Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1984-03-06 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MARCH 6 , 1984 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , March 6 , 1984 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Barbara Schultz , James Baker , David Klein , Virginia Langhans , Carolyn Grigorov , Lawrence P . Fabbroni ( Town Engineer ) , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Dr . Frank Baldwin , Dr . Roy Colle , Dr . Hermogenes Mecenas , Town Councilwoman Shirley Raffensperger , Elmer Ewing , Marilyn Ewing . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 7 , 1984 MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of February 7 , 1984 be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Klein , Langhans , Grigorov . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 21 , 1984 MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of February 21 , 1984 be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Baker , Klein , Langhans , Grigorov . Nay - None . • The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . REPORT OF THE TOWN ENGINEER , LAWRENCE P . FABBRONI Planning Board 2 March 6 , 1984 . Mr . Fabbroni reported that he has been quite busy getting ready and preparing the contracts for the Spring bidding for the water and now sewer improvements . Mr . Fabbroni commented that he has good news and bad news with regard to those improvements in that some of the areas the Town hoped to serve on West Hill will not be served by water or sewer - - that is , the upper part of West Haven Road and Elm Street Extension , unless some money comes along . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , otherwise , he is preparing contracts for all the areas he had mentioned at the last Planning Board meeting . Mr . Fabbroni reported that , on the advice of the Bond Counsel in New York , the water improvements and the sewer improvements are separate matters with there being $ 250 , 000 going for sewer , therefore , Bundy Road will get sewer as well as water . Mr . Fabbroni commented that there are a lot of things to be done because that changes a lot of the staff work which had been done , adding that everyone runs around when there is a good day and surveys . Mr . Fabbroni reported that the biggest news is $ 17 Million worth of grants for the new sewage treatment plant . Mr . Fabbroni described the building timetable , noting that by October 1st the balance of funding should be in place and , thus , the whole project could move right through the roughly 2z to 3 years - to its completion . • Mr . Fabbroni reported that since the Planning Board saw the ITD Group ' s plans for the development of the old hospital , the plans have changed twice . Mr . Fabbroni commented that by the time the proposal comes back to the Planning Board they will see that it is substantially different from what the Board saw a month and a half ago . Mr . Fabbroni noted that the first unveiling of the project as it now stands will be next week at the Town Board meeting , March 12th , and then the Planning Board , maybe at its next meeting , March 20th , Mr . Fabbroni reported that the developer of what was Haven Hills is moving along with his plans and will probably be back to the Planning Board at its next meeting also . Mr . Fabbroni concluded his report with the comment that Burns Road and the water and sewer jobs are gearing up to shoot for the first break in the weather , hopefully , April 15th , Mr . Klein asked Mr . Fabbroni how the priorities were established on the sewer and water improvement projects . Mr . Fabbroni responded that only the Town Board can answer that question , it being they who established the areas to be served . Chairman May stated that at the last meeting of the Planning Board he had offered his commendations to the staff for all their work in connection with the new sewage treatment plant project involving the City of Ithaca , the Town of Ithaca , and the Town of . Dryden . Chairman May stated that his statement did not make it into the Minutes but he did not feel it was necessary to have it Planning Board 3 March 6 , 1984 . be a correction to the Minutes - - he would just say it again . Chairman May said that the whole effort was really fantastic . REPORT OF THE TOWN PLANNER , PETER M . LOVI Mr . Lovi commented that he was afraid he did not have the receipt of 17 Million Dollars to report on , however , what he lacked in quality he would make up in quantity ! Mr . Lovi reported that the final draft of the proposed new subdivision regulations are now in the hands of all the Town Board members and are a Town Board agenda item for their meeting on March 12th . Mr . Lovi stated that perhaps the next time the Board meets he will have a report on that matter . Mr . Lovi reported that the Six Mile Creek Committee continues to meet and appears to be drawing up their final report , adding that he expected they will have a report in a couple of weeks which he will pass on to the Planning Board members . Mr . Lovi reported that there are a couple of meetings with DEC coming up on the Wetlands Mapping - - March 14th and March 21st at the NYSEG offices - - concerning the final wetlands maps for the Town of Ithaca . Mr . Lovi stated that he will be going . • Mr . Lovi reported that he has been working on the PUDs amendment and will speak on that later since it is an Agenda item . Mr . Lovi reported that he has seen nothing further on either the Lucente proposal or the Wiggins proposal , however , the Town Board rendered a negative declaration of environmental significance with respect to Lucente at its February 27th meeting . Mr . Lovi stated that Mr . Lucente should be coming back to the Planning Board in the near future . Mr . Lovi reported on three up- coming conferences under the auspices of the New York Land Institute . Mr . Lovi stated that six people were authorized by the Town Board to attend ; he will be going to each and Mr . Fabbroni , Mrs . Fuller , and Ms . Beeners will each attend one . Mr . Lovi stated that each conference to be attended is in Albany , commencing March 23rd , followed by April 17th and May 16th , with the programs entitled : " Land Use Regulations for Aesthetics : The Frontiers of the Police Power " , " Representing the New York Landowner in the 1980s " , and " The Donation of Open Space " , respectively . Mr . Lovi reported , with respect to comprehensive planning information , that he has been working with a Cornell University student who is assembling certain basic material . • Planning Board 4 March 6 , 1984 . Mr . Lovi reported on a meeting held today at Frank Liguori ' s office having to do with the use of somewhat smaller tandem trailers which use Route 17 to Third Street in the City of Ithaca . Mr . Lovi stated that a representative from H . W . Taynton Co . , Inc . , Trucking , plus City , County , Cornell , and Town representatives met to discuss a petition by Taynton to the State DOT to allow them the use of 28 - foot trailers in tandem into their site on Third Street . Mr . Lovi commented that at first blush it does seem to make a bit of sense , adding that there are two more axles making them easier to control and somewhat safer . Mrs . Grigorov wondered how much smaller these particular trailers are than the regular thruway - type trailer used in tandem . Mr . Lovi thought they were about 8 feet longer than a single 45 - foot trailer ; Chairman May thought they were about 20 feet shorter than a tandem thruway rig . Mr . Lovi reported that the County is recommending that there be a public informational meeting to obtain input on the request . REPORT OF THE SECRETARY , NANCY M . FULLER Mrs . Fuller distributed a " sign up if you ' re interested " sheet for a Planners ' Bus Tour of New York City , May 1984 , sponsored by the Southern Tier Section of the Upstate Chapter of the American Planning Association , the tour highlights being ( 1 ) Forest Hill Gardens , a planned community built after World War Is ( 2 ) Park Slope and Brooklyn Heights , historic districts ; ( 3 ) • South Street Seaport , urban cultural park , commercial area . It was left for the Board members to send in the interest sheet if they so chose to Harold Roth , Planning Director , Town of Union Planning Department , 3111 East Main Street , Endwell , New York , REPORT OF THE TOWN BUILDING INSPECTOR , LEWIS D . CARTEE The Building Inspector ' s Report of Building Permits Issued for the month of February 1984 shows that 2 permits were issued for $ 2 , 500 . 00 in improvements , as compared with February of 1983 where 3 permits were issued for $ 47 , 500 . 00 in improvements . REPORT OF THE PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD , CAROLYN GRIGOROV Mrs . Grigorov reported on the February 8th meeting of the County Planning Board . She stated that the Board discussed a draft copy of the NYS Inactive Hazardous Waste Remedial Plan prepared by NYSDEC which outlines the State ' s plan to deal with its 895 known or suspected hazardous waste sites and which points out 4 sites in Tompkins County - - 2 operated by Cornell in the Town of Lansing , 1 in Groton formerly operated by SCM , and 1 in Ithaca by the Fire Training School , Mrs . Grigorov stated that the average cost to treat sites is about $ 350 , 000 per acre . • Mrs . Grigorov reported that Stuart Stein , Chairman of the 1983 / 84 Committee appointed by the Board of Representatives on reapportionment , presented a progress report . Mrs . Grigorov stated that every 10 years , after census , local governments must Planning Board 5 March 6 , 1984 re - establish voting districts such that they conform as nearly as is possible to the concept of " one man - - one vote " . Mrs . Grigorov noted that weighted voting has been used as an interim measure until the districts could be redesigned . Mrs . Grigorov stated that maps were displayed showing the current plans and , after public hearings , the report should be ready by May or June of 1984 with the hope being that the redistricting will be in place by November of 1985 . Mrs . Grigorov reported that the current plan maintains the County Board membership at 15 , the ideal being , theoretically , that each member represents the same number of people , however , it is necessary to vary this ideal to reflect other considerations , a 15 % - 18o deviation being tolerated . Mrs . Grigorov mentioned that an average district would have 5 , 806 people , and commented that the most growth has been in the Northeast Town of Ithaca . Mrs . Grigorov reported that the County Planning Department conducts a survey twice a year on vacancy in rental apartment complexes , mostly in the Ithaca Urban Area - - some 3 , 700 units , adding that since 1979 the vacancy level has been pretty consistently at 3s . Mrs . Grigorov reported that , with respect to Route 96 , we are in the " alternate design stage . " She stated that , after public hearings this summer , the City must pass or not pass a resolution authorizing the State to take land for both phases ; it • is all or nothing . Mrs . Grigorov noted that the U . S . Coast Guard will not issue a permit for a bridge over the inlet unless the stream is crossed with a 152 - foot clearance , thus , ruling out at - grade crossing . Mrs . Grigorov commented that Mr . Liguori had pointed out that the impact of the at - grade option would be much greater and more disruptive on the west end than an overpass going over the railroad , Fulton Street , the Inlet , and Park Road , Mrs . Grigorov reported on the County Planning Board ' s discussion of PASNY Power , stating that PASNY wants to extend a major power line from Quebec Hydro to New York City - - known as the Marcy South Power Transmission lines - - some 200 miles , however , only 42 miles of it will be on a new right of way . She stated that this would mean a 186 million dollar saving per year over current use of foreign oil with all users benefitting and Upstate not having to share hydropower because it would be allocated power from Niagara / St . Lawrence , Mrs . Grigorov commented that there is quite a bit of controversy in areas through which the lines will pass . INFORMAL DISCUSSION WITH PINE TREE ASSOCIATES CONCERNING A SUBDIVISION IN THE AREA OF PINE TREE ROAD AND SLATERVILLE ROAD , PORTION OF TAX PARCEL # 6 - 57 - 1 - 11 . Chairman May invited Dr . Royal Colle to speak to the Board • about the proposed division of what was formerly the John Marion property . Dr . Colle introduced his colleagues Dr . Frank Baldwin and Dr . Hermogenes Mecenas . Dr . Colle appended a survey Planning Board 6 March 6 , 1984 • drawing entitled " Division of Lands at the Northeast Corner of N . Y . S . Route 79 and Pine Tree Road - Formerly the Estate of John L . Marion " , dated 12 / 83 , revised 1 / 20 / 84 , prepared by George Schlecht , P . E . , P . L . S . , to the bulletin board , an area of which had been outlined in green . Dr . Colle stated that the part outlined in green is the part that Pine Tree Associates are talking about subdividing into some 26 lots having access from both Park Lane and Regency Lane . Dr . Colle stated that he would like to describe a little of the background on the whole piece of land actually obtained . Dr . Colle stated that the three of them ( Colle , Baldwin , and Mecenas ) , along with a group of eight other neighbors purchased what was called the Marion Estate . He stated that they all bought it to protect the houses on Pine Tree Road and the houses on Slaterville Road so that there would not be undue intensive building in that area , noting that they bought that whole estate . Dr . Colle stated that then pieces were sold off to people on Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road , pointing out to the Board that those pieces can be seen just outside of the green marked line . Dr . Colle stated that they are concerned about further development of that area and , taking into consideration that they want to protect the character of the neighborhood , the proposal is not one of intensive building . Dr . Colle stated that they also want to work with the Town to control a very difficult water situation and also to plan the area to take care of a need for some recreational facilities , tentatively involving ski trails , sledding slopes and walking areas . • Dr . Colle stated that he Dr . Baldwin , and Dr . Mecenas have talked with Mr . Fabbroni to some extent as they have moved along with this plan and they see the possibility of deeding over to the Town a strip of land along the perimeter toward the Eastern Heights Subdivision ( a strip of land marked out on the drawing by the letter " S " ) to be part of a water drainage system . Dr . Colle stated that they also have been talking with Mr . Fabbroni about deeding over land adjacent to the water tower - - an area marked " R " on the map . Dr . Colle stated that they have also talked about putting some kind of a drainage ditch down along the perimeter of lots marked 111 " through 111211 , the perimeter being the area away from Eastern Heights property on the lots marked " D " through " M " . Dr . Colle commented that some kind of water drainage ditch would be useful going down that section . Dr . Colle , indicating on the map , stated that as one moves toward the cul de sac , they have put in an access road which goes toward the parcel marked " N " , purchased by Denman and which abuts the rear of the original Denman property and which runs from the cul de sac going south and bends over right where a particular mark is S39 ° 55 ' and goes to Hewett ' s land which he has purchased behind his original parcel . Dr . Colle stated that the purpose of that access area is to give the Town a way to get over to the creek that runs there on the very outside of this portion that they have marked ( indicating ) . Dr . Colle stated that the Hewetts and Ewings are • interested in letting the Town have access , and extending that right of way across there , is so the Town can service it . Dr . Colle pointed out that , continuing with the water strip " S " , the Planning Board 7 March 6 , 1984 . Board would note that that strip stops on a particular piece ( indicating ) above Hewett ' s parcel " 0 " . Dr . Colle stated that both Hewetts and Ewings have agreed that it would be beneficial to continue that strip across the top of their land and are interested in negotiating an easement with the Town to be able to deal with that . Again indicating on the map , Dr . Colle stated that , if you go from the cul de sac toward Slaterville Road , you will see a strip marked " Walkway / Utilities " . Dr . Colle stated that the exact location of that would be up to experts to go in and see the lay of the land , however , the idea is there for the walkway and utilities all the way down to Slaterville Road . Dr . Colle asked that Dr . Mecenas continue and describe certain other aspects of the proposal . Dr . Mecenas stated that they were hoping that the houses that would be built in these proposed lots will be of the same quality as what is in place on Slaterville Road and Pine Tree Road , Dr . Mecenas noted that the lots are approximately 225 ' deep and 100 ' wide , adding that those are the typical dimensions . Dr . Colle pointed out that , as you get into the cul de sac area , some of the shapes are irregular , however , the size is fairly consistent . Dr . Colle stated that one thing they have not really had a chance to talk with Mr . Fabbroni about is the possibility of further control of the water by possibly putting in some • additional ditches along the railroad bridge ( indicating ) just above Denman , Hewett , and Ewing . Dr . Colle commented that they might want to bring that into the whole system . Mrs . Schultz asked if the proposal was to just sell the lots . Dr . Colle responded that they want to be in on what goes up there . Dr . Colle stated that their expectation is in the maintenance of the care and quality of houses in the neighborhood , but they would also like to control the actual character of the houses such that they have the same uniformity , for example , the same siding . Mrs . Langhans wondered how they could do that , really . Mrs . Langhans wondered how such conformity could be attained . Mr . Fabbroni noted that they own the land . Mrs . Langhans wondered if they would specify a particular contractor . Dr . Colle stated that their idea is to try and find ten to twelve people who are interested in both building and building up there , and see if they would be interested in some economies of scale by all building at the same time . Mrs . Langhans stated that she would not think they would want them all to look the same . Dr . Colle stated that that was not really the case , adding that every house could be different but be of some uniform character so that there would not be one stucco , one brick , one paint , etc . Dr . Colle suggested that perhaps the word " theme " is a better choice of . words . Mrs . Langhans asked if they envisioned one - story houses , two - story houses , split levels , or had they thought about that . Planning Board 8 March 6 , 1984 Dr . Colle stated that what is in the area are essentially single family dwellings . Mr . Klein recalled that at the beginning of his statement Dr . Colle had referred to several parcels to the west and asked if these were part of their property . Dr . Colle stated that they were not ; they have already been bought and turned over to property owners on Pine Tree Road , Mrs . Langhans wondered if that happened at the same time they purchased the Marion Estate , Dr . Colle responded , yes , adding that it was practically on the same day . Chairman May noted that it appeared to be , from the map , the applicants ' intention that this lower land ( indicating ) would stay permanently as a recreational area . Dr . Colle stated that that was not correct and pointed out those that would be building lots and showed on the map the recreation area . Mrs . Langhans commented on there being one road in . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that there were two roads such that people would come up Snyder Hill Road into Eastern Heights and down one of those roads . Dr . Colle stated that that was correct and was by design . Dr . Mecenas pointed out that the accesses are shown off Regency Lane and Park Lane from Eastern Heights , there being no Route 79 access and no Pine Tree Road access . Chairman May commented that probably from the Town ' s • standpoint the content of the proposal would be of tremendous help to the Town from the water / drainage angle . Mr . Fabbroni stated that this sort of finishes the drainage the Town has been working toward for many years . Mr . Fabbroni described the cooperation over the years between the Town and John Marion ; he described the control structures and some of the maintenance thereof needed . Mr . Fabbroni commented that he has always wondered just what would be the outcome after all these years if the Town got neighbors who would enable the Town to continue the work it has started . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he has stressed open space for drainage rather than open space for recreation . In this connection , Mr . Fabbroni indicated on the drawing the Town of Ithaca parcel which is the Tudor Road Park . Mr . Fabbroni described the area that Dr . Baldwin maintains in what could be termed his own private preserve on the north end and about which the Town has said over the years that it is at his fancy who uses it , adding that neighbors use it if they do not abuse it . Mr . Fabbroni reitereated that during the discussions with the developers the need for additional recreational space has not been stressed and noted that they show it as their own idea for such things as sledding , frisbee , and the like . Mr . Fabbroni commented that that area may turn out to be a lot ten years down the line . Referring to the " S " area and the " R " area , Mr . Fabbroni spoke of the water tank and an area of Town property on the drawing which is a 100 - foot box and the last piece of land between the two and described the drainage involved and how what is being presented by the developers is a chance to consolidate the Town ' s efforts over the years . Mr . Fabbroni commented that Planning Board 9 March 6 , 1984 parcels " R " and " S " are a little less than 10 % of what amounts to 29 lots being proposed . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out , beyond that , certain easements for drainage about half way down and commented that he liked that this breaks the hillside into as many pieces as possible , indicating the way the drainage goes down to Slaterville Road and ties into the new State drainage improvements on the corner of Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road . Mr . Fabbroni described how this is all falling together to find a place to run that water to . Dr . Colle noted that all this land ( indicating ) that has been added by the neighbors is not for building , commenting that they are backyards for them - - open space , really and adding that there is no access anyway . Mrs . Grigorov wished to clarify that parcels " S " and " R " are to go to the Town . Mr . Fabbroni described how parcel " S " would be expanded , all by easement , across parcels " 0 " and " P " . Chairman May noted that the developers are also talking about expanding the end of the cul de sac as an access easement . Mr . Elmer Ewing stated that he and his wife and the Sapps , farther down Slaterville Road , share the " gorge " there and commented that it is getting to be quite a " gorge " . Mr . Ewing stated that they are very interested in what Mr . Fabbroni has been talking about . Mr . Ewing stated that the Hewetts have • indicated that they would go along with that also , adding that they are interested in the problem up above where the diversion ditch goes into the stream . Mr . Ewing stated that they ( Ewings ) are not interested in having more water going into that stream but they do not want to create more problems for the Hewetts , however , they ( Ewings ) would be concerned that no more water goes into that diversion ditch . Mr . Ewing reiterated that that would concern them very much . Mr . Fabbroni stated that there may be less water coming to that stream because of that drainageway being talked about now , although it is hard to say because he did not have the design detail , but there should be no more and possibly less . Mr . Fabbroni commented that some water would be cut off by the development of the lots and brought back to the northwest , adding that it is now sheeting in a southerly direction . Mr . Fabbroni noted that there are no new connections from Eastern Heights into the diversion ditch . Referring again to the " S " area , Mr . Fabbroni described a little trench there which starts out at Regency Lane and turns into a full - fledged matter into the diversion ditch , adding that everything else would drain to the area shown on the plan as walkway / utilities . Mr . Fabbroni commented on and described how , under another development pattern , it would be possible to have another stream , noting that the dedication of the walkways / utilities strip and the drainage planned changes that possibility . Chairman May commented that having access to maintain that stream would benefit the Town a lot also . Planning Board 10 March 6 , 1984 Mr . Ewing stated that he would like to have access and in return have the right to come through there to get onto his land with a tractor if he should ever need to , perhaps by a new road down to the cul de sac . Mr . Fabbroni thought that the easiest way would be for Mr . Ewing to have access over that strip ( indicating ) and , in turn , give the Town the right to operate over their right , i . e . , a permanent easement to the Town from the individual . Mr . Fabbroni commented that the Town would love to be written into an instrument but this is really the better way . Chairman May asked the Board members how they felt about the proposal , noting that this is an informal discussion . Dr . Colle commented that he and his colleagues would appreciate having some sense as to whether it is appropriate to go ahead with this kind of idea , or , whether they are way off - base . Mrs . Langhans thought that she had heard that the recreation area shown might be a lot . Dr . Colle stated that that was right , adding that it would not be a separate lot but would be added to another . Mr . Klein wondered if this scheme works out for the topography . Dr . Colle stated that it did , adding that the cul de sac will be almost level and further that the cul de sac is proposed at 60 feet wide with the 100 - foot lots fronting thereon . 0 Mr . Fabbroni described the foot access to Slaterville Road which , for example , could permit the picking up of transit service there . Chairman May wondered about problems with stairs on the walkway , were there to be any . Mr . Fabbroni stated that that could be better determined when the topo is available . Mrs . Langhans wondered if it would be a Town -maintained path in the winter to walk to transit . Dr . Baldwin stated that it was too steep for such use in the winter and added that he did not think it should be Town -maintained ; he thought it should be private . Chairman May stated that he thought it looked very nice as a project and offers a nice solution to the drainage problems . Mrs . Grigorov stated that she thought that people living in an area and protecting it is good . Chairman May thought that , perhaps , the square turn at the top ( off Regency Lane ) could be curved a little . Mrs . Schultz thought that the headlights of cars coming in there would be a bit of a problem for the house to be in parcel # 1 . Mrs . Langhans agreed . It was the consensus of the Board that it was a very nice project . Doctors Colle , Baldwin , and Mecenas thanked the Board members and the staff members for their time and consideration . DISCUSSION OF A DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERMITTING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA , Each of the Planning Board members wa0 s for his / her / her comment the following draft document with respect to PUDs Planning Board 11 March 6 , 1984 • ( Planned Unit Developments ) , prepared by Mr . Lovi , and proposed as an additional section to be included in the revisions being considered for the proposed new zoning law . " Section 1 . Definitions . Planned Unit Development - A diversified development project which does not fit the basic district regulations of this Zoning Law , and which is developed as an entity in such a manner as to promote the general development policies of the Town . It permits activities , mixtures of activities , and densities which are not allowed by any of the district regulations in this Zoning Law . Planned Unit Development District - A zoning district established upon application by a developer . Establishment of a Planned Unit Development District constitutes an amendment to the Zoning Map , in that it replaces all of the existing district regulations with the provisions of the Planned Unit Development Amendment adopted according to the procedure set forth below . An amendment to this Zoning Law to provide for a PUD District is subject to the same procedural requirements as any other amendment , including Public Hearings , posting , and notification of adjacent landowners . Planned Unit Development Districts are identified individually and sequentially ( e . g . PUD - 1 , PUD- 2 , etc . ) Individual Planned Unit Development Districts , each with its own number , are estab - • lished by preparing and adopting an amendment to the text and map of this Zoning Law . These amendments are to be inserted as Section 9 . Section 2 . Purpose . The purpose of a Planned Unit Development District is to intro - duce a degree of flexibility in conventional land use and design regulations which will encourage imaginative and innovative developments which will insure efficient investments in public improvements , a more suitable environment , and protection of community interests in accordance with a comprehensive plan . The Planned Unit Development District is intended to encourage innovation in residential , nonresidential , and combined - use development so that the demand for residential and nonresidential facilities of many different types and prices can be met . It is recognized that certain types of nonresidential activities in otherwise residential areas are beneficial if they observe certain performance and design conditions . The Planned Unit Development District is to be used to enable developments to occur that may not be permitted on a lot -by - lot basis by the Basic District Regulations of this Zoning Law . Therefore , where the Planned Unit Development concept is appropriate and the land is rezoned to a Planned Unit Development District , the regula - tions set forth in the Basic District regulations are replaced with the regulations adopted specifically for the Planned Unit Development District under consideration . • Planning Board 12 March 6 , 1984 • Section 3 . Specific Objectives . The objectives of the Planned Unit Development procedure are to achieve , insofar as possible , the following : 1 . A maximum choice in the types of environment , occupancy , tenure ( e . g . condominium , individual ownership , coopera - tives , leasing ) , types of housing , and community facilities available to existing Town residents at all economic levels ; 2 . More usable open space and recreation areas ; 3 . More convenience and flexibility in the location of any nonresidential facilities ; 4 . The preservation of trees , drainageways , outstanding natural topography and geologic features , and prevention of soil erosion ; 5 . A creative use of land and facilities which will produce an orderly transition from intensive to less intensive use of land ; 6 . An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets , and thereby , lower community costs ; • 7 . A development pattern in harmony with the long - range objec - tives of the general development plan of the Town ; and 8 . A more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of other provisions of this code . Section 4 . General Considerations , 1 . A Planned Unit Development District may be considered anywhere in the Town . 2 . When reviewing a site plan for a project which has not been proposed as a Planned Unit Development , the Planning Board may decide that due to scale , location , expected impact , or other factors , the project should be resubmitted as a Planned Unit Development proposal . 3 . Establishment of a Planned Unit Development District is an amendment to the Zoning Law and therefore must follow the procedures described elsewhere in this Zoning Law for the amendment of the Law . 4 . The lot area is not to be less than 10 acres . 5 . The lot must have a minimum frontage of 600 feet . • Planning Board 13 March 6 , 1984 • 6 . The overall development intensity may not be higher than the highest development intensity permitted in any abutting or superimposed district . 7 . All residential facilities and activities are permitted in a Planned Unit Development District , and any nonresidential facilities and activities will be permitted if the developer can demonstrate that they will promote the long - range objectives of the general development plan of the Town , will contribute to the quality of the proposed development of the area , and will lead to the direct or indirect enhancement of the surrounding neighborhood in terms of open space , vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement , community opera - tive costs , landscaping , preservation of natural features , and an improved living environment . 7 . The Town Board will act as the Lead Agency in the environ - mental review of all Planned Unit Developments . 8 . A Planned Unit Development which is predominantly for Commercial or Industrial Activities will be approved only on sites abutting State Highways , except that sites not on State Highways will be considered if the lot size is at least 25 acres , and the road frontage is at least 1000 feet . Section 5 . Planned Unit Development Procedure . • Planned Unit Development Districts are e considered and adopted individually according to the following procedure . Preliminary Proposal An applicant for a Planned Unit Development District must submit a request to the Town Board in the form of a Preliminary PUD proposal , which must include : 1 . A sketch development plan showing existing and proposed development and the approximate location of proposed facili - ties and activities , existing topographic characteristics , approximate location of streets and easements , and existing development immediately adjacent to the proposed PUD Dis - trict , 2 . A written explanation of the character and purpose of the Planned Unit Development District including the type and density of any housing proposed , the water and sewer system proposed , a general statement of proposed financing , and the expected timetable for development . 3 . An Environmental Assessment Long Form . • 4 . A request to rezone a specific site to a PUD District ain accordance with the amendment procedure of this Zoning Law . • Planning Board 14 March 6 , 1984 • 5 . A description of the site boundary suitable for inclusion on the Zoning Map , 6 . An outline of the contents of the PUD regulations sought , covering as many as possible of the points in a Basic District Regulation , The Town Board may direct the applicant to provide additional information and to attend meetings to confer with them . Preparation of an Amendment for a Planned Unit Development District The Town Board takes under advisement the materials and infor - mation presented in the applicant ' s preliminary proposal . If the Town Board chooses to act on the application and proceed with the rezoning to a PUD District , an amendment to the Zoning Law is prepared including an amendment to the map and regulations governing the PUD District . The regulations shall , as a minimum , cover the following points : 1 . Facilities and activities to be allowed : mix , magnitude , and location ; 2 . Minimum lot area and frontage ( if PUD is to be divided into • separate ownership parcels ) ; 3 . Minimum yard depth , including spacing between facilities , and 4 . Maximum facility dimensions . In addition , the regulations for the PUD District should include all other items the Town Board considers pertinent . The Town Board may include provisions which are not found elsewhere in this Zoning Law but which is a legitimate exercise of police power . Section 6 . Site Plan Review of Newly Established Planned Unit Developments . In amending the Zoning Law to establish a new PUD District the Town Board also directs the Planning Board to conduct Site Plan review and approval of a Final Detailed Site Plan for the Planned Unit Development District , thereby ensuring that the PUD District is developed in accordance with the applicable regulations . Section 7 . Town Board Review . If within a reasonable time after approval of the Final Detailed Site Plan by the Planning Board no progress has been made on the PUD by the developer or any successor , the Town Board may con - sider amending the Zoning Law to delete the PUD district . , J Planning Board 15 March 6 , 1984 Section 8 . Revisions of Final Detailed Site Plan for Subdivided Planned Unit Developments . All sections of a subdivided Planned Unit Development District are to be controlled by the Final Detailed Site Plan . The provisions governing amendments to the Final Detailed Site Plan apply even though subdivision has occurred . The owners or lessees of a subdivided Planned Unit Development District may jointly or separately make application under this Zoning Law for an amendment to the Final Detailed Site Plan . " Mr . Lovi stated that he had used the Town of Groton ' s PUD amendment as a model for the draft before the Board . Mr . Lovi stated that Gary Evans of the Tompkins County Department of Planning staff had been responsible for assisting the Town of Groton in preparing its PUD amendment , commenting that it is pretty much " state of the art " . Mr . Lovi noted that PUDs had been a part of both the 1974 draft zoning ordinance and the 1976 draft zoning ordinance , proposed in both cases as if they were another zoning district designation . Mr . Lovi also noted that PUDs disappeared from the drafts prepared after 1976 . Mr . Lovi stated that in the proposal before the Board tonight , the PUD is not another zone , it is a condition . Mr . Lovi stated that , when there is a use , or a site plan , or a proposal which , in the way it is presented , conceived , and • structured would not fall comfortably within any of the zone designations in the zoning law and , thus , a rezoning is not the appropriate tack , therefore , the Planning Board recognizes the use of the PUD condition . Mr . Lovi pointed out that an example of such a situation would be Mr . Wiggins ' Chateau proposal which involved expansion of L ' Auberge and the development of a bed and breakfast accommodation . Mr . Lovi commented that if the PUD concept here presented were a part of the existing Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , The Chateau could be PUD # 1 and further , Lake Shore West could be PUD # 2 , Mr . Lovi stated that the document presented for comment is a particular bit of legislation which embodies planning criteria . Mr . Lovi stated , insofar as procedure is concerned , PUD review proceeds much like a rezoning from one zone designation to another , because it is a rezoning . Mr . Lovi pointed out that the document envisions the Town Board receiving advice from the Planning Board with the Planning Board essentially saying , " We think you should look at it as a PUD . " Continuing , Mr . Lovi noted that then the Town Board looks at the Environmental Assessment Long Form , makes a determination , and then they rezone that property with conditions . Mr . Lovi pointed out that the Town Board may refer the matter during its deliberations to the Planning Board for conditions , commenting that this would be most likely to occur . Mr . Lovi stated that the Planning Board would • impose such conditions as it may deem appropriate and submit a resolution of recommendation back to the Town Board which could modify the proposal if it saw fit . . � Planning Board 16 March 6 , 1984 Chairman May asked if this proposed document called for the Planning Board to be initiator of the PUD to the Town Board , Mr . Lovi stated that it did not ; it is the developer who would be the initiator . Mr . Lovi commented that this approach is essentially a merging of a lot of the things which are spread around presently among the Zoning Board of Appeals , the Planning Board , and the Town Board , Chairman May stated that it looked to him that this opens up nothing abnormal , the only restriction is ten acres . Mr . Lovi commented that that is the idea , adding that this is a process of negotiation - - it does not oblige , it is not by right . Chairman May thought the proposal contained pretty good checks and balances between the Planning Board and the Town Board . Mr . Lovi pointed out the references to parcels on State Highways where , if the proposed PUD is predominantly for commercial or industrial activities , the parcel must be located and , if it is not , it must contain 25 acres and have 1 , 000 feet of frontage . Mr . Lovi described how the existing 1968 ordinance essentially emphasized " uses " rather than " effects " . Mr . Lovi pointed out to the Board that , in his opinion , the most important sentence in the document is in Section 4 , paragraph # 6 - - " The overall development intensity may not be higher than the highest development intensity permitted in any abutting or superimposed district . " There will be further discussion on PUDs at future meetings . • ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the March 6 , 1984 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 00 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . s