Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1981-02-03 C TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD K FEBRUARY 3 , 1981 0 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , February 3 , 1981 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , N . Y . , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Carolyn Grigorov , Barbara Schultz , James Baker , Bernard Stanton , Edward Mazza , David Klein , Liese Bronfenbrenner , Lawrence P . Fabbroni ( Town Engineer ) , Lewis D . Cartee ( Building Inspector ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Ivar Jonson , Janet Jonson , Gary King , Carl Abbattista , Dave Maley ( WTKO ) , Rick Snyder ( Newswatch 13 ) . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . APPROVAL OF MINUrFES MOTION by Mr . . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of December 2 , 1980 , be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Schultz , Baker , Stanton , Mazza , Klein , Bronfenbrenner . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of January 20 , 1981 , be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Schultz , Baker , Stanton , Mazza , Klein . Nay - None . Abstain - May , Bronfenbrenner . The MOTION was declared to be carried , REPORT OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR Mr . Cartee reported that in the month of January 1981 , permits were issued for two additions comprising $ 3 , 969 . 00 in improvements , as compared to seven permits issued in January of 1980 for $ 192 , 000 . 00 in improvements . Mr . Cartee commented that it was rather a slow month . Mr . Mazza noted that the improvements were double that of December . Mr . May commented that January was a very cold month . Mr . Cartee reported that he is now receiving applications from the . persons / properties that have non - conforming signs as was planned last year and those signs are being put under permit . He noted that cooperation has been very good . Mr . Cartee stated that the Board had received his Year - End Report and asked if there were any questions . There were none , with the members com - menting that it was a very good report . yip Planning Board - 2 - February 3 , 1981 REPORT OF THE TOWN ENGINEER Mr . Fabbroni reported that the East Ithaca Transit Service , as the • Board was aware , started January 26 , 1981 , He reported that the first week was a free pass situation , primarily because Cornell had to obtain a temporary operator ' s license from the State , so the cleanest approach was to operate without -fares until this Monday ( February 2 ) . He stated that every - body who rode the system that first week rode for free . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the numbers they are getting run around 160 - 170 a day , compared to a projection of 200 a day over the whole experimental period , and commented that this surprised them and made them happy . He commented that this Monday .people were knocking the doors down to find out about the servicE� . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he will have more definite numbers for future reports . He stated that it is very encouraging now and if the commercial interests pick up , it will be supported even more . He reported that they have publicity out to them but they are a little slow . Mrs . Grigorov asked what kind of people are involved in the way of commercial interests . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he was referring to the people in the East Hill Plaza , Mr . May asked about the pick - ups there and Mr . Fabbroni stated that there were pick- ups in . the Plaza area . Mr . Fabbroni described the schedule and the peak - hour runs into . Eastern Heights . Mr '. Fabbroni reported that Northeast Transit has another year of survival somehow mystifyingly . running about 1 , 000 persons over . He noted that the overall budget for that system is holding up very well . Mr . Fabbroni reported that the East Ithaca Connector is the primary activity right now , proceeding in the technical group . In mid -month there will be a draft report which goes back to the major - type committee and after that the Planning Board will get a look and their shot at it . Reporting - on the Cliff Street Pump Station , Mr .. Fabbroni stated that the Town Board has gone ahead with the Change Order to put in the second pump , so we will have two pumps equally capable on West Hill and will be able to provide for whatever happens at the Hospital and Statler West . Mr . Fabbroni reported that the Park Committee met , discussing the Snyder Hill Road Park , the Salem Drive Park , and the DeWitt Junior High School Park site . He noted that the Board will see some modifications on the DeWitt site . He stated that there have been some meetings with a few residents in the area of the DeWitt site . in re the design of the retention area and the location of the running trail , adding that most everyone ' s concerns can be resolved . He stated that the scale of activities has been scaled down for the first phase of operations , and commented that they are not talking about a whole lot more activity other . than putting the fields in a more usable state than what is there now . Mr . Fabbroni :reported that the zoning ordinance amendments have involved a lot of activity. . He stated that Susan Beeners has gotten out a packet of materials to some of the Board members . He stated that the modifications are fairly straight forward , adding that the staff has not received much comment so it is hoped that . everyone is satisfied . He stated that at the end of the comment period ( January 30th ) , it is the intent to incorporate those changes into the document and have a clean copy to start discussions at the Public Hearing on February 9 , 1981 . He reported that there will also be a " summary " like the Zoning Schedule . He. , noted that the definition of family and occupancy will probably be discussed . } Planning Board - 3 - February 3 , 1981 Mr . Stanton inquired if there were anything more about the Cornell Plantations and the park in Forest Home . Mr . Fabbroni stated that Cornell • will not recognize a park in that area because of concerns for the wildflower garden .. He reported that the Town has been waiting for a letter to the effect that they ( Plantations ) had no objection to the community using the Newman Meadow as a play area . He commented that the Civic Association was surprised , just as was Mrs . Bronfenbrenner , and noted that this was a very good step in the right direction . He stated that there is really not too much that can be done there , adding that the " tot lot " is pretty well dead . He stated that he is pursuing the letter for the record . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner stated that the Forest Home Improvement Association ought to be thanked for that because they fought for that for so long . CONSIDERATION OF REVISED SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR SUMMERHILL APARTMENTS , 148 UNITS TOTAL , TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 62 - 2 - 1 . 127 . IVAR JONSON . At 7 : 50 p . m . , Mr . May declared the discussion on the above - noted matter duly open . Mr . Ivar Jonson appeared before the Board and introduced Mr . Gary King , noting that Mr . Clark Ingraham was on vacation . ago Mr . Jonson stated that four years / they asked for approval of Summerhill and at that time 101 units were approved . He stated that since that time interest rates have gone from 9 - 3 / 47o to 14 % , materials are up 40% , with labor costs right behind ., and sewer and water are up 50% . Mr . Jonson noted that at that timea 1h01 - Rit condominium was a good proposal , but now it is too costly to buil gardenantype apartments . He stated that with his new proposal the savings are tremendous with , for example , 18 apartments under the same roof . Mr . Jonson displayed drawings of the new design . Mr . Klein asked if the site plan approval of four years ago were given for the whole site . Mr . Jonson replied that it was and the first phase of 32 units were there built . Mr . Fabbroni stated to the Board that they see on the site plan before them now two groups of structures closest to the proposed construction site . Mr . Jonson stated that he is asking for approval for 108 apartments on the site , for a total of 140 apartments . He noted that the new construction would be in six buildings , 150 ' x 40 ' , each building having 18 apartments . He noted that the buildings , the way they are sitting , would have the same amount of open space as 64 condominiums , but with 44 additional apartments and would be better for him to do . He noted again that condominiums were a good idea four years ago , but now the numbers are just not working out . He cited as an example , one plumbing pipe , one electric line , one roof , adding that the condominium approach has too many outside walls which are very expensive . He said the garden apartments would be concrete , indicating on a colored drawing showing elevations , on the outside . He pointed out that there would by ridges and it would be painted . Mr . May spoke of a maximum height of 26 ' and noted that 32 apartments exist now . Mr . May expressed concern about the green area shown on the site plan . Mr . Jonson :stated that the last time the Planning Board wanted the green area . Mr . Jonson stated that he is proposing 84 two - bedroom apartments . 12 three - bedroom apartments , and 12 studio apartments . He stated that the 2 - bedroom contains 900 sq . ft . , the 3 - bedroom contains 1 , 100 sq . ft . , and the studio contains 400 sq . ft . Mr . Mazza asked what the intended number of units was for the part Mr . Jonson wants to do now . Mr . Jonson replied that it was 101 minus the 32 completed , which equals 69 more that were allowed , but that he is asking for 108 . • ' Planning Board - 4 - February 3 , 1981 Mr . May . inquired as to the distance of the property from Eastern Artificial Breeders , Mr . Jonson said that it was about 50 feet minimum . • Mr . May asked form further clarification from Mr . Fabbroni who stated that that building was some 1 , 000 ' away . Mr . Fabbroni con - tinued and stated that , in terms of site coverage , it is true that really the difference in site coverage is 4 , 000 square feet at most , and , on a basis of 30 , 000 square feet , probably almost equal in terms of square footage of building . Mr . Fabbroni stated that it is a more homogeneous use of space with more open spaces . Mr . Mazza asked about the number of persons . Mr . Fabbroni stated that with the market as it is now there is a shortage of housing and basically for students . He commented that as a condominium , for example , there are four to five in e ;ich . unit ; if a 3 - bedroom apartment , probably five to six . Mr . Klein asked Mr . Jonson if he were catering to the student market . Mr . Jonson replied that he did not like the term " student housing " , adding that anyone can move in . Mr . Gary Kind; stated that what has happened with their first project is that there are not as many cars as bicycles . He stated that they have probably ten empty spots ; they built 55 slots for 32 townhouses . He stated that it does not hold that there will be that many cars . He stated that they do not have a. high density , commenting that for the 18 3 - bedroom apart - ments , there is one per bedroom . Mr . May asked about parking spaces and Mr . Jonson said there was 1 . 5 per apartment . Mr . Fabbroni said that he thought that there were about two per apartment . Mr . King stated that the East Ithaca Transit Service plays a big part in why they are even here tonight - - people can use this facility without even having a car . He noted that the problems are in some of the other areas where people are converting homes into too many apartments . He stated that the pressure will come off some other part of the Town and will allow people in the downtown who can afford a $ 250 . 00 apartment to find one and take the pressures off conversions . He stated that the transit service really opens up the, feasibility of this . Mrs . Bronfenb .renner noted the 400 square footage for the studio apart - ments and stated that , according to the zoning ordinance , it appears that 600 sq . ft , is required for a dwelling . A lengthy discussion followed wherein it was noted that this " regulation " appears on the zoning schedule and not in the text of the ordinance . Mr . May. asked Mr . Fabbroni what he saw from the engineering standpoint . Mr . Fabbroni states( that they will have to speak to drainage , in particular , the main swale , size of culverts , sizes of storm sewer , as is shown concep - tually . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he actually advised them not - to go to that extent and to have this kind of meeting with the Board to discuss concept . He stated that , in terms of layout , if you compare it to the other plan , 0 this plan seems to offer some advantages over what we looked at in the past . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that Mr . Jonson has agreed to some terms with respect to driveways in that he is limiting those driveways to two basically . He noted that there is one small driveway to one of the existing units and , if things come together , eliminating the driveway to the south . He stated that that is a change from the five driveways that were shown on the original plan . He said that one was moved to oppose the driveway to East Hill Plaza . ( Planning Board - 5 - February 3 , 1981 He commented that , if you have used the shopping centre , you will see that it has been roughed in when some grading was done for the hardware store . He stated that he asked them to show the one main driveway to this new phase opposite that road . Mr . May asked if these were two - story buildings or three - story . Mr . Fabbroni stated that if you read the zoning ordinance it indicates two stories on the road side . . Pair . Fabbroni stated that if you look at Warren - wood Apartments or Candlewy.ck , you will see that it is identical to those situations in that from the streetside , the bottom level is a basement and , because of the way the topography works out , there is a walk - out level on the back side . He stated that insofar as he can look at this plan and compare it to comparable sites , we are either making the same mistake twice or this meets the intent in the ordinance . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that , with reference to parking , you will note in the ordinance that parking is prohibited from all required front , side and rear yards , and it seems that if the Planning Board enforced that , you would wind up with all parking in the usable open space and you would begin to see interior spaces dwindled away , but , a nice 50 ' of grass in the front yard . Mr . Fabbroni stated that it is the prerogative of the Board , but he would rather see interior open space as long; as definite landscaping is shown to break up parking in front . He commented that you might be able to break up long expanses with some kind of island and landscaping , making a very attractive entrance as much as an expanse of grass . Mr . May inquired about refuse collection . He . stated that , in theory , he agreed with Mr . Fabbroni , though he can see those becoming disaster areas . He wondered about dumpsters . Mr . Jonson stated that there would be dumpsters • off to the side and there would be trees planted . Mr . King stated that they would also be using pine stained barriers . Mr . Fabbroni stated that they should have an idea for some very definite planting scheme , since they know about the first phase , for the public hearing . Mr . Jonson stated that dumpsters are the most efficient way of handling refuse . Mr . Fabbroni asked Mr . Jonson how they are going to place them and screen them . Mr . Jonson stated that they could have a fence , but trees are much more attractive , so there could be a fence to get the trees started and after that it would not be a problem . He stated that he wants the site to be attractive when it gets started , commenting that the landscaping sells a house , and it is very important to make the building look good . Mr . Klein asked if there would be blacktop or gravel . Mr . Jonson stated that he would use oil and stone , as with the other area , then it settles and blacktopped later . Mr . Jonson urged the Planning Board members to go up to the site and see just what is there . He noted that Summerhill was completed in August of 1980 and when spring comes there will be more plantings . He stated that the landscaping is done and it looks really good . Mr . Klein asked Mr " Jonson what his timetable for work was . Mr . Jonson stated that they would like approval at this next hearing and they would like to start in April and have it done in August since after that the apartments are empty . Mr . Klein stated that Mr . Jonson will have to bring substantially more documents to the public hearing , i . e . , complete site plan drawn by an engineer showing revised drainage situation , dumpsters , lighting , etc . Mr . Jonson stated that he did not want to go to all that expense without hope from the Board . He stated that before he starts to build he will get R V Planning Board - 6 - February 3 , 1981 blueprints signed and stamped by an engineer . He said that there are very . little changes in drainage . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the original plans were sealed by an engineer and that he ( Fabbroni ) did . not see a whole lot of changes so he ( the engineer ) has not very much to do , perhaps five or six hours work . Mr . Fabbroni stated that it would be better because , for instance , it makes a difference on the back side . there as we look at the location of the building if buildings are located on the swale . He stated that we do not want a swale filled in and other swale built in , noting that that is the reasoning for this approach . He commented that Mr . Jonson may feel that he can seal this as well as anybody else , but an engineer is signing his name to a plan . Mr . Fabbroni said that this is a fine conceptual scheme , the engineer concurs and then seals it . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out one thing in sewer , in particular , there should be a revised drawing somewhere to show PVC or something else , adding that he did not think he will find transite so readily available . Mr . Fabbroni noted that there are two details shown . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the Board can deal with the conceptual plan here . In terms of site layout and utilities , which is under the purview of this Board , that really should be modified and shown on a sealed engineering drawing . He suggested that the building plans then can be postponed until after that . Mr . Gary King summarized the items that need to be available for the next meeting as follows : 1 . Full Site Plan with all the buildings there . 2 . A new utility plan on sewer , water , drainage ( storm sewer ) . 3 . The main Swale off Cornell property - - culvert size . 4 . Refuse containers contained . 5 . Landscaping . 6 . Lighting plan „ 7 . Engineer ' s stamp on revised utilities . Mr . May requested that a reasonable number of sets of drawings be submitted , noting that one set is not sufficient for all the Board members . Mr . Jonson again asked that the Board members come up and see the site and see what is there . It was the consensus of the Board that a public hearing would be held by the Board in the matter of the revised site plan for Summerhill Apartments on February 17 , 1981 . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion of Mr . Mazza , with Mr . May seconding same , and all members present saying aye , the Chair declared the February 3 , 1981 , meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 8 : 40 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary .