
Okay part "j" on page four (4) says "completion of the road and required utilizes
etcetera, prior to the issuance of any building permits." Normally that would be a
requirement, unless some kind of an other guarantee were submitted by the applicant.
A letter of credit, an escrow deposit, something that would ensure the actual completion
of the road and utilizes. I think that has to be actually specified by the Planning Board, if
that were going to be the case. I'm raising that as a question, if that was something that
the Board wanted to do, we could insert some additional wording in there. Again, the
normal requirement would be to complete the road and utilities.
Mr. Barney — Well, actually sometimes we almost prefer that the road not be completed
if they're going to do a lot of heavy construction because you're just going to rip it up
and have to repair it. So, it may very well be that you ought have in here some
provision allowing construction and building permits to be issued prior to the road being
completed, particularly the finishing surfaces being put on the roads.
Mr. Kanter — So, should we suggest a letter of credit or some other guarantee to ensure
completion?
Chairperson Wilcox — So, the issue is, is that if you finish the road before you begin
construction, then what happens is you're running those big dump trucks and other —
Mr. Barney — You're running all you construction. As, a town, I'd rather get a road after
the building were constructed and the top coats put on and it's finished.
So, I think that we could add, after 7, unless — and I think you're right under our Zoning
Ordinance it sets the amount.
Mr. Kanter — It's the Town Engineer, upon approval by the Town Board, I believe is the
way it works.
Mr. Barney — Why don't we just simply say, "unless a bond or other security,
satisfactory to the Town Attorney is provided.." or something like that.
Chairperson Wilcox — Keep going Jonathan, you're doing fine.
Mr. Kanter — Page six (6), now we're into the site plan details. Condition "e ", that's
where we're talking about the final landscaping plan. This is where we're saying that we
would like the addition of a berm or fence, mature evergreens and other appropriate
planting on the northern end of Lot 7 to establish a buffer and we had talked about this
at the last meeting. More specifically, the Board's thoughts about whether a fence
actually would be a better approach to creating a more substantial buffer. We might
M]
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
want to just through that around a little bit or give the applicant some direction as to
where that would go.
Chairperson Wilcox — The Board, at the meeting before, expressed concern where the
MR zone, if re -zoned would butt -up against the single family lots that are there. Any
combination of berms, I shouldn't say any combination, a good combination of either
berms, evergreen trees or other potentially deciduous trees. Fencing is a visual barrier.
Mr. Howe — Does the adjacent property owner get to give some other there ideas in this
kind of situation.
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Auble has talked to the adjacent property owner in the past.
Mr. Auble — Actually, we have discussed the price of the property and I intend to offer
something in the proximity of that price and it looks very likely that I'll be purchasing the
property.
Chairperson Wilcox — You would still be required to put that buffer zone in, even if you
owned it because you've got a change in zoning there.
Mr. Auble — The zoning is commercial.
Chairperson Wilcox — That's right, this is the single - family lot in the business district.
Mr. Kanter — Presumably that commercial lot could be joined to — but yet, if that were to
be developed commercial, I think you'd still want a buffer from whatever commercial
development there was between the apartments as well. The buffer for the apartments
is really supposed to work both ways, depending on what the uses are. Maybe in that
case, a fence isn't that important, but other landscaping is.
Chairperson Wilcox — We prefer landscaping over fence.
Board Member Mitrano — Do these landscaping considerations address the concerns
that this speaker had with respect to her property and what will be done?
Mr. Kanter — That was a different property and that one is adjacent to a single family lot.
This part is dealing with the site plan approval for Lots 6 and 7, not with Lots1 through 5.
Board Member Mitrano — Then I'll be less artful with my question.
Mr. Kanter — If you thought something additionally was necessary, we could address it.
Again, those are single family lots and —
Board Member Mitrano — So, traditionally that's left up to whomever would purchase it
to take care of that problem?
11
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Mr. Kanter — Well, the setbacks, the rear and side yard setbacks would control how
closely the building are.
Mr. Barney — We don't normally require buffers between two (2) adjacent singe - family,
we keep using that term single - family, R -30 and R -15 Lots.
Board Member Mitrano — On the assumption that a R -30 is going to put in their own.
Mr. Barney — Some people don't want buffers. They may want to run their lawn right up
to the edge of the property. The purpose of a buffer is really between two different uses
and to buffer a more objectionable use from a residential use.
Board Member Mitrano — I see. So long as she knows that then.
Board Member Hoffmann — In some ways, I'm not crazy about berms everywhere as
buffers because what you do is you put in a big pile of dirt, which slopes in both
directions from the highest point and then you put plants on it. I think sometimes you
can do more interesting things with the plantings if you have a fence as a background
against the planting and level ground.
A berm is a pile of soil.
Mr. Auble — It creates runoff problems.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, exactly and it might block a natural drainage. So, I'm
not so sure that berms are always the right thing. You can get a fence to be a little bit
higher.
Chairperson Wilcox — A nice wooden fence with evergreens in front of it.
Board Member Hoffmann — With plants next to it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I won't say evergreens, but plants.
Board Member Hoffmann — But the fence is there, it keeps animals away getting
through.
Mr. Kanter — Should I go to the next one? In 'T', I just wanted to make sure that we said
something about the basements, since we talked about it in terms of the final detailed
building elevations and floor plans. Something saying that, if any basements are
included they would be only for use as common storage or however it was that it was
described.
Chairperson Wilcox — Use as common storage with —
Mr. Kanter — For the tenants.
mi
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Chairperson Wilcox — With access only from the outside. The key point to me was that
you couldn't get to the basement from inside the apartment.
Board Member Hoffmann — And we would want to see the plans for where the
basement would be.
Mr. Kanter — That's why we said on submission of the final detailed floor plans and
elevations. Okay, on to page seven (7). Condition "I" is where we're talking about the
grading and drainage plan, so maybe Creig has some — we sort of weren't too exact on
the wording that we would use here, but this talks about modifying the design of the
outlet trench.
Mr. Hebdon — Did Dan go over that at all what the need was?
Mr. Kanter — Yeah, I think we talked about it at the last meeting.
Chairperson Wilcox — It had to do with the number of pipes.
Mr. Hebdon — Yeah, Dan and I reviewed the plans on the outlet at three (3), ten (10)
inch pipes in a row. What we're looking more for is to have the outlet trench actually fill
up with water and then the whole side go over so you can keep a sheet flow. We're
more worried that you're going to end up with a point flow at each one of those pipes,
especially the first one until you get to a certain height. Also some type of an armored
thing there and bury it so that it would fill up as a trench and go over as a full sheet so
you wouldn't end up with those point flows down through there. We have a sheet flow
now and we want to keep it as a sheet flow when you get finished with it.
I guess "Modifications to the final site plan for the flow off the northwesterly edge of the
property, pursuant to the Director of Engineering's approval." Or something.
Chairperson Wilcox — If you're comfortable with that, then that's fine with me.
Mr. Kanter — I guess we could insert exactly what it was we were thinking about having
the modification.
Chairperson Wilcox — Can we take it right out of Dan's memo?
Mr. Kanter — If we can find it.
Mr. Hebdon — I'd like to Gary as much leeway to accomplish what we want. I don't want
to tell him how to design it.
Chairperson Wilcox — It's actually Creig's memo. I have it right here.
Mr. Hebdon — "Revise the ditch on the northwesterly section to encourage sheet flow
through an armored trench, rather than point flow through pipes."
U0
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Mr. Barney — A what kind of trench?
Mr. Hebdon —Armored.
Ms. Ritter — It's not just soil, so it won't erode.
Mr. Hebdon — That's why it has to be appropriate for the Town Engineer to review those
plans.
Chairperson Wilcox — Pursuant to the recommendations of the Town Engineer or the
Assistant Town Engineer.
Mr. Barney — Jon and I were discussing whether this requirement of security should be
a subdivision condition or a site plan condition.
Chairperson Wilcox — With regard to the road?
Mr. Barney — I guess I'm finding I'd be a little more comfortable with the word "site plan
condition ". I think we could just move it.
Mr. Kanter — The only question I have with that is that normally when there's a site plan,
we're not taking dedication of a public road, although we may take public utilities.
Mr. Barney — My concern is that we clearly have authority under Section 46 to require
the bond for security when you're approving the site plan. I'm not finding it in my book
on subdivision regulations.
Chairperson Wilcox — So, therefore putting it under site plan. Putting it under the site
plan section —
Mr. Barney — At least in this instance, I don't think it makes any great deal of difference.
It's just so the Town has a better leg -up if Mr. Auble chooses to give us an argument
over it.
Mr. Kanter — So move "j" under subdivision.
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Kanter, are we all set.
Mr. Kanter — Let's see, we've got under "m" as in Michael, this thing about the refuse
disposal areas. We started talking about that a little bit. This is the normal requirement
of the MR zone, to have an appropriately screened area, normally to the rear of the
building or use refuse disposal areas. The only question is, with this kind of
development with individual garages and the townhouse style of development, I'm not
so sure that we necessarily even want a common trash area. I could probably create
more problems than we'd be solving. So, I think it would be up to the Board to consider
can this be done waiving that requirement or would that require going to some other
M
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Board to do that. I think the Planning Board has discretion to modify that kind of
requirement.
Mr. Barney — Where is it required?
Mr. Kanter - It's in the MR zoning language.
Board Member Hoffmann — You haven't talked about how you are planning to take care
of trash disposal.
Mr. Auble — What I was hoping for is that we would treat is the way it would be with a
single - family house. They have their own recycling responsibilities and I would be
checking it.
Chairperson Wilcox — There would be twenty (20) pick up points?
Mr. Auble — Well, I have to discuss that. I don't know how the refuse companies
operate. But I'd prefer that over the big dumpster operation, personally. I don't like the
idea and Tony Ingram doesn't like it. I doesn't sound like it has to be that way.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, they usually are very ugly. Apparently, even if you try
to screen them, you can only screen on three sides and the fourth side has to be a big
opening so that the trucks can come. You see these big garbage cans in there and it is
not very attractive.
Mr. Auble — What happens when you have dumpsters, other people use it and you have
to police it.
Mr. Barney — So where are people going to put their garbage?
Board Member Mitrano — Out front.
Mr. Barney — Well, obviously when it's going to get picked up, but inside the garage?
Mr. Auble — There are a lot of bin systems for recycling and then trash.
Mr. Barney — So, between the time each week or every other week when it's being
picked up where is it going to stay?
Mr. Auble — I think the garage is the best place.
Mr. Barney — Inside the building?
Mr. Auble — Yes.
H
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Mr. Barney — I think we could probably live with that. The section reads that no waste or
refuse shall be placed outside any building in a multiple residence district, except under
the following conditions. And it spells out an area common to all building, so on and so
forth. So, if you just want to rest upon the requirement that no waste of refuse shall be
placed outside and building, period. You can stop there and you don't have to worry
about the exceptions.
Mr. Kanter — So, can we actually say that as a condition.
Board Member Hoffmann — Sometimes I have seen places where there is a little door in
the wall in the garage, just big enough for a garbage can and you can open it and throw
the stuff in or the recycling bin and close it and it looks neat and tidy.
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Kanter, are we all set?
Mr. Kanter — There was one additional question that came up regarding phasing of the
construction and, especially, relating to the play area that's shown on Lot 6 and when
Lot 6 and the play area will actually be built and whether that even matters. But since
there is only one play area, if Lot 7 were the first to develop, the play area wouldn't be
there initially. So, I think we want to maybe get some kind of direct statement before
final site plan approval, at least of what the phasing plan will be.
Chairperson Wilcox — Because we would like to see the play area there when the first
local residence units are occupied. Absolutely.
Mr. Kanter — I hadn't even addressed that before as a condition, but it was something
that I was thinking about.
Chairperson Wilcox — How would you phrase that?
Mr. Barney — Well, the problem is that the play area is really at the back of the —
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes it is.
Mr. Barney — The question is, I don't know if, in terms of what the construction is,
whether it makes sense to build the play area when you're building the apartments,
before you're even building the apartments on Lot 6.
Chairperson Wilcox — Well, what I'm saying is, the applicant will present the phasing
and then, they'll justify — He knows what we want.
Mr. Barney — Okay, make it a condition of final approval that the phasing of construction
of the play area be provided as part of the final subdivision approval, the final site plan
approval.
%
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Chairperson Wilcox — We don't want to see Lot 7 built now and then Lot 6 not be built
for two (2) or three (3) years and then not have that play area be available.
Mr. Barney — Well, what you might want to suggest is that an alternative play area.
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Auble knows what we want, we'll let him bring us something
that we think will be reasonable. Some sort of a play area should exist when the first
multiple residence areas are occupied.
Mr. Kanter — Is there any thought that Lot 6 may actually be built before Lot 7 for the
apartments?
Mr. Auble — No. We haven't had contractors give us feedback on this yet. That does
create a problem for us. If that's the last place to be built and then winter comes in and
delays construction for some reason and we have to have a playground built before the
others can be occupied.
Mr. Barney — I think you can figure out some place to put a temporary play area, in the
event that that doesn't get built. So basically, some play area will be provided at some
location.
Chairperson Wilcox — In terms of mulch and basic equipment.
Mr. Kanter — So, we could add something in "a temporary play area.."
Mr. Barney — I think I like the language that you suggested. "The applicant provide a
phasing schedule to make a play area available by the time the first multiple residence
is occupied."
Mr. Kanter — Okay, that's all I think I had for now.
Chairperson Wilcox — Every time you've suggested a change, I've looked over at Rod
and he has agreed to the change, as have I. We've only got eleven (11) minutes.
Are we all set? I have a Motion, I have a second. Any further discussion? All those in
favor, raise your hand. I have one (1), two (2), three (3), four (4). All those opposed? I
have one (1) opposed. There are no abstentions. The Motion is passed four (4) in favor,
one (1) against.
Thank you all very much.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -036: Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Preliminary
Subdivision Approval, and Recommendation to Town Board Regarding Rezoning,
Holly Creek Subdivision, Danby Road and West King Road
MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe.
6.0
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
WHEREAS:
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering Preliminary Subdivision
Approval, Preliminary Site Plan Approval, and a recommendation to the Town
Board regarding the proposed Zoning Change for the proposed 8 -lot subdivision
and associated development located at the intersection of West King Road and
Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 37 -1 -17.1 and 37 -1 -18, Multiple
Residence and Business Districts "C" and "D ". The proposal is to subdivide the
15 +/- acre parcel into 5 lots for single - family residences (to be zoned R -30
Residence), two lots totaling 4.63 +/- acres for 20 apartment units in four
buildings (to be zoned Multiple Residence), and reserve the remaining 5.0 +/-
acre lot along Danby Road for future commercial development (to be zoned
Business "C" in its entirety). David C. Auble, Owner /Applicant; Gary L. Wood,
P. E. and Brian M. Klumpp, L. S., Agents, and
2. The Town of Ithaca Town Board, in a resolution dated December 9, 2002, has
referred the petition to rezone the above - referenced parcels to the Planning
Board for a recommendation, and
3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, in a letter dated December 23, 2002, has
circulated a notice of intent to serve as lead agency to involved and interested
agencies regarding the environmental review of the proposed rezoning, Site Plan
and Subdivision Approval for the proposed Holly Creek Subdivision and Site
Development, 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
5. The Planning Board, at a meeting held on May 6, 2003, 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 Engineer's Report —
Holly Creek Subdivision (March 14, 2003), Preliminary Drainage Study — Holly
Creek Subdivision (March 18, 2003), and Supplemental Engineer's Report —
Holly Creek Subdivision (April 4, 2003), all of which are incorporated into the
EAF, 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
51
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
7. Based on the above, the Planning Board, at its May 6, 2003 meeting, issued a
negative determination of environmental significance with regard to the proposed
rezoning, Site Plan Approval and Subdivision Approval, and
8. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 6, 2003, and at a
subsequent meeting on May 20, 2003, has in addition to the above - referenced
materials, reviewed and accepted as adequate preliminary plans for the Holly
Creek Subdivision, entitled "Site Plan," "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,
"Grading and Drainage Plan, " "Site Utilities, " and "Profiles, " all prepared by Gary
L. Wood, P.E. and Reagan Land Surveying and dated March 14, 2003 (revised
April 2, 2003), "Survey Map Showing Proposed Rezoning, Holly Creek
Subdivision, " prepared by Reagan Land Surveying, dated May 2, 2003, revised
building floor plans, originally received May 8, 2003 (enlarged versions received
May 14, 2003), and revised building elevation drawings, received May 12, 2003,
said elevations and floor plans prepared by Northern Design Associates, LTD.,
Hudson Falls, NY, a revised "Site Plan, "dated May 14, 2003 showing a change
in the garage configuration to one -car garages with gravel parking areas shown
for the apartment units and other application materials,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
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 Holly Creek Subdivision and Site
Development project in the proposed location, 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 the proposed local law to amend the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance by rezoning portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 37 -1-
17.1 and 37 -1 -18, which is proposed for the Holly Creek Subdivision and Site
Development, consisting of approximately 4.25 +/- acres for five lots (Lots 1 — 5)
for single - family residences, 0.96 +/- acres in the westerly portions of Lots 6 and
7 for storm water management purposes, and the new road to be zoned R -30
Residence; 3.74 +/- acres in two lots (easterly portions of Lots 6 and 7) proposed
for 20 apartment units in four buildings to be zoned MR Multiple Residence; with
67%
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
the remaining 5.0 +/- acre lot (Lot 8) reserved for future commercial development
to be zoned Business "C'; as shown on the "Survey Map Showing Proposed
Rezoning, Holly Creek Subdivision, " prepared by Reagan Land Surveying, dated
May 2, 2003, and
3. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends to the Town Board
that the Business "C" District on Lot 8 (existing and proposed) reserved for future
commercial development be considered for designation as a "Neighborhood
Commercial" zone (with the qualification that such Neighborhood Commercial
zone will coincide with the boundaries of Lot 8), as shown on the Proposed
Zoning Map (Nov. 26, 2002) upon enactment of the proposed, revised Zoning
Ordinance and Map.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 37 -1 -17.1, totaling 15.0 +/- acres, into
eight lots, including Lots 1 — 5 for single- family residences consisting of 4.25 +/-
acres, Lots 6 and 7 for 20 apartment units consisting of 4.63 +/- acres, and Lot 8
for future commercial development consisting of 4.82 +/- acres, with Tax Parcel
No. 37 -1 -18 (0.17 +/- acres) to be consolidated with Lot 8, as shown on the
drawing entitled "Holly Creek Subdivision — Site Plan, "dated March 14, 2003
(revised April 2, 2003, further revised May 14, 2003 to show final building
footprint), prepared by Gary L. Wood, P.E. and Reagan Land Surveying,
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. Acceptance by the Town Board of the location of Holly Creek Lane
proposed for dedication to the Town as a public road; and
C. Submission of draft easement language providing access and use for all
residents in the subdivision to the Play Area on Lot 6 and the exercise trail
on Lots 6 and 7; and
d. Submission of draft easement language of the pedestrian easement
between Lots 7 and 8 allowing pedestrian access for all residents of the
subdivision to get to Lot 8 when it is developed with commercial uses; and
e. The areas labeled "0.43 Acres +/- Westerly Parcel" between Lots 4 and 5
and "0.53 Acres +/- Westerly Parcel" between Lots 2 and 3 shall be limited
to storm water management purposes for the proposed pocket ponds, and
53
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
these areas shall be labeled on the subdivision plan as "Part of Lot 6" and
"Part of Lot 7" respectively; and
Submission of draft easement language allowing access to the Town of
Ithaca to all storm water management facilities, including the pocket ponds
on the 0.43 Acres +/- Westerly Parcel and the 0.53 Acres +/- Westerly
Parcel, in the event that emergency repairs or maintenance to these
facilities are necessary; and
g. Submission of draft language to be incorporated as deed restrictions
specifying that no construction or other disturbance shall occur within
designated buffer areas on Lots 3, 5, 6 and 8); and
h. 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
Establishment and maintenance of a natural buffer on both sides of
the stream that traverses the center of the site through Lots 4, 6, 7 and 8
to minimize erosion of the stream banks and minimize the potential for
sediments entering the stream, including the preservation of existing
natural vegetation to the extent practicable on both sides of the stream,
and the submission of deed restrictions for Lots 4, 6, 7 and 8 ensuring the
preservation and maintenance of this natural vegetation; and
The driveway for Lot 1 shall connect to Holly Creek Lane rather than to
West King Road, and
k. Acceptance of the completed Holly Creek Lane and highway right -of -way
as a public road by the Town Board, upon recommendation of the Town
Engineer and Town Highway Superintendent, prior to the issuance of any
certificates of occupancy for Lots 1 through 7, and
Consolidation of Tax Parcel No. 37 -1 -18 with Lot 8 within six months of
this approval, and submission to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department
of a copy of the request to the Tompkins County Assessment Department
for said consolidation; and
2. That the Planning Board hereby finds that there are adequate recreational
facilities incorporated within the proposed development, the project site is
surrounded on two sides by State Park land, and there is no need for any
additional park land reservation created by this proposed subdivision, and the
Planning Board hereby waives the requirement for any park land reservation, and
l• *1!
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
3. That the Planning Board hereby approves the use of the cluster regulations
pursuant to Article V of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations in recognition
of the fact that the surrounding State Park land was subdivided off of this original
tax parcel and that there is a need to preserve the open space character of the
surrounding State Park land, and the following cluster requirements and waivers
shall apply to Lots 1 — 5:
a. A 30 -foot wide no- disturb buffer shall be required on Lots 3 and 5
adjoining the State Park land, and
b. Lot 1 is permitted to be 0.64 +/- acres (27,878 sq. ft.) which is less than
the required min. lot size of 30, 000 square feet in R -30, and
C. Lot 4 is permitted to have a depth of 193.85 +/- feet which is less than the
required minimum lot depth of 200 feet required in the R -30 District.
d. Lot 5 is permitted to have frontage of 49.71 +/- feet on Holly Creek Lane,
which is less than the required lot width at the street line of 100 in the R-
30 Residence District, and lot width at the setback line of approximately
140 +/- feet where 150 feet is required in R -30, and
e. Typical house layouts are shown on Lots 1 — 5 with building setback lines
shown. Houses and other buildings and structures on Lots 1 — 5 shall
meet the normal setback requirements of the R -30 Residence District.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the
proposed Holly Creek Subdivision and Site Development as shown on
preliminary plans for the Holly Creek Subdivision, entitled "Site Plan," "Soil
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan," "Grading and Drainage Plan," "Site
Utilities, " and "Profiles, " all prepared by Gary L. Wood, P. E. and Reagan Land
Surveying and dated March 14, 2003 (revised April 2, 2003), revised building
floor plans, originally received May 8, 2003 (enlarged versions received May 14,
2003), and revised building elevation drawings, received May 12, 2003, said
elevations and floor plans prepared by Northern Design Associates, LTD.,
Hudson Falls, NY, a revised "Site Plan, "dated May 14, 2003 showing a change
in the garage configuration to one -car garages with gravel parking areas shown
for the apartment units, and other application materials, conditioned upon the
following:
a. Rezoning of the proposed project site by the Town Board prior to
consideration of Final Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board; and
b. Preparation and submission of final design and construction details of all
proposed drainage and storm water management improvements, and
6
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
sedimentation and erosion control measures, for review and approval by
the Town Engineer prior to Final Site Plan Approval; and
C. Submission of final construction details of all proposed structures, roads,
water and sewage facilities, and other improvements, including location
and specifications of the exercise trail, driveways and parking areas (to
include specific layout of resident parking spaces and related landscaping
plans) including curbing, and the design of the play area, prior to Final Site
Plan Approval; and
d. Submission of final details of size, location, design, and construction
materials of all proposed signs and lighting on Lots 6 and 7, prior to Final
Site Plan Approval; and
e. Submission of a final landscaping plan and planting schedule for Lots 6
and 7, including the addition of a berm or fence, mature evergreens, and
other appropriate plantings on the northern end of Lot 7 to establish a
buffer between the apartment development and the adjacent house on
Tax Parcel No. 37 -1 -16, said landscaping plan and planting schedule also
to include the vegetative treatment of the pocket ponds and drainage
swales, as well as general landscaping throughout the apartment sites,
prior to Final Site Plan Approval; and
Submission of final, detailed building elevations and floor plans for all
apartment buildings on Lots 6 and 7, including descriptions of building
materials and colors, and accurate dimensions of buildings, including
building heights, prior to Final Site Plan Approval; and
g. 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
h. Provision of record of application for and approval status of all necessary
permits from other county, state, and /or federal agencies prior to issuance
of any building permits, and obtaining the necessary curb -cut permit from
the Town Highway Superintendent prior to construction of Holly Creek
Lane; and
No development shall take place on Lot 8 until a detailed site plan for such
development has been reviewed and approved by the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board; and
Submission of draft language providing a sanitary sewer easement to the
Town, and revision of the site plan to show the location and dimensions of
said easement based on the specifications of the Town Engineering
Department, prior to Final Site Plan Approval; and
67:
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
k. Revision of the Site Plan to show the installation of a stop sign on Holly
Creek Lane at the intersection of West King Road, prior to Final Site Plan
Approval, said stop sign to be installed by the applicant to standards
specified by the Town Highway Superintendent; and
Revision of the Grading and Drainage Plan to modify the design of the
outlet ditch at the northeasterly pocket pond, to encourage sheet flow over
an armored ditch wall, rather than point flow through pipes; pursuant to the
to the recommendations of the Town Director of Engineering, prior to Final
Site Plan; and
M. Revision of the Site Plan to show the location and arrangement of waste
and refuse disposal areas on Lots 6 and 7, appropriately screened as
required in Section 29.4 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, prior to
Final Site Plan Approval; and
n. Revision of the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and submission of
details regarding the proposed "Topsoil and Spoil Storage Area" on Lot 8
for the temporary storage of 8,000 +/- cubic yards of cut materials,
including grading and seeding details, and a profile drawing of the
proposed storage area, prior to Final Site Plan Approval; and
o. Submission of a draft drainage facility maintenance plan to Town Director
of Engineering, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and
p. Obtaining any necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals,
including a variance to allow parking within the required front yard, prior to
Final Site Plan Approval, and
q. Completion of the road and required utilities to the satisfaction of the Town
Engineer and Town Highway Superintendent, prior to the issuance of any
building permits for construction on Lots 1 through 7 unless a bond or
other security satisfactory in form and amount to the Town Engineer, and
Town Highway Superintendent with the advise of the Town Attorney is
provided to the Town prior to the issuance of any building permit; and
r. Submission of a phasing plan of construction prior to final site plan approval,
including indication of when play area would be available.
A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe
NAYS: Talty
ABSENT. Conneman
57
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
The motion was declared to be carried.
Board Member Mitrano exists the Board Room at 9:48 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of the proposed draft Town of Ithaca Sidewalk Policy
Chairperson Wilcox - Susan, you've sat here very politely.
Ms. Ritter — That's alright.
Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to do this in ten(10) minutes or do you want to put it
off to the next meeting — or two (2) meetings. We're not coming back June 3rd just for
this.
Ms. Ritter — I don't think we're in a big rush. It's something that we want comments on.
Maybe I could just point this out to everybody that I inserted a memo with a draft
sidewalk policy and we're looking just for feedback from people. So, you could even call
me up and let me know you think and then we could bring it up at the next meeting.
Maybe people are a little tired.
Chairperson Wilcox — Which will be in a month.
Ms. Ritter — Do you think that's okay?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, I think that's a very good idea.
Board Member Hoffmann — Actually, not only that. I didn't get my packet in the mail until
on Saturday, which is late Saturday afternoon. I just didn't have time to read that part
yet.
Mr. Kanter — So, now you'll have time.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes.
Ms. Ritter — So, I guess I'd just encourage everybody to — it's kind of a simple draft and
we're just thinking out how to do the sidewalk policy. So, we're encouraging people to
think about it too. This Board will be very involved with reviewing the development of
sidewalks in different developments.
Chairperson Wilcox — Will that work for you?
Ms. Ritter — That would be fine.
Chairperson Wilcox — I know you've sat here since seven (7) , I appreciate it.
671-01
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Minutes: May 6, 2003.
Chairperson Wilcox - Motion to approve the Minutes of May 6t". Do I have a second?
Seconded by Kevin Talty. Anything other than your comments, Eva? All in favor? One
(1), two (2), three (3), four (4). We've got all four (4).
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 037: Approval of Minutes —May 6, 2003
MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Kevin Talty.
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the May 6, 2003
minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said
meetings as presented with corrections.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT. Conneman, Mitrano
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS
Chairperson Wilcox — Motion to cancel the June 3rd meeting. I'll move canceling the
June 3rd meeting. Do I have a second? Seconded by Rod Howe. All in favor. Everybody
is in favor. No body is opposed. June 3rd meeting is cancelled.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -038 :Cancellation of June 311d-, 2003 Planning Board
Meeting
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe.
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby cancel the June 3rd, 2003 meeting of
the Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Conneman, Mitrano
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else?
00
11
5/20/03 Planning Board Minutes
Approved 6/17/03
Mr. Kanter — John was asking about some of the water projects that Dan will be bringing
to the Board for, I guess, subdivision approval, but those aren't going to be ready for the
June 3rd meeting.
Mr. Hebdon — The subdivision went in today for the June 171h meeting and made the
deadline.
Mr. Kanter — And that's for the Bostwick Road?
Mr. Hebdon — Bostwick Road water subdivision.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other business? Jon Kanter, any other business?
Mr. Kanter — Not for me.
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT:
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the May 20, 2003 meeting of the
Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:52 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lori Love
Deputy Town Clerk
.E
4
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
• 215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
AGENDA
7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed locker room addition at the Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School located at 117
East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -7, Residence District R -15. The
project involves a 285 +/- square foot locker room addition on the northwest corner of the
building. Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School, Lisa Smith, Owner /Applicant; Ernie
Bayles, Architect, Agent.
7:10 P.M. SEQR Determination: Summerhill Apartments Phase 2 Modifications, Summerhill Lane.
7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed modifications to the approved site plan for Summerhill Apartments Phase 2,
located on Summerhill Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62 -2 -1.127 and 62- 2- 1.122,
Multiple Residence District. The proposed modifications include converting back to the
original site plan for the stormwater facilities by removing areas recently filled along the
• eastern edge of the property and the excavation of sediment from the main retention basin,
The proposal also includes new excavation to create additional retention volume on the
Phase 1 Summerhill Apartments site (Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.122) and construction of a new
elevated wooden boardwalk for pedestrians on the eastern edge of the site. Ivar & Janet
Jonson, Owners /Applicants; Timothy C. Buhl, P.E., Agent.
7:25 P.M. Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the proposed five -lot subdivision located at the
intersection of Burns Road and Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56 -4 -1.22,
Residence District R -15 and Conservation District. The proposal includes subdividing the
16.7 +/- acre parcel into four residential lots located primarily within the R -15 District and
one 12.3 +/- acre residential lot located within the Conservation District. All five lots will be
accessed by one common drive fronting on Slaterville Road. Clare George Wiedmaier,
Owner /Applicant; Brian M. Klumpp, L.S.
7:45 P.M. Continuation of consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Preliminary Site Plan
Approval, and a recommendation to the Town Board regarding the Zoning Change for the
proposed 8 -lot subdivision and associated development located at the intersection of West
King Road and Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 37 -1 -17.1 and 37 -1 -18,
Multiple Residence and Business Districts "C" and "D ". The proposal is to subdivide the 15
+/- acre parcel into 5 lots for single - family residences (to be zoned R -30 Residence), two lots
totaling 4.63 +/- acres for 20 apartment units in four buildings (to be zoned Multiple
Residence), and reserve the remaining 5.01 +/- acre lot along Danby Road for future
commercial development (to be zoned Business "C" in its entirety). David C. Auble,
Owner /Applicant; Gary L. Wood, P.E. and Brian M. Klumpp, L.S., Agents.
8:30 P.M. Discussion of the proposed draft Town of Ithaca Sidewalk Policy.
8. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
9. Approval of Minutes: May 6, 2003,
10. Other Business,
11. Adjournment.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE
AT 273 -1747,
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
ri
• TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings
will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, May 20, 2003, at 215 North Tioga
Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters:
7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed locker room
addition at the Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School located at 117 East King Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -7, Residence District R -15. The project involves a
285 +/- square foot locker room addition on the northwest corner of the building.
Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School, Lisa Smith, Owner /Applicant; Ernie Bayles,
Architect, Agent.
7:20 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
modifications to the approved site plan for Summerhill Apartments Phase 2, located on
Summerhill Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62 -2 -1.127 and 62- 2- 1.122, Multiple
Residence District. The proposed modifications include converting back to the original
site plan for the stormwater facilities by removing areas recently filled along the eastern
edge of the property and the excavation of sediment from the main retention basin. The
proposal also includes new excavation to create additional retention volume on the Phase
1 Summerhill Apartments site (Tax Parcel No.. 62- 2- 1.122) and construction of a new
elevated wooden boardwalk for pedestrians on the eastern edge of the site. Ivar & Janet
Jonson, Owners /Applicants; Timothy C. Buhl, P.E., Agent.
Said Planning Board will at said times 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 impairments, hearing
impairments or other special needs, 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 hearings.
Dated: Monday, May 12, 2003
Publish: Wednesday, May 14, 2003
0
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
i�
•
•
The Ithaca Journal
Wednesday, May 1.4, 2003
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARINGS
Tuesday, May 20,
2003
By direction of the Chair-
person of the Planning
Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN that Public Hearings
will be held by the Planning
Board of the Town of Ithaca
on Tuesday, May 20,
20030 at 215 North Tioga
Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the
following times and on' the
following matters:
7:05 P.M. Consideration
of Preliminary and Final Site
'Plan Approval for the pro-
posed locker room addition
at the Elizabeth Ann Clune
Montessori School located
at 117 East King Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 43.2.7, Residence Dis-
trict R -15. The project in-
volves a 285 +/- square
'foot locker room addition on'
the northwest corner of the
building. Elizabeth Ann
Clune Montessori School,
Lisa Smith, Owner/ Appli-
cant; Ernie Bayles, Architect,
Agent.
7:20 P.M. Consideration
of Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval for the pro-
posed modifications to the
approved site plan for
Summerhill Apartments
IPhase 2, located on
Summerhill Lane, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62-
2 -1.127 and 62 -2- 1.122,
Multiple Residence District.
'The proposed modifications
include converting back to
the original site plan for the
: stormwoter facilities by re-'
moving areas recently filled
along the eastern edge of
the property and the exca-
vation of sediment from the
main retention basin. The
proposal also includes new
excavation to create addi-
tional retention volume on
the Phase 1 Summerhill
Apartments site (Tax Parcel
No. 62.2- 1,1221 and con-
struction of a new elevated
wooden boardwalk for pe-
destrions on the eastern
edge of the site. Ivor & Ja-
net Janson, Owners/ Appli-
cants; Timothy C. Buhl, P.E.,
Agent.
Said Planning Board will at
said times and said place
hear all persons in support
of ' uch matters or objections
thereto. Persons may ap-
pear by agent or in person.
Individuals with visual im-
pairments, hearing impoir-
ments 'or other special
needs, will be provided with
assistance as necessary,
,upon request. Persons desir-
ing assistance must make
such a request not less than
48 hours prior to the time of
the public hearings.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273.1747.
Dated: Monday,
May 12, 2003
Publish: Wednesday,
May 14, 2003
f
ft
i
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
SI&WIN SHEET
DATE: Tuesday, May 20, 2003
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME
PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION
s
a
Ll iz
r �
i
7
Gl% k i fA)
r
LLA
1 �
s
a
f
e�
•
r�
a
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign
board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper,
The Ithaca Journal.
Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca
Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, 20, 2003 commencing
at 7:00 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street.
Date of Posting :
Date of Publication:
May 12, 2003
May 14, 2003
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca.
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th day of May 2003,
G. 1
v
Notary Public
Dani L Hofford
NOW Public, State 01 New yWk
No. 01H06052879
Seneca County
my Commission Expires Dec. 260