Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1983-04-05 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD APRIL 5 , 1983 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , April 5 , 1983 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , N . Y . , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Barbara Schultz , James Baker , Virginia Langhans , David Klein , Bernard Stanton , Edward Mazza , Carolyn Grigorov , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Carl Abbattista , Gladys Blatchley , Evan N . Monkemeyer , M . J . Monkemeyer , Robert A . Boehlecke Jr . , Patricia Brooke ( WQNY ) , Darryl Geddes ( WTKO ) . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 37 p . m . APPROVAL OF 114INUTES - JANUARY 18 , 1983 MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town Tof Ithaca Planning . Board meeting of January 18 , 1983 , be and hereby are approved as written , with thanks . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Stanton , Baker , Langhans , Grigorov , Klein , Mazza . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . REPORT OF THE TOWN ENGINEER , LAWRENCE P . FABBRONI Since Mr . Fabbroni was away on a short vacation , Mr . Lovi reported that: work is beginning to pick up . They are at present working on surveys and getting various things ready for the spring . Mr . Lovi spoke of the various park projects underway , or about to be underway , under the direction of Susan Beeners , with the assistance of Richard Schoch , aided by Larry Stanton . Mr . Lovi noted that Michael Ocello is working on surveys and traffic counters . REPORT OF THE TOWN PLANNER , PETER M . LOVI Mr . Lovi reported that one of the major things which Mr . Fabbroni ' s department is involved with is a committee which is being formed to discuss future uses of the Six Mile Creek area . Planning Board 2 April 5 , 1983 This committee will be looking at what would be the best uses of this area for the City . Mr . Lovi believed there were some 19 names on the list of people involved in this committee . Mr . Lovi stated that he attended the first meeting held on this matter . Mr . May commented that he attended a meeting which did not happen - - a couple of invitations went out from the City , each with a different time noted . Mr . Lovi passed around documents containing recommendations for best uses which had been drawn up by the Circle Greenway Committee and the Six Mile Creek Preservation, Committee , Beth Mulholland is involved with the Circle Greenway and Jeff Coleman and Dan Peterson are involved with the 6MCPC . Mr . Lovi reported on the first meeting , stating that there had been extensive discussion about what the objectives of this committee would be . Mr . Lovi noted that the City of Ithaca Director of Planning and Development , H . Matthys Van Cort , stated that there are serious issues involved and that a reasoned document is necessary . Mr . Van Cort indicated that the proposed September or October deadline for report is just not feasible . The committee has planned field trips , walks , and tours through the gorge on April 23 and May 9 . Initially , the committee will be considering uses from a physical approach and then juxtaposing that with legislative and legal constraints in order to attain reasonable multi - purpose uses of the area . Mr . Lovi stated that he would pars out copies of this information and distribute to . Board members . Basically , Mr . Lovi stated , the dilemma the committee faces is that the laws restricting uses in the watershed are quite precise - viz . , public drinking water . Therefore , the committee should first come up with. a reasonable plan for optimal use , then research the legal restraints which would allow for the achievement of some of those goals . Mr . Lovi indicated that the questions revolved around involving the watershed area only , or , some areas in the Town not directly owned by the City . He stated that the consensus is to restrict the study to the actual City watershed , with some general discussion of areas on the slopes . Mr . May asked if the committee had identified any consultants . Mr . Lovi stated that this was the data collection stage and no consultants had been identified at this point , adding that he did feel there was sufficient expertise among the 19 or so members not to warrant the hiring of a consultant . Mr . Lovi reported that the proposed Zoning Law has been placed by the Supervisor on a Town Board timetable for passage by August 1983 , with a schedule for hearings and reviews laid out . Mrs . Schultz wondered if the zoning law when it is finally adopted will be printed in some sort of useable package . Mrs . Schultz stated that she would really like that - - the Board agreed and suggested something like the Sign Law booklet . Planning Board 3 April 5 , 1983 . Mr . Lovi stated that the Town Board is to be considered the lead agency in the SEQR review of the proposed revision of the subdivision regulations ; a resolution to that effect will be adopted at the April 11th Town Board meeting . Chairman May thanked Mr . Lovi for his report . Chairman May stated that he had received a letter from Donald A . Kinsella , P . E . , Superintendent of Public Works , City of Ithaca , dated March 17 , 1983 , thanking Mr . Lovi for all the assistance and support he has given to the City Department of Public Works regarding their acquisition of a computer system . REPORT OF THE TOWN BUILDING INSPECTOR , LEWIS D . CARTEE In Mr . Cartee ' s absence , Mrs . Fuller reported that building permits for two 1 - family homes , one alteration , and five additions had been issued for March 1983 , at a total construction cost of $ 176 , 850 , as compared with two permits issued in March of 1982 at a total construction cost of $ 80 , 000 . A copy of the Building Inspector ' s Report of Building Permits Issued for the month of March 1983 had been received by the Planning Board members with their Agendae . REPORT OF THE PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD , CAROLYN GRIGOROV • Mrs . Grigorov stated that she had given her report at the last meeting .. PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF FOUR ( 4 ) LOTS FRONTING ON DANBY ROAD : A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 43 - 1 - 3 . 2 ( 1059 DANBY ROAD ) , AND , CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IN RE THE MATTER OF PROPOSED TWO -FAMILY STRUCTURES CONTAINING DWELLING UNITS OF EQUAL SIZE . EVAN N . MONKEMEYER , DEVELOPER , Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 49 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing in Town Hall and Ithaca Journal on March 28 , 1983 and March 31 , 1983 , respectively . Chairman May read aloud the Notice as above and asked Mr . Monkemeyer to speak to the matter . Mr . Monkemeyer began with a slide presentation to show many of the various types of housing he has constructed , mostly on South Hill , and to describe the area he proposes to build on . The slides also showed the construction of the prototype home he is proposing to build . Mr . Monkemeyer referred to his drawings of the proposal , a • reduced copy of which all Board members had received . The four lots proposed all have frontage on Danby Road , the land is served by all utilities . He indicated on the drawings a 70 - foot Planning Board 4 April 5 , 1983 . access way to rear lands . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that he is willing to take the risk to develop these sites , other developers are not . This particular site is an R9 district sandwiched between multiple - family and commercial . Future uses in the area of this site could include office spaces and / or professional building . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that these frontages would lend themselves very well to these future uses but have to be to a higher - intensity use , hence , the two - family proposal . Mr . Monkemeyer spoke of the various uses to which land on South Hill has been described in the Comprehensive Plan and noted again how the site being discussed is caught in the middle between the multiple and the commercial . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that he is ready for construction as he has finished the 118 King Road West home for which he received a variance in 1979 for units of essentially equal size . He noted that the present proposal meets the ordinance requirements in all aspects excerpt , as in the case of the 118 West King Road home , for a necessary variance of the " 50o rule " which states that one unit cannot exceed 50 percent of the floor area of the other unless within the basement . It was noted that each Board member had received a copy of the Minutes of the February 27 , 1979 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals where Mr . Monkemeyer was granted a variance to permit construction of the duplex at 118 West King Road . . Mr . May noted the old airport building which appears to be on the property line . Mr . May asked if there were any comments at this point from the public . The Secretary reported that she had received a telephone call from Mr . Stephen Parrott , 1020 Danby Road , at 11 : 30 a . m . , this date . Mr . Parrott stated that he was in complete agreement with the project as proposed by Mr . Monkemeyer . There was no public comment . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing closed at 8 : 05 p . m . and asked for Board comment . There was none . Chairman May stated that a Short Environmental Assessment Form , dated March 9 , 1983 , had been completed and signed by Mr . Monkemeyer and that all questions had been checked " No " and each Board member had received a copy . Mr . May noted that Mr . Lovi had reviewed the proposal and recommended that it is an unlisted action for which a negative declaration would be appropriate . Chairman May asked for Board discussion or comment on the EAF Short Form . There was none . MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton : WHEREAS : 1 , the developer is subdividing a portion of a 46 . 96 acre • parcel for the purpose of creating four lots located in a Residential District R9 , each with dimensions of 75 . 22 ' x 180 ' , and 2 * the developer proposes to construct a two - family dwelling on each of the four lots in this subdivision wherein each dwelling unit shall be of equal size , and Planning Board 5 April 5 , 1983 . 3 . the Zoning Board of Appeals shall have to grant variances to permit the construction of said two - family dwellings , and 49 this subdivision is classified as an unlisted action according to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Town of Ithaca Local Law # 3 - 1980 , and 5 . the Planning Board finds that this project will not have an adverse effect on the environment ; THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as lead agency in the review of the proposed 4 - Lot Subdivision at 1059 Danby Road , a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 43 - 1 - 3 . 2 as proposed by Evan N . Monkemeyer , approve and hereby does approve the Environmental Assessment Form ( Short Form ) as completed , and FURTHER RESOLVED * that pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act , Part 617 , this action is classified as Unlisted , and FURTHER RESOLVED . that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has determined from the Environmental Assessment Form and all pertinent information that the above -mentioned action will not significantly impact the environment and , therefore , will not require further environmental review . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Mazza , Klein , Stanton , Schultz . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that there will be 50 to 60 feet in the back for parking , there will be one entrance for two buildings , i . e . , two entrances off Danby Road rather than four . Drainage was discussed . Mr . May asked if Mr . Monkemeyer intended these units to be rented or sold , with Mr . Monkemeyer stating that they would be rental properties . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that the structures would be 14 ' in height . He rioted that there is a one inch water line for both units in each of the four structures , adding that he is , at present , exploring the feasibility of a sprinkler system for each building since there is a cost - pay - back on insurance ; however , it would cost $ :1 , 000 a unit to install . He is still considering 1 , 1 Planning Board 6 April 5 , 1983 this possibility . He noted that the sewer line is there in the front and the flow is good . He commented that there will probably be a problem with rock as is usual in this area ; rock begins at 4 feet . Mr . Monkemeyer noted that the lot requirements for R9 are 60 ' x 1501 , but the lots he is proposing are 75 ' x 180 ' . The Board discussed the " 50 % " rule and occupancy requirements . Mr . Mazza stated , " That 50 % thing is silly . " Mr . Stanton agreed . MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . James Baker : WHEREAS . 1e the developer has prepared a subdivision plot in a form acceptable to the Town Engineer , and 2e an environmental assessment form has been prepared and reviewed by the Town Planner , and 3 * this subdivision has been classified as an unlisted action and the Planning Board has determined that this project will not significantly impact the environment , and . 49 there will be substantial conformance between the preliminary subdivision plat and the final plat to be filed in the Office of the County Clerk , and 5o that such conformance shall be certified by the Town Engineer prior to such filing ; THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby does grant preliminary approval for a four - lot subdivision of a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 43 - 1 - 3 . 2 , for the lands of Herbert N . Monkemeyer , as proposed in the map drawn by George Schlecht , P . E . , dated March 15 , 1983 on file in the office of the Town Engineer , and FURTHER RESOLVED . that said Planning Board waive and hereby does waive the requirement for a final subdivision hearing provided that the final subdivision plat to be filed in the Office of the County Clerk shall be in substantial conformance with this preliminary plat and that the Town Engineer shall certify the conformance of such final plat with the preliminary plat prior to its filing and before any offer for sale or other transfer shall be made , and Planning Board 7 April 5 , 1983 FURTHER , IT IS RECOMMENDED : that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a variance to permit the construction of a two - family dwelling with dwelling units of equal size on each of said four lots . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Mazza , Klein , Stanton , Schultz . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : TOMPKINS COUNTY PROFESSIONAL BUILDING , 1301 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 24 - 3 - 4 ; PROPOSED ADDITION TO EXISTING BUILDING ( REAR ) . TOMPKINS COUNTY PROFESSIONAL BUILDING CORP . , APPLICANT , ROBERT A . BOEHLECKE JR . , ARCHITECT Chairman May read aloud the Agenda item as above - noted and asked Mr . Boehlecke to speak to the matter . Mr . Boehlecke referred to the sketch plan and stated that he had utilized the latest Route 96 plan as per Harry Missirian of . the Tompkins County Planning Department to delineate the basic location of the Professional Building . The proposed addition would be located on the northeastly portion of the site . Mr . May noted that the two buildings that are there now are not attached . Mr . Boehlecke stated that that was correct . Mr . May asked if the proposed addition would be attached to the existing building . Mr . Boehlecke stated that he was not sure , at this point , if there would be a roof , a stair , or what between the new building and the existing building . Mr . Boehlecke stated that the proposed addition would have an upper level and a lower level ; its height would be at essentially the same level as the existing building , maybe 18 " higher . Mr . Boehlecke asked Board members to refer to the diagrams as he explained the grades of the area . Mr . Stanton asked about additional parking and where it would be located . Mr . Boehlecke described the 43 spaces which would be added and indicated their proposed location by utilizing the drawing lie had placed on the bulletin board . Mr . Boehlecke noted that the parking proposed is substantially over that which is required . He noted that the proposed addition contains approximately 5 , 600 sq . ft . per level . Mr . Mazza asked if there were any requirement in the zoning ordinance for the size of an individual parking space . Mr . Lovi stated that he knew of no such requirement . Planning Board 8 April 5 , 1983 . The Board discussed the square footages involved since it appeared that the addition would mean about a 30 - 40o increase in the square footage of office space available . Mr . Boehlecke was not definitely sure about the figures and stated that he could have that information next time . He noted that the existing front building is one storey although three offices have basement use ; the existing rear building is two storeys ; the existing buildings comprise 13 , 881 sq . ft . of ground coverage . Mr . Lovi asked if there would be any substantial change in use of the proposed addition - any new specialities . He also asked what would happen to the vacant spaces that these practices move out of . Mr . Boehlecke stated that the upper floor will be for the doctors that are there now , an obstetrician and a dentist ; half of the new building was already committed and half he did not know what would be going into it . Mr . Lovi suggested that the Professional Building Corporation might want to consider the overall traffic pattern of the building on to Route 96 . He wondered if it would be possible to consider an arrangement with Tompkins County and the Hospital to put a driveway - - not a Town road - - from this property down into the existing circulation pattern . He stated that this had been suggested by Mr . Fabbroni not as a major road but as a paved drive . . Mr . Mazza inquired as to what kind of expense there would be involved for something like that . Mr . Boehlecke commented that there was private property involved . Mr . Lovi stated that Mr . Fabbroni would be the one to know about costs of driveway development . Mr . Mazza stated that he did not want to speak directly to such a driveway without knowing the costs involved . Mrs . Langhans wondered if such a driveway would become a shortcut for people coming up from the Hospital . Mr . Lovi stated that he doubted that . Mr . May stated that now would be the time to get the commitment before Route 96 is built , adding that it also makes sense for the doctors to get to the Hospital . He further commented that the intersection from the Professional Building to Route 96 is extremely bad , and it would be even more dangerous with the additional traffic generated by this addition . Mr . Mazza stated that we do not really know where Route 96 is going to go . Mr . May stated that he thought this intersection had been pretty well defined . Mr . Lovi stated that it has been pretty much established where the road will be in this particular area , commenting that since the County owns the land , the use of the acreage behind the Professional Building was wide open and adding , with this very large addition being proposed , the • Planning Board now has the opportunity to improve the problems with this particular intersection entering Route 96 . Planning Board 9 April 5 , 1983 . Mr . May stated that he could not personally vote for this 30 - 40o increase with the entrance that way . Mr . Klein , speaking to Mr . Boehlecke , stated that the Board should see the hospital parking circulation as a part of the drawings . Mr . May indicated to Mr . Boehlecke that he now had an idea of some of the concerns - - parking and access . The Board conferred with Mr . Boehlecke , utilizing the drawings , to see where a possible access to Route 96 could be placed . Mr . May explained to Mr . Boehlecke that the next time he appears before the Board he should specifically know the area and what is being proposed . Mr . Boehlecke stated that they would like to begin construction this summer and have the building occupied by the first of the year . He asked the Board to tell him what it likes , or does not .like , adding that he understands the cooperation with Route 96 . Chairman May stated that he would have trouble approving this addition even with another entrance . Mr . Klein stated that he agreed with Mr . May that the Route 96 intersection was a major concern , adding that revised drawings should speak to that entrance also . Mr . Klein stated that revised drawings should also indicate what alternatives can be made with respect to the matter of the driveway . Mr . Boehlecke indicated that they cannot . build a road across someone else ' s property . Chairman May stated that this problem should be taken care of now ; it should not be assumed that something will be done later . He told Mr . Boehlecke that it was his and the owners ' obligation to find out what alternatives could be worked out with respect to the driveway . Chairman May suggested that Mr . Boehlecke discuss the matters of Route 96 and the driveway with Mr . Liguori of County Planning in order to determine some answers . Mr . Stanton stated that the actual square footage involved should be clearer . Mr . Klein agreed that a total site plan was needed . Mr . Mazza stated that he would like to know the cost of putting in this driveway . Mr . Mazza asked if Mr . Lovi or Mr . Boehlecke had. any idea of the amount of traffic in and out in a day with respect to the Route 96 intersection . Mr . Lovi stated that he would be happy to discuss with Mr . Fabbroni the feasibility of putting a traffic counter up there . Mr . Mazza asked what materials the building would be constructed of . Mr . Boehlecke stated that it would be brickface and larger windows ; it would basically * be the same as the existing buildings . Mr . Mazza suggested that next time the Board would like to see both the proposed lighting plan and a • delineation of the existing lighting , and , how trash is and is intended to be disposed of . _ Planning Board 10 April 5 , 1983 . Chairman May summarized the discussion by noting that the primary concerns are traffic and matters related to traffic , sufficient parking spaces , and that the site is sufficiently appropriate from a health and safety standpoint . He stated that the access road to the Professional Building from Route 96 will be the primary concern . Mr . Klein inquired as to the number of suites and the number of doctors in the proposed addition . Mr . Boehlecke stated there will be two offices on the top floor and two , maybe three , on the bottom . Mrs . Schultz stated that the kind of facility makes a big difference in scheduling and , thus , the number of patients seen in any given day . It was stated that Dr . Kassman , an obstetrician , and Dr . Uris , a dentist , would be on the upper level . Mr . Boe :hlecke wondered how long the Town has to do a traffic count in order to have something to work with . It was noted that Mr . Fabbroni knows the answer to that . Mr . Boehlecke stated that he would like to get things ready for the April 19th meeting . Mr . Lovi explained that there was not enough time to get everything done for this meeting . Chairman May asked that Mr . Boehlecke look at the first Tuesday of May for his next presentation .. Mr . Boehlecke thanked the Board for their time and their . suggestions . SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : PROPOSED NINE ( 9 ) LOT SUBDIVISION ALONG SLATERVILLE ROAD AND HONNESS LANE : A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 58 - 2 - 39 . 2 ( KNOWN AS 131 HONNESS LANE ) . GLADYS BLATCHLEY , OWNER / DEVELOPER . Chairman May read aloud the above and asked Mrs . Blatchley to speak to the matter . Mrs . Blatchley displayed the sketch plan she had devised and explained where the proposed lots would be located and where the access roads were proposed . She stated that the 9 lots under review would be Phase 1 of a development proposal . Mrs . Blatchley noted that utilities are available - water , sewer , and gas . She stated that the pond located on the property now will not be there any more . Mr . Mazza pointed out that the lot size requirement in R15 is 100 ' x 150 ' while six of these lots have 91 feet frontage . Mrs . Blatchley stated that she had hoped the Board would go with the six lots being deeper since she had pulled off some footage in another part of the site . Mr . Lovi explained that Mr . Fabbroni had suggested placing the road down a little farther and Mrs . Blatchley had done so somewhat as a trade -off for the • 91 - foot lots . It is a better location and fits in better in this location . t = . Planning Board 11 April 5 , 1983 Mr . Mazza stated that he did not like the upper road with its difficult curve . Mr . LOvi discussed an area to be . set aside for a Town park , noting that there are roughly 30 acres to be divided eventually . There were questions from the Board regarding the different neighbors and property owners in the area . Mrs . Blatchley stated that she will be selling the lots off to individuals and they would be the ones to build . Mr . Mazza asked what size the other lots were , Mrs . Blatchley responded that they were 100 by 200 or 250 feet . Mr . Stanton stated that he did not think 91 - foot lots are in order and suggested that Mrs . Blatchley would do better with wider frontage on five lots rather than 91 feet on six . Mr . Klein agreed with this suggestion . Mr . May stated that he did not like the irregular lots although sometime it is the only way it can be divided . Mr . Klein commented that you cannot really tell how the topography relates to the roads from this sketch . Mr . May asked how much of a subdivision plan was approved . Mrs . Blatchley said that five lots were subdivided in 1969 . Mr . May suggested that Mrs . Blatchley put all of the lots to be approved on a sample drawing or two and see what kinds of alternatives make sense . Mr . May suggested some of the things . the Board would like to see when Mrs . Blatchley returns - - a plan indicating the topography of the site and some detail of proposed lots and roadways . The Board expressed some concern with the number of curb cuts on Slaterville Road . Mr . May wondered if there were not a required limit on the number of cul - de - sacs that may be within a development . Mr . Lovi stated that he was not sure if there were a limit . Mr . Lova_ suggested to Mrs . Blatchley that she lay out 50 or so lots on a diagram and come in with a proposal for approval of the first six or so . This will give the Board a better idea of where the drives will be . Mr . Lovi further suggested that perhaps the roadway system could be connected or looped so there would be rectangular lots . This was what had been suggested to Mr . Frandsen and it had worked out much better . Mr . Klein stated that at some point a land surveyor would have to be brought in to give the Board a metes and bounds description . Mrs . Blatchley thanked the Board for all its help . CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF CRITERIA OF RE GROUP HOMES WITHIN THE • TOWN OF ITHACA AND CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD PERTAINING THERETO . Planning Board 12 April 5 , 1983 . A letter addressed to Chairman May from Mr . James Buyoucos , Town Attorney , dated April 4 , 1983 , in re the above -noted matter had been distributed to each Board member and was discussed . MOTION by Mrs . Barbara Schultz , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : WHEREAS , a committee of the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca has met with staff of Broome Developmental Services and interested community members , and WHEREAS , this committee investigated and discussed certain mandated criteria , and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca and Broome Developmental Services are! both concerned with meeting the needs of certain citizens while respecting the rights of others , and WHEREAS , this committee and the staff of Broome Developmental Services openly discussed the formation of a framework of guidelines within which both could works NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that the following guidelines be considered , although consideration thereof need not be limited thereto , in reference . to any future plans for establishment of a group residence in the Town of Ithaca 1 . City / Town water services including sewer . 2 . Relatively flat terrain . 3 . Not isolated , preferably in an established neighborhood . 4 . Proximity to stores , churches , and other community centers is desirable . 5 . Reasonable proximity to public transportation . 6 . Off - street or usable on - street parking for staff and visitor vehicles . 7 . a . Client space must be provided on one floor for non - ambulatory clients . b . Client space may be provided on multiple floors for ambulatory clients . 8 . House should have some outdoor yard area for quiet recreational use . 9 . House should be reasonably alterable to meet all applicable State Codes . 10 . All exterior alterations are to be in keeping with the integrity of the structure and the neighborhood in general . 11 . New construction - lots served by public utilities in established neighborhoods would be considered for new construction . Nearby public transportation would also be desirable . Planning Board 13 April 5 , 1983 AND , BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that said Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that if the State retains the services of an architect , the architect shall deliver to the Town all plans of recommended modifications or of new construction five ( 5 ) days prior to any public hearings held for the purpose of discussing same and that the architect should be present at any such public hearings . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Mazza , Stanton , Klein , Langhans , Grigorov . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , the Chair declared the April 5 , 1983 meeting of the Town of :Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9 : 50 p . m . Respectfully submitted , . Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board .