Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1987-01-06 FDate ED F ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD JANUARY 6 , 1987 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , January 6 , 1987 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Carolyn Grigorov , Robert Kenerson , Jame : Baker , David Klein , Edward Mazza , John C . Barney , Esq . ( Town Attorney ) , Robert R . Flumerfelt , P . E . ( Town Engineer ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , Andrew Frost ( Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) , Mary S . Bryant ( Recording Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Vincent Franciamone , Douglass Payne , J . Rawlins , George C . Kugler , Peter D . Novelli , Sandra C . Novelli , Glenda Williammee , David Rumsey , David C . Auble , Adolph J Colletti , John F . Fecitt , Jagat P . Sharma , Gus E . Lambrou , Mary Wessel , Frances Connelly , Louis Hsu , Margie Rumsey , Jack Burns , E . L . Rose Gostanian Monkemeyer , Peter Hillman , Elliott Lauderdale , Nancy Ostman , Cornell University Associate Counsel Shirley K . Egan , George C . Schlecht , Edwin Hallberg , Thomas Niederkorn , Robert Hines , Esq . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Adjourned Public Hearing ( Jack M . Herman et al ) in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on December 29 , 1986 and January 1 , 1987 , respectively . NON -AGENDA ITEM Mr . Frost distributed a copy of his December 1986 Report of Building Permits Issued , together with a copy of his 1986 Annual Report , to each of the Board members . ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN FOR THE MEETING MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that Montgomery May act as Chairman for the January 6 , 1987 meeting of said Planning Board . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Klein , Mazza . Nay - None . Abstain - May . CARRIED , Planning Board 2 January 6 , 1987 • CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ITS CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN FOR 1987 . MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the appointment of Mr . Montgomery May as Chairman of the Planning Board for 1987 . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Baker , Klein , Mazza . Nay - None . Abstain - May . CARRIED . MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the appointment of Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov as Vice Chairman of the Planning Board for 1987 . Aye - May , Kenerson , Baker , Klein , Mazza . Nay - None . Abstain - Grigorov . CARRIED . CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH RESPECT TO PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATION ON THE CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN BOARD „ Mrs . Fuller reported that Supervisor Desch has asked that there be both Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals representation on the Codes and Ordinances Committee . Chairman May stated that he would like to recommend the appointment of Virginia Langhans and James Baker to the Codes and Ordinances Committee of the Town Board . MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . David Klein : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the appointments of Mrs . Virginia Langhans and Mr . James Baker as the Planning Board representatives on the Codes and Ordinances Committee of the Town Board . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Kenerson , Klein , Mazza . Nay - None ,, Abstain - Baker . CARRIED . : Planning Board 3 January 6 , 1987 NON -AGENDA ITEMS Mrs . Fuller reminded the Board members that they had each received a copy of the October. 21 , 1986 Planning Board Minutes as had been transcribed by Court Reporter Laurie Walker , and corrected by staff , and which will be offered for approval at the Board ' s January 20th meeting . Mrs . Fuller stated that Supervisor Desch had noted a few minor corrections which will be presented to the Board for its consideration at that time . Ms . Beener- s informed the Board members that at 7 : 00 p . m . , on January 7 , 1987 , in Common Council Chambers , City Hall , there will be a presentation on the Supply , Demand , and Affordability of Housing in the Ithaca area , based on a Report prepared by Katherine Evans , City Planner . Ms . Beeners stated that she will be attending that meeting . FIRE SAFETY NOTIFICATION Chairman May read aloud the Fire Safety and Exit Notification Regulations as :required . SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 0 . 34 ± ACRE LOT FROM A 16 . 74 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED BACKLOT OF 104 RIDGECREST ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 6 - 45 - 1 - 2 . 6 , and , CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CONCERNING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF SAID PROPOSED LOT HAVING LESS THAN 150 FEET OF FRONTAGE ALONG A TOWN ROAD AND HAVING A FRONT YARD NOT ON A TOWN ROAD . GRACE CASCIOLI , OWNER , VINCENT FRANCIAMONE , AGENT . Chairman May opened the discussion on the above -noted matter at 7 : 45 p . m . , and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above . Mr . Franciamone was present . The following document was before the Board . 1 . Location M. aP , as prepared by Susan C . Beeners for the 1 / 6 / 87 Planning Board meeting . Mr . Franciamone addressed the Board , stated that he had revised his proposal from one lot to four lots , and appended a Survey Map entitled " Lands of Grace Cascioli and Part of Lands of Lagrand E . Chase , Jr . - Ridgecrest Road - Town of Ithaca " , dated August 27 , 1983 , signed and sealed by Kenneth A . Baker , L . L . S . , upon which had been drawn four lots noted as " A " , " B " , " C " , and " D " , a strip marked R . O . W . , and a distance of 500 ' along the center line of King Road , Mr . Franciamone , commenting that he was sure everyone on the Board respected Mr . Fabbroni ' s sound judgment , distributed to each Board member a copy of a Memorandum from former Town Engineer Lawrence P . Fabbroni to Vincent Franciamone and Grace Cascioli , dated September 23 , 1985 , in re " Access to Tax Parcel 6 - 45 - 1 - 2 . 2 " , in the margin of the first page of which had been added the symbols " N / A " beside " Alternative I " and " Alternative II " , and , of the three drawings which had been attached to Mr . Fabbroni ' s original memorandum , labelled •= Planning Board 4 January 6 , 1987 " '� , " Alternative I Alternative II11 . and Alternative III " . only the drawing labelled " Alternative III " was attached which had been redrawn adding four lots , the words " Private ROW " , and other changes , additions , or deletions . Mr . Franciamone stated that the project is located in Residence District R- 15 , backlot of the intersection of East King Road and Ridgecrest Road . Indicating on the Survey Map on the bulletin board , Mr . Franciamone described lots " A " " B " " C " and " D " ► , pointed out Ridgecrest Road and the existing lots located thereon . Mr . Franciamone pointed out a proposed right of way coming in to the four proposed lots 500 feet west of the intersection of East King Road and Ridgecrest Road , and stated that their north boundary line does not extend to East King Road , adding that Mr . Erdman owns the land between their north boundary and East King Road , with the Erdman property also wrapping around on the west side . Mr . Mazza asked Mr . Franciamone if he owned the right of way over the Erdman property shown on the drawing , with Mr . Franciamone responding , not. yet . Mr . Franciamone stated that he would like the record to show that the 150 feet of road frontage mentioned in the Agenda as being required was incorrect , and further stated that in an R- 15 district only 100 feet of road frontage is required . Town Planner Susan Beeners asked Mr . Franciamone if he knew if Mr . Erdman had any plans at this time as to how he would want to see his land subdivided . Mr . Franciamone stated that recently a one - acre lot in the corner of Erdman ' s land was subdivided off and sold . Ms . Beeners displayed the recent Gregoire subdivision to which Mr . Franciamone had referred ( Planning Board October 7 , 1986 ) and stated that Mr . Erdman, could get one lot in from that now existing Gregoire lot line to the proposed right of way , adding that Mr . Franciamone ' s existing lot on Ridgecrest Road has a depth of 275 feet . Mr . Franciamone stated that the proposed lots will have 100 feet of frontage and, will be 150 feet deep , as required . Mr . Franciamone stated that he was actively engaged in discussions with Mr . Erdman . Discussion followed with respect to the right of way and access to the four proposed lots , with Mr . Franciamone posing as the main question - - " Is this [ 60 - foot right of way ] going to have any effect on any approvals ? " , and with Chairman May stating that if a road is not dedicated to the Town it is not a Town road . Mr . Franciamone distributed to each of the Board members a copy of pages 12 and 13 of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations with definitions of " Set Back Line " and " Street " marked . Mr . Franciamone stated that " it " would come under the " street regulations " . Mr . Franciamone asked if the road is going to comply as a street . Chairman May rioted that what Mr . Franciamone had marked was a definition of EL street . Both Messrs . May and Klein stated that the Subdivision Regulations require a 60 - foot right of way for a Town road which has to be built according to Town specifications , adding that the Town Board will not accept a road that does not meet those i Planning Board 5 January 6 , 1987 requirements . Town Attorney Barney stated that in order to have a building permit you have to have a Town road or a variance . Mr . Klein commented that an example of this would be the subdivision on Compton Road ( Berggren ) . Mr . Klein , commenting that , perhaps , the four lots would not be a .problem , once the road is built , stated that the upshot is that the four lots must be on a Town road and that road has to be built to Town 'Highway Specifications , approved by the Town Engineer and the Town Highway Superintendent and accepted by the Town Board , otherwise , a variance has to be granted to get a permit to build . Mr . Franciamone indicated that his plans were to build on all four lots at one time and stated that he would build the road to `Town specifications . Chairman May suggested to Mr . Franciamone that he get the road approved by the Town Engineer and then there could be the possibility of dedicating the road to the Town . Mr . Mazza asked Mr . Franciamone if he had any plans beyond these four lots , adding that the Board would like to see some sort of sketch for the rest of the area even though that is not part of the approval sought at this time . Mr . Franciamone stated that he wanted the Board to act on exactly what he has presented at this meeting , however , he could show the Board what the remainder of the parcel could look like . Indicating on the drawing on the bulletin board , Mr . Franciamone pointed out how a roadway could circle all the way around , say , thirty lots , with one acre being dedicated to a Town park or open space . Chairman May asked Mr . Franciamone if there were any second access to that remaining :land , with Mr . Franciamone responding that there is no second access right now but there has been provision for that through the Sawyer lands , which he has been working on . Ms . Beeners asked if there were any access through the Erdman property , with Mr . Franciamone stating that there could be , depending on who buys the property . Ms . Beeners stated that she would like to mention the project which will be looked at later on in this meeting [ Auble ] . Ms . Beeners stated that she and Town Engineer Robert Flumerfelt have been active in conversations with the proposed developers of the former Majestic Heights site as to the exact location of the entrance to that project in relation to access through the Erdman lands to the Cascioli lands , and which may need some further discussion among the different landowners involved as to whether there will be an opposite arrangement between those two roadways or whether there will be some staggering with adequate distances between . Mr . Franciamone asked what the distance is , noting that his plan shows 500 feet . Ms . Beeners display eid a copy of the " Majestic Heights " Sketch Plan and showed the revised entrance to that project moved from a location across from R .idgecrest Road basically for safety reasons as to potential problems at such an intersection . Ms . Beeners stated that , whether the " Majestic Heights " developers move their road over so it is opposite the proposed Franciamone access , or whether even a further staggering of the two entrances is needed , perhaps farther east on Majestic Heights " , in any event , these two entrances should be separate and further discussion is needed between the developers of " Majestic Heights " , Erdman , and Franciamone insofar as , roughly , access being able to come from the remaining Erdman land farther west c. Planning Board 6 January 6 , 1987 and how that would relate to the access to the " Majestic Heights " project . Mr . Franciamone asked the Board members their opinion of the plan he has submittE! d . Mrs . Grigorov stated that she did not dislike it . Mr . Klein offered that having a road to serve the lots is what the Board has been after . Mr . Mazza wondered if there were any creeks there , with Mr . Franciamone responding , no , and adding that the grade and drainage will be the same ; the ditch lines the same , and the water and sewer lines will run through the corner lot owned by Grace Cascioli , with everything parallel to Ridgecrest Road . After discussion with Ms . Beeners , Chairman May suggested that Mr . Franciamone could proceed with preliminary plans and could come before the Board for a Public Hearing for consideration of preliminary approval on January 20 , 1987 , at 8 : 40 p . m . Chairman May asked Mr . Franciamone to submit a copy of the plan which he had displayed to Mrs . Fuller for the record , with Mr . Franciamone stating that he could bring in a copy . For the record , Mr . Franciamone delivered a copy to the Secretary on January 12 , 1987 . Chairman May declared the matter of the Cascioli / Franciamone sketch plan review duly closed at 8 : 02 p . m . ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING ( FROM DECEMBER 2 , 1986 ) : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED 30 - UNIT MULTIPLE RESIDENCE PROJECT TO BE LOCATED ON TWO ACRES OF LAND IN A MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT AT 1009 - 11 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 43 - 1 - 1 . JACK M . HERMAN ET AL , OWNERS ; ARCHITECT / AGENT . GUS E . LAMBROU , APPLICANT ; JAGAT P . SHARMA , Chairman May stated , for the record , that he was withdrawing from any and all participation in any discussions with respect to the Herman matter , due to possible conflict of interest . Vice Chairman Grigorov took over the Chair , declared the Adjourned Public Hearing opened at 8 : 03 p . m . , and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above . Mrs . Fuller noted that the Notice of Public Hearing had been duly posted and published on December 29 , 1986 and January 1 , 1987 , respectively , and that an Affidavit to that effect was before the Board . Architect Jagat P . Sharma and Mr . Gus E . Lambrou were present . 11 The following documents were before the Board . 1 . Site Plan ( Revised ) , dated 12 . 16 . 1986 , prepared by Jagat P . Sharma , Architect , with letter dated December 29 , 1986 [ from Jagat P . Sharma ] , attached thereto , reading as follows . " DANBY ROAD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT : 1009 - 11 DANBY ROAD , ITHACA , NY , PROJECT DEQ> CRI PTION : ® Revised Site Plan : dated December 16 , 1986 . During pre ::) entation of Site Plan and other drawings at December 2 , 1986 public hearing several issues were raised regarding Planning Board 7 January 6 , 1987 density and building height . In response to these concerns the site plan has been revised to incorporate several changes . Additional 50 ' has been added to the lot size at the east end increasing the lot area to 2 acres . As a result of this extra lot dimension yard sizes have been revised as follows : front yard - 70 feet , rear yard - 58 feet , side yard minimum 29 feet . Also , the density is reduced from 17 units per acre to 15 units per acre . Other details remain the same as before . With the :new yard dimensions variance is not required for side and rear yards . Regarding parking in the front yard , we consider the distance between the property line along road side and the first building to be the front yard , and no parking is provided within this distance of 70 feet which is more than the required 50 feet dimension . As regard :; to building height along road side , we have increased the front yard dimension by 20 feet . We consider the proposed building height of 2 1 / 2 story above grade to be compatible with the existing neighborhood . It is not clear whether a building 70 feet away from the road side property line is still considered to be ' on the road ' . However if a variance is required in this case , we are requesting that such variance be granted . " 2 . Letter , dated December 22 , 1986 , to Susan Beeners , from Karl J . Niklas , setting forth " a list of organisms found on or near the proposed building site of Mr . Gus Lambrou on I96B . 00011 3 . Letter , dated December 5 , 1986 , to Susan C . Beeners , from Frederick Grout , P . E . , Resident Engineer , Tompkins County , State of New York Department of Transportation . 4 . Letter , dated December 8 , 1986 , to Susan C . Beeners , from Frank R . Liguori. , with respect to " Area variance appeal of Gus Lambrou at 1009 - 11 Danby Road ( state highway ) . . . " 5 . Letter , dated January 5 , 1987 , to Jagat P . Sharma , from George Schlecht , P . E . , P . L . S . , with respect to drainage , with a 9 - page attachment thereto entitled , " DRAINAGE STUDY - PROPOSED HOUSING PROJECT - Tax Parcel # 43 - 1 - 1 " , prepared for Jagat P . Sharma , George C . Schlecht , P . E . , L . S . 6 . Letter , ( 3 pages ) , dated January 5 , 1987 , to the members of the Planning Board , from Elizabeth J . Bixler , Attorney for " several of the residences near the proposed Lambrou Development on Danby Road , 00 . 11 7 . Letter , dated December 31 , 1986 , to Montgomery May , with copies to the members of the Planning Board , from Peter D . Novelli , P . E . , stating that " Dr . Karl Niklas of 1005 Danby Road has retained me to provide an objective assessment of the impacts from the proposed development on his and other nearby properties . At his request , I am enclosing herewith a copy of my report for your review . 00 . 11 8 . Report , seven pages , dated December 24 , 1986 , to Dr . Karl Niklas , a ' Planning Board 8 January 6 , 1987 1005 Danby Road , from Peter D . Novelli , P . E . 9 . Draft Resolution , prepared by Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner , with respect to " Proposed 30 - unit Multiple Residence Project , 1009 - 11 Danby Road " . Mr . Sharma addressed the Board and appended a Revised Site Plan to the bulletin board . Mr . Sharma reiterated what he had set forth in his letter attached to the revised plan before the Board , noting that the plan has been revised , the density reduced , and the need for side and rear yard variance is no longer applicable . Mr . Sharma stated that Mr . Lambrou has offered to buy an additional 50 feet on the east end , making the lot for the project a full two acres . The developer has taken that 50 feet and increased the front yard from 50 feet to 70 feet , 50 feet being required , and also , increased the rear yard to 58 feet - - twice the height of the buildings - - and moved the buildings to make the side yards 29 feet . Mr . Sharma stated that by making these changes , the applicant is not requesting variance for side yard and rear yard since it is now in compliance with the zoning ordinance , and also , the density is reduced from 17 . 1 units per acre to 15 per acre with the lot coverage reduced from 14 . 53 % to 12 . 85 % . Mr . Sharma stated that the other details are the same - - thirty units , five buildings , two - -and - one - half floors above ground , with the thirty units divided up into ten two -bedroom , ten three -bedroom , and ten four -bedroom units . Mr . Sharma stated that there has been one change having to do with the number of residents , that is , the previous number of 110 - 140 has been revised to 907110 , adding that this number was based on their experience in dealing with the City where they want to know exactly the number of persons . Mr . Sharma stated that Mr . Lambrou will accept conditions on the building permit and certificate of compliance to limit the number of residents in the project to 90 - 110 . Mr . Sharma stated that there are two remaining questions , the answers to which are not clear to the developers , so , they do not know if they need variances . ( 1 ) " What is a ' front yard ' ? " Mr . Sharma stated that they believe , from the ordinance , that the first 50 feet parallel to the road is the " front yard " , and that no parking is permitted in the front yard . Mr . Sharma stated that they are not providing parking in the front yard , which is not just 50 feet , but is 70 feet . ( 2 ) " Height " . Mr . Sharma stated that they have compared heights of buildings around Danby Road ; they have photographs , and they believe the buildings are totally compatible with the character of the neighborhood . The buildings are 22 stories above grade , 291 , 70 feet from the property line , and , again , it is not clear about a building on a road , that is , how close you have to be to the road to be considered as a building on the road . Mr . Sharma stated that they think 70 feet is in line with Mr . Niklas ' property . Mr . Sharma recalled that there were many questions about drainage and stated that they have done a drainage study and a complete Report . as completed by George Schlecht , P . E . , has been delivered to Ms . Beeners . Mr . Sharma concluded , noting that other drawings , floor plans , etc . , were handed in before . Planning Board 9 January 6 , 1987 Acting Chairman Grigorov , noting that this was a Public Hearing , asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak . Ms . Frances Connelly , 1013 Danby Road , spoke from the floor and stated that a variance is a departure from the zoning as it exists . Ms . Connelly stated that , as to hardship , she and Ms . Wessel could not see any hardship , such as a creek running through the property - - there is no creek running through the property , adding that the developer want : the maximum density , and further adding that Mr . Lambrou needs variances in order to be legal . Acting Chairman Grigorov noted that Mr . Lambrou has eliminated the need for some variances . Mr . Sharma stated that , as they understand it right now , this land is zoned legally for multiple family and has been zoned as such for 22 years and the neighbors knew this for a long time . Mr . Sharma stated that his client , knowing the zoning , made an offer and they went ahead and prepared drawings - - working with the Town Planner - - did test borings , drainage study , and so on , and to be told at this point in the game that this land is not zoned multi - family is a problem . Ms . Beeners stated that a variance probably would be needed for having more than two stories on the roadside , adding that she saw some justification for such when one considers where the view is . Ms . Beeners noted that there is also the question of parking in the " front yard " which may be unclear . Ms . Connelly stated that their house is 22 feet high , adding that they can see the Lake , and further adding that 22 stories on the high side is out of character with the neighborhood , as is the density . Mr . Mazza asked how far it is between building # 2 and # 3 , with Mr . Sharma responding that those buildings are connected by a laundromat . Ms . Mary Wessel , 1013 Danby Road , spoke from the floor and stated that she felt the density - was not lowered except per acre . Ms . Connelly stated that a density of 90 to 110 people in an area of only about 50 people means that the density is not really lowered , and the variances make it so much out of character . Ms . Connelly noted that 40 parking spaces are shown , adding that that is , again , absolutely legal , however , they went to Hudson Heights Apartments [ City of Ithaca ] , which has 200 apartments and 148 parking spaces which were filled up . Ms . Connelly stated that she was also concerned with cars parked on the street , adding that this poses a traffic hazard . Ms . Connelly , stating that a neighbor did a study , displayed six colored photographs and a diagram mounted on a large piece of cardboard . Ms . Connelly submitted same for the record , as well as a letter from Mr . William E . Harding , reading as follows * " William E . Harding 993 Danby Road . . . Planning Board 10 January 6 , 1987 Objections to Danby Road Apartment Proposed by Lambrou . Several objections already have been presented before the Planning Board which I believe to be worth elaboration . 1 . The highway configuration with two southbound lanes merging to one ; and 2 . The local soil drainage condition . The accompanying sketch , with photographs , indicates that the proposed apartment driveway would be essentially at the southern end of 400 ft = long transition zone from two lanes southerly to one lane . My home , also on the east side of Danby Road and about 300 ft north of the proposed development , is closer to the middle of this lane - squeeze stretch . I ' m well aware of the conflict with predominant highway use , and potential danger , when I ' m coming uphill from the City intending to make a left -turn into my driveway . This is true any time of day or night because of those long - distance travelers whose driving techniques indicate total unfamiliarity with the highway configuration . Of particular potential hazzard is the extended homeward - bound afternoon commuter period . I frequently have to pull off to the right in the State Overlook parking area to allow pressing traffic to move by . At this proposed apartment driveway , twenty or more times as many vehicles would routinely be making the same left -turn maneuver , without benefit. of an appropriate waiting area . This would be happening at the point where 90 % of traffic has accelerated to the posted speed limit ( 55 mph ) , and all southbound traffic is completing the transition to one - lane traffic ; sometimes utilizing the right shoulder to do so . There probably has been an average of one motor vehicle accident every two years during my eighteen years ' residence . I ' m sorry to say it ' s a sure bet there will be many more accidents Just because of the number of vehicles making a maneuver in conflict with the prevailing traffic flow . About the drainage : I ' ve no reason to believe that the clay till shallowly overlying shale bedrock found throughout my lot is not also prevalent 300 - 500 ft to the south . The general drainage , dictated by the overall slope of South Hill , is to the northwest . The proposed driveway is at the northwest corner of the parcel ; coincident with the natural outflow of overland runoff . Generally , between November and April , the soil is saturated and most precipitation runs off directly or is seen as more - or - less continual soil outflow seepage . During construction , incorporating soil and bedrock excavation over more than 50 % of the parcel , I foresee an environmental disaster . There would be no way to prevent significant sediment outflow along the work roads , driveway , paved roadside ditch , and the natural channel westerly downhill to Cayuga Inlet . No matter what size development might gain approval , I believe it more appropriate to design site access away from the direction of natural runoff . The downslope portion of the site can best be used as a sediment retention pool which , in its continuance , could serve as a practical landscape feature . A further concern with respect to transportation considerations is the number of parking spaces provided in relation to the number of probable adult residents . With no public transportation readily available , I believe there would be more than one motor vehicle per apartment unit . I ' m willing to speculate that 2 . 5 parking spaces per apartment would be more realistic . This speculation emphasizes my r Planning Board 11 January 6 , 1987 • primary contention that too much is proposed for this relatively small lot . I see the " neighborhood " as a linear one , extending from the southern end of Ithaca College to King Road intersection , which happens to be served by a major regional highway . From the point of view of motor vehicle safety , I believe it to be imperative not to introduce a condition , namely one -point high - frequency access and egress , widely at variance from the prevailing neighborhood pattern . 1 - 4 - 87 " Mrs . Rose Gostanian Monkemeyer , 1058 Danby Road , spoke from the floor and expressed her concern about 110 cars , wondering where they were going to go . Mr . Sharma responded that a study of East Hill has indicated that there is one car per 4 . 8 students , and to assume that all 110 persons would all have cars is wrong . Mrs . Mary K . Trochim , 120 McFadden Hall , Cornell University , [ 1019 Danby Road ] , spoke from the floor and stated that she and her husband live in a dorm but are concerned with the safety and quality of life of the neighborhood and the issue of zoning . Mrs . Trochim stated that this small parcel of land was zoned for a specific purpose 20 - some years ago , adding that that purpose is no longer pertinent . Mrs . Trochim Stated that she felt the zoning should have been considered to be changed prior to this point , adding that many residents were new to the neighborhood and were not aware of the implications of the zoning at the time they bought their houses . Mrs . • Trochim stated that four bedrooms equals six students . Mr . Peter D . Novelli , 424 Harford Road , Brooktondale , spoke from the floor and stated that he was a Professional Consulting Engineer retained by Mr . Karl Niklas , 1005 Danby Road , who was not present , to provide an objective assessment of the impacts from the proposed development on his and other nearby properties . Mr . Novelli noted , for the record , the submission of a copy of his report to the Board . Mr . Novelli stated that there are serious problems with the site and the space between the buildings , although he recognized that there have been some improvements made since the last plan . Acting Chairman Grigorov asked Mr . Novelli what problems he might be referring to . Mr . Novelli spoke of an article of the zoning ordinance that covers site plan review and which calls for adequate buffer , this buffer is inadequate . Mr . Novelli stated that he had a couple of questions for the Town Planner as to the buffer in Section 28 and also in Section 68 . Mr . Novella read from. Section 28 , paragraph 3 , " Spaces between buildings : The distance between any two structures shall be no less than the average height of both . " - - and Section 68 , " More than One Building on a Lot . When there is more than one principal building on a lot in any district the space between such buildings must be at least equal to the sum of the side yards required by such buildings or the sum of the rear and the front yards as the case may be . " Mr . Novelli also expressed concern about there being a through street to the land at the rear , also zoned multi - family . Mr . Louis Hsu , 114 West King Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he was concerned about traffic safety problems which he st Planning Board 12 January 6 , 1987 • was aware of because he drives to Cornell every day and it is hard to drive behind the people who make sudden turns . Mr . Douglass Payne , 1006 Danby Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he was concerned with traffic safety , adding that the proposal needs approval by the Highway authority , and noting that the road narrows at that point . Mr . Payne was also concerned with students walking on the road now , and with this proposal he did not know where they would go . Acting Chairman Grigorov commented that they could walk the backland to the College . Ms . Beeners described a possible connection , which had also been discussed in the Town of Ithaca Park and Open Space Plan , being worked out with Ithaca College at some point related to trails on the Monkemeyer land to the east . Mr . Peter Hillman , 370 Stone Quarry Road , spoke from the floor and expressed his concern with noise , noting that students like parties and parties generate noise . Mr . Hillman stated that he hears parties on Danby Road and he is about one - quarter of a mile from Danby Road , Mr . Elliott Lauderdale , 381 Stone Quarry Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he agreed with Mr . Hillman - - even though they are a long way away . Mr . Lauderdale was concerned about the large houses along Danby Road inhabited by large numbers of students who • have parties every weekend and also have cars parked on the road . Mr . Lauderdale stated that parking was also a concern in this development and he was concerned about the noise level from there . Mr . Lauderdale asked about what kind of requirements there would be in the leases to control noise that they could live with , adding that the students at I . C . are all rich American kids accustomed to having cars , unlike Cornell where there are many foreigners who do not have cars . Mr . Sharma submitted , for the record , a copy of the lease agreement which Mr . Lambrou has for his tenants in other properties he owns . Acting Chairman Grigorov read aloud the section on noise , to the public , as follows : " Noise - Tenant shall not create any noise which shall disturb other occupants of the building and the creation of such noise by Tenant shall be cause for the immediate termination of this lease agreement by Landlord . " Mrs . Trochim stated that students live differently . Mr . Jack Burns , 105 Kay Street , spoke from the floor and stated that he was the real estate broker who sold the property to Mr . Lambrou , adding that he was the guy with the black hat . Mr . Burns stated that he , personally , had a lot of knowledge of Danby Road , going all the way back to Dr . Job who was the head of Ithaca College , Mr . Burns described at length all the changes that have occurred on South Hill - - the development of Ithaca College there , the building of NCR - - a lot of things have happened on South Hill - - a lot of changes have occurred but very few houses have been built . Mr . Burns recalled when Ithaca College was built there were going to be only 1200 Planning Board 13 January 6 , 1987 • students and the Board of Trustees told the Architects there should not be more than 1800 people there - - there are over 5 , 000 students there now . Mr . Burns described the history of the zoning up there when William Kerr was Supervisor and who saw the need for multiple zoning there . Mr . Burns noted that the ordinance was amended on April 27 , 1965 - - Ithaca College had been there five years with only five or six buildings . NCR was built since that time , and , again , very few houses built and you could not sell the ones that were there . Mr . Burns described how other places on South Hill since 1965 have expanded in residential property - - Coddington Road , Juniper Drive , and so on . Mr .. Burns stated that he felt the reason why this large area was zoned multiple was because the South Hill area was going to expand . Mr . Burns stated that this is not spot zoning on one parcel but a whole section for multiple dwellings . Mr . Burns reiterated that since the multiple zoning was enacted there have been a lot of changes . Mr . Burns stated that there is a need for this type of housing . Mr . Burns pointed out that the Zoning Map for the Town of Ithaca was revised in 1966 , in 1968 , revised again in 1980 , and again in 1985 and during all that time , other places were changed in the Town , parts of the zoning were changed to take care of the community , but , the Herman [ Lambrou ] property was never changed . Mr . Burns felt that that was significant . Mr . Burns felt that this is the only place on South Hill where this type of need can be taken care of - - right next to Ithaca College , where it can serve people who work at I . C . , students , and , people who work at NCR or if someone else takes over the NCR building . Mr . Burns stated that 55 % of the real estate in • this community is tax exempt and the only way to take care of this burden and keep taxes reasonable is to have an expansion of new taxable real property . Robert HinE� s , Esq . , spoke from the floor and stated that he was the Attorney representing Mr . Jack Herman at the time of the rezoning in 1965 , and is his attorney still . Attorney Hines recalled that William Kerr was the Town Supervisor at the time that Mr . Herman Purchased the property from Peters - - the Peters Farm . Attorney Hines recalled how discussions about rezoning and some ideas for development took place in the Dutch Kitchen [ old Ithaca Hotel ] , with Mr . Herman , Mr . Frank Bishop , and himself . Attorney Hines stated that the " ideas " were reduced to a sketch which , somehow or other , ended up in the Ithaca Journal , Attorney Hines , commenting that there was never a " specific plan " for this site , stated that to say that this multiple zoning amendment was spot zoning to achieve a specific purpose is incorrect at best . Attorney Hines stated that Bill Kerr was enthusiastic about trying to see development on South Hill , and reiterated that it was inappropriate for this forum to discuss a " site plan " and to say that this agency , or any other Town agency , ever approved a different specific site plan and somehow or other that is being changed . Attorney Hines stated that there was never a specific site plan approved , or even contemplated , something very rough was discussed . Attorney Hines stated that after Mr . Herman bought the Peters ' Airport property he then bought the rest , adding that he contemplated some development which never came to fruition for a number of reasons . Attorney Hines stated that the existing multiple residence zoning has been in effect a long time and most of the people Planning Board 14 January 6 , 1987 • on Danby Road came long after it was put in place . Attorney Hines stated that a bona fide sale was made to Mr . Lambrou who has now spent a lot of money , thousands of dollars . Attorney Hines stated that the objections being made now are not only belated but also factually incorrect . Ms . Wessel stated that the Herman acreage could not possibly be the only site available for this kind of housing ; this property is contiguous with 29 acres and has more acreage at the other end at 1033 Danby Road . Ms . Wessel stated that there may well be a need for additional taxes , but then with this kind of density , there comes the need for more services . Acting Chairman Grigorov closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 50 p . m . and asked that -the Board move on to the second part of the discussion . PRESENTATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TOWN BOARD THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CONSIDER A LETTER REQUESTING THE REZONING OF CERTAIN LOTS ON DANBY ROAD FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT TO RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 . SUSAN C . BEENERS , TOWN PLANNER . The following collection of material was before the Board . 1 . Draft Resolution with respect to Consideration of Petition Requesting Rezoning of Certain Properties along Danby Road , prepared by the Planner for the 1 / 6 / 87 Planning Board meeting . 2 . Adopted Resolution , moved by Marc Cramer , seconded by Shirley Raffenspercger , carried unanimously , from the Town Board Meeting of December 31 , 1986 , as follows : " WHEREAS : i . The Town Supervisor has received a petition signed by the residents of 1013 , 1019 , 1021 , and 1029 Danby Road , requesting the rezoning of 1009 - 11 , 1013 , 1019 , 1021 , and 1029 Danby Road from Multiple Residence District to R- 9 Residence District , 2 . This petition has been reviewed by the Town Board on December 31 , 1986 . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Town Board refer and hereby does refer the aforementioned petition to the Planning Board for review and a recommendation . " 3 . Portion of the Zoning Map [ South Hill ] referencing the subject properties for the proposed rezoning . 4 . Portion of the June 1 , 1966 Official ZoningMap [ South Hill ] showing the Herman ' s Multiple property . 5 . Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance effective April 27 , 1965 . 6 . Town Board Minutes , January 8 , 1965 . 7 . Town Board Minutes , April 12 , 1965 . Planning Board 15 January 6 , 1987 8 . Formal Request requesting rezoning , dated December 8 , 1986 , [ 3 pages , with attached marked up copy of the South Hill portion of the Zoning Map ] , signed by Frances Connelly and Mary Wessel , 1013 Danby Road . 9 . Petition , signed by Frances Connelly and Mary Wessel , 1013 Danby Road , Mr . & Mrs . Joseph Pech , 1021 Danby Road , Donald and Joyce Layton , 1029 Danby Road , William and Mary Trochim , 1019 Danby Road , reading : " We , the undersigned , petition the Town Board of Ithaca to rezone the road frontage lots numbers 1009 - 11 , 1013 , 1019 , 1021 , and 1029 Danby Road to R- 9 residential . They are currently zoned Multiple Residence . " 10 . Letter , to Noel Desch , Supervisor , from Douglass and Jean Payne , 1006 Danby Road , dated December 15 , 1986 . 11 . Letter , from Noel Desch , Town of Ithaca Supervisor , to Mr . Karl J . Niklas , 1005 Danby Road , dated December 22 , 1986 . 12 . Letter , [ 2 pages ] , from Karl J . Niklas , 1005 Danby Road , to Noel Desch , with attachments , as follows : a . Newspaper clipping , dated November 16 , 1964 . b . Petition , reading , " We , the undersigned , oppose the proposed construction of multiple apartment units in a family - oriented , residential neighborhood on Danby Road , just above Ithaca College . These apartments would be built • on a :1 . 75 acre parcel between two homes , 1005 and 1013 Danby Road . [ 64 signatures ] Ms . Beeners stated that it was pretty evident that the petition requesting the rezoning also requests no further decision on this until the other has been done . Ms . Beeners drew the attention of the Board to the December 31 , 1986 , Resolution of the Town Board referring the Petition for Rezoning to the Planning Board for review and recommendation . Ms . Beeners drew the attention of the Board to the draft resolution setting a public hearing for consideration of the Petion requesting rezoning of certain properties along Danby Road for 8 : 00 p . m . on February 3 , 1987 . Ms . Beeners drew the attention of the Board to the packet of materials [ noted above ] which pretty well describe the history of the lands in question . Ms . Beeners spoke of some of the considerations which should be discussed with respect to R- 9 zoning , such as , there could be three driveways added along this area of Danby Road off three potential 60 - foot lots . Ms . Beeners stated that there should be further consideration of these kinds of potential results . Ms . Beeners stated • that , also , staff and Mr . Lambrou should consider some possible different locations for access . Ms . Beeners asked if there were any public comments . Planning Board 16 January 6 , 1987 Ms . Connelly , commenting that she would like to comment with respect to the multiple residence area , stated that when this project was first researched it was pretty clear that the multiple residence zoning seemed questionable . Ms . Connelly stated that she , initially , had discussions with Supervisor Desch and he suggested as a possibility that the road frontage be made R- 9 , but leave 1033 Danby Road as access and as a buffer and for drainage retention , as multiple residence , and leave the 28 or 29 acres in back so that there still could be an access to Danby Road with a buffer and so that the neighborhood could be preserved and everyone could co - exist . Ms . Connelly noted that the 1009 - 11 Danby Road parcel contains some environmentally sensitive plants . Ms . Connelly stressed that she is not against development , but feels that it is not true that every development that you happen to think of is good . Ms . Connelly suggested that one solution , outside of rezoning all the road - front frontage to R- 9 up to lot 1033 , would be to rezone all the existing houses R- 9 , but leave 1009 - 11 multiple residence - - if it were buffered , -that is , not to be developed - - a 50 - foot buffer behind the homes - - that would help Mr . Herman with density and it would solve a lot of the drainage problems with existing houses and also preserve the neighborhood as it appears on the road . Mr . Herman would still have access via 1033 . Ms . Connelly stated that she felt that might be a way the groups could compromise . ® MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mr . James Baker : WHEREAS . 1 . This action is the consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board concerning a petition , signed by the residents of four properties on Danby Road , requesting the rezoning of 1009 - 1011 , 1013 , 10191 1021 , and 1029 Danby Road from Multiple Residence District to R - 9 Residence District , which has been received by the Town Supervisor , and which has been referred by the Town Board to the Planning Board on December 31 , 1986 . 2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review . The Tompkins County Planning Department and the New York State Department of Transportation are potentially involved agencies which are being notified of this action . 3 . The Planning Board finds that further review and consideration of , and a public hearing on , the action is necessary . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning board set and hereby does set a public hearing on the action for 8 : 00 p . m . on Tuesday , February 3 , 1987 . • There being no further discussion , the Acting Chair called for a vote . Planning Board 17 January 6 , 1987 • Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Kenerson , Mazza , Klein . Nay - None , Abstain - May . The MOTION was declared to be carried . Mr . Klein wondered about the back land and referred to Mr . Lambrou ' s plan . Mr . Klein stated that , in his opinion , there is not enough parking - - 40 parking spaces - - for 90 to 110 people . Attorney Hines stated that he would like to clarify for the Board that the Herman property is deeded in fee with no rights of access , adding that that property , the subject of the Public Hearing , will belong to Mr . Lambrou . Attorney Hines stated 1033 Danby Road is also owned by Mr . Herman and that will be used for access . Mr . Sharma stated that his project , as Architect , was to draw up a plan for " this " land - - parcel 43 - 1 - 1 . Mr . Sharma stated that they will look into parking but they are complying with the Zoning Ordinance as to parking . Mr . Sharma stated that he will talk to Ithaca College . Mr . Klein stated that the Planning Board can make other requirements ; it has that authority . Mr . Klein commented that it is risky to proceed knowing you have to get a variance . Mr . Klein spoke • of the question of height , the surrounding houses , and the two - story requirement facing the road . Mr . Klein stated that it would be a lot harder to object if the proposal met every other part of the Zoning Ordinance . Mr . Sharma stated that he will talk to his client . Mr . Klein referred to the earlier discussion of Sections 28 and 68 in the Ordinance . Attorney Barney stated that he would take it the same way Ms . Beeners has , that is , that Section 28 overrides Section 68 . Mr . Klein wondered about there being only one dumpster location . Mr . Sharma stated that it was sized for five buildings . Discussion of dumpster ( s ) followed . Mr . Sharma asked , " What do we do for the next month ? Do we wait until the Town resolves the question of rezoning ? " Mr . Sharma stated that they have a legal site and , if there are questions regarding parking , they need guidance from the Board . Mr . Klein asked about the Drainage Report which had been prepared . Mr . George C . Schlecht , P . E . , addressed the Board and stated that the Board had his report before it , however , he would speak about it • if they wish . Mr . Schlecht stated that , basically , he had looked at three questions : ( 1 ) the impact of the project on downstream drainage ; ( 2 ) the effect on upstream drainage coming on to the site ; ( 3 ) making recommendations regarding the handling of drainage on - site , s° Planning Board 18 January 6 , 1987 • commenting that: drainage studies are kind of like a study of black magic - - a combination of engineering and science . Mr . Schlecht stated that the existing ground is very poorly drained . There are 130 acres upstream of this area ; this site involves two acres . Of the 130 acres , approximately 110 is carried by two culverts , _Leaving 20 acres flowing into the culvert in front of the Niklas property . Ten per cent of the site , basically , is being tampered with . Mr . Schlecht stated that he made the necessary computations to substantiate this . Mr . Schlecht stated that the development of this site as proposed will have no significant effect on the downstream area - - it is , simply , not big enough . Mr . Schlecht described the effect of the Herman property on this site , briefly , noting that it is more complete in his Report , and stating that he had recommended a ditch 2h ' deep with side slopes of 2h on 1 , and commenting that this would handle the flow in its present condition from the Herman property , that is , a 100 - year storm . Mr . Schlecht stated that , were the Herman property fully developed , that ditch could problably not handle the flow and on - site retention would have to be considered , adding that he would conjecture that there is plenty of room for this . Mr . Schlecht , commenting that on - site drainage is described in his report , stated that this is not a remarkable site - - it is a • conventional site . Mr . Schlecht offered that there were no conclusions yet as to curbs and gutters , or underground culverts , or rock either diggable or not . Acting Chairman Grigorov noted that the Public Hearing had been closed earlier . Mr . Lambrou asked to say that , as the developer of this site , he came to the Planning Board , he had a legal spot . Mr . Lambrou stated that this cannot, be done - - football first , now baseball . Mr . Lambrou stated that he had spent thousands of dollars , his dollars , not taxpayers , not the City ' s , not the State ' s , his . Mr . Lambrou stated that every month he hears - - next month - - five months , next month . Mr . Lambrou stated that he was not asking for favors , just a legal multiple residence . MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . James Baker : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of Site Plan Approval and Subdivision Approval for a proposed 30 - unit multiple residence project to be located on 2 acres of land in a Multiple Residence District at 1009 - 11 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 43 - 1 - 1 , and as revised for January 6 , 1987 , on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 43 - 1 - 2 . 2 , and the consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals that variance of Article VI , Section 28 , paragraph 5 , and Section 29 , paragraph 1 , be granted . 2 . The Planning Board at an Adjourned Public Hearing on January ' + Planning Board 19 January 6 , 1987 • 6 , 1987 has reviewed a revised project site plan dated December 16 , 1986 and a revised project description dated December 29 , 1986 . 3 . The Planning Board on January 6 , 1987 has also reviewed a petition signed by the residents of 1013 , 1019 , 1021 , and 1029 Danby Road , requesting the rezoning of the above -mentioned properties and also the rezoning of 1009 - 11 Danby Road from Multiple Residence District to Residence District R- 9 , 4 . The Site Plan and Subdivision Approval is a Type I action for which the Planning Board has been legislatively determined to . act as Lead Agency in environmental review . The Tompkins County Planning Department , the New York State Department of Transportation , and the Tompkins County Health Department are potentially - involved agencies which have been notified as to this Lead Agency determination . The Town Board is Lead Agency for the environmental review of the request for rezoning . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the action of Site Plan and Subdivision Approval , and as an involved agency in the request for rezoning , adjourn and hereby does adjourn the consideration of Site Plan Approval and Subdivision Approval for the proposed 30 -unit multiple residence project until 8 : 15 p . m . on • Tuesday , February 3 , 1987 . There being no further discussion , the Acting Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Kenerson , Mazza , Klein . Nay - None . Abstain - May . Acting Chairman Grigorov declared the matter duly adjourned at 9 : 25 p . m . and rE! turned the Chair to Mr . May . SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE FORMER MAJESTIC HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT ( BILL J . MANOS ) , GRANTED FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON JANUARY 18 , 1983 ; 119 DWELLING UNITS PLUS ONE PRIVA`_CE RESIDENCE APPROVED , 119 DWELLING UNITS PLUS ONE PRIVATE RESIDENCE REQUESTED ; 17 BUILDINGS APPROVED , 15 BUILDINGS REQUESTED ; 200 PARKING SPACES APPROVED , 210 REQUESTED ; REVISIONS TO FLOOR PLAN , LOCATION OF PARKING AND EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS , AND PROVISION OF COURTYARD , REQUESTED . EAST KING ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 44 —• 1 - 4 . 31 , MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT . DAVID Co AUBLE , DEVELOPER ; ADOLPH J . COLLETTI , CONSULTANT . Chairman May declared the matter opened at 9 : 26 p . m . and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above . Messrs . David C . Auble , Adolph J . Colletti , and John T . Fecitt were present . ® The following documents were before the Board . Planning Board 20 January 6 , 1987 . 1 . Draft Resolution , prepared by Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner , for the Planning Board , January 6 , 1987 , with respect to SEQR . 2 . Long Environmental Assessment Form , [ 7 pages , plus USGS Map ] , as signed by David C . Auble , under date of December 23 , 1986 . 3 . Letter , dated December 19 , 1986 , from Adolph J . Colletti , to Ms . Susan C . Beeners [ 2 pages ] , re " Majestic Heights - Project Revision " . 4 . Planning Board Resolution , dated January 18 , 1983 , granting Final Site Plan Approval to Bill J . Manos - Majestic Heights , with attached reduced copy of the Final Site Plan . 5 . Letter , dated December 21 , 1982 , [ 4 pages ] , from Shirley K . Egan , Associate University Counsel , Cornell University , to Mr . Montgomery May , with respect to the Bill J . Manos rezoning , 6 . Planning Board Resolution , dated January 18 , 1983 , with respect to a Determination of Environmental Non - Significance - - Bill J . Manos , Majestic Heights , with attached Appendix A . 7 . Long Environmental Assessment Form , dated December 16 , 1982 , amended December 31 , 1982 , signed by Bill J . Manos , with USGS Map included [ 8 pages ] , and with Parts II and III attached as prepared by former Town Planner Peter M . Lovi [ 11 pages ] . • 8 . Town Board Minutes , February 7 , 1983 , pages 5 through 9 . 9 . Local Law No . 3 - 1983 [ pages 60 and 61 of the Zoning Ordinance ] . 10 . Four - Page Set of Drawings , dated December 19 , 1986 , marked " Preliminary " , entitled " Majestic Heights Project Revision " , King Road East , prepared by Joseph A . Colletti , P . E . , Consulting Engineer , Sherburne , New York , and including ( 1 ) Cover Sheet , ( 2 ) Site Plan , ( 3 ) Floor Plan ; ( 4 ) Typical Wall Sections & Details . 11 . Location Map , prepared by Susan C . Beeners for 1 / 6 / 87 Planning Board meeting . Developer David C . Auble introduced himself to the Board , and stated that he was a long - time Ithaca resident who had lived out of the area for the past few years and has now returned " home " . Mr . Auble stated that he had been involved in development while away from Ithaca . Mr . Auble stated that he had attended Ithaca schools and was a graduate of Cornell University . Mr . Auble introduced his colleagues , Mr . Adolph Colletti , also a Cornell grad in Architecture , and Mr . John Fecitt , both of whom are with Colletti Engineering in Sherburne , New York . Mr . Colletti appended five drawings to the bulletin board ® ( including the " Manos Plan " ) . Mr . Colletti noted that the Manos plan , known as Majestic Heights , was for 17 buldings with one - and two -bedroom apartments . Mr . Colletti stated that he and Mr . Auble started with this plan and as they reviewed it they saw some things Planning Board 21 January 6 , 1987 . that definitely warranted revision , even though they realized that there was site plan approval for the Manos plan . Referring to the Manos plan , Mr ., Colletti stated that they wanted to maintain as much of the character of that original project which had the buildings clustered and which had a perimeter parking in front situation . Referring to the new plan , Mr . Colletti stated that their new plan will have the same density , the same number of units - - 119 , plus one single family residence and a service building , which is the same , and it maintains the cluster approach . Mr . Colletti stated that one of the most important things they wanted to deal with was the emergency access and fire access to the buildings . Mr . Colletti stated that parking will be closer to the units , adding that they wanted to establish a courtyard feeling . Mr . Colletti commented that the most efficient means of parking is to park on both sides of the road - - double - loading - - but they felt that that situation tends to lead to a sea of cars . Mr . Colletti noted the landscaped islands in the center of each parking area , and noted the three court yards each involving approximately five buildings . Mr . Colletti , commenting that there were some previous agreements with Cornell University concerning development in certain parts of this 30 - acre parcel , stated that all agreements made with Cornell will be honored in terms of construction . Mr . Colletti stated that the size of the buildings has increased , however , they have reduced the number of buildings from 17 to 15 . Mr . Colletti stated that all the apartments will be two - bedroom , two • baths , frame construction . Mr . Colletti described extra footages for the parking spaces . Mr . Colletti stated that when the area was figured for impervious surfaces , they included the area under the decks , which is actually not usually considered as such , but , in any case , they are within 5 % of the impervious surfaces of the original plan . Mr . Colletti stated that they would like to keep the spacious parking areas to provide manoeuvering areas , adding that they would like to keep the single - loaded approach , and further adding that they could have three beautifully landscaped courtyards . Noting again their goal of keeping as close to the previous plan as possible , Mr . Colletti stated that there was one other item that Ms . Beeners had brought up before in their meetings and that is the entrance from Ridgecrest Road . They discussed how vehicles exiting off Ridgecrest Road could lead to confusion with people using a public highway coming to an intersection on that highway and finding themselves lost in Majestic Heights . Mr . Colletti allowed as how they were really at a loss to know how to plan their entranceway since they did not . really know , nor did anybody else really know , what the development would be , or might be , over there . Mr . Colletti stated that , however , they will be happy to work with Ms . Beeners on that so that it can be worked out for site plan approval . Chairman May stated that he liked the courtyards very much and he admired the developer ' s concerns about fire safety . Chairman May stated that he thought the plan ought to go to the Fire Chief to look over . Chairman May commented on the size of the equipment these days , ® adding that we want to make sure the trucks can get out -once they are in , especially with a line of cars all the way around . Chairman May Planning Board 22 January 6 , 1987 • asked the Building Inspector , Mr . Frost , to do that early on . Mr . Kenerson asked what provisions , if any , were being made for school busses , commenting that there might be a problem of school busses getting in or out or not blocking King Road . Mr . Colletti responded that that was a good point and stated that he thought they could provide for a school bus or even public transit . Referring to the sketch plan , Mr . Colletti commented that they plan to be back soon with a preliminary plan incorporating the Board ' s comments . Mr . Klein suggested that , in talking with the Fire Department and the Schools , Mr . Frost and Mr . Colletti check with the School Bus Facility also insofar as to where a bus stop would be appropriate . Ms . Beeners asked , timing -wise , if it is impossible to come to an actual decision on the location of the entrance road prior to any final site plan approval , would the Board feel comfortable with having such an issue be something that would receive final approval by the Town Engineer ? Chairman May stated that there would be no trouble with that . Town Attorney Barney noted that at some time the Board has to have a site plan which it can sign off on . Town Attorney Barney advised that Mr . Colletti put his access on the site plan where his best judgment gays it should go at that time and , if there is any change , return for revised site plan . Mr . Colletti stated that , with respect to some future development on the other side , knowing where the property line is , and assuming what the minimum requirement for • rock depth is , they might be able to come up with an idea of where a road might come out , should that property ever be developed . Mr . Kenerson asked if this property were zoned multiple and Mr . Colletti responded , yes . Mr . Kenerson asked what the height of the buildings will be , with Mr . Colletti responding , 27 feet , with a thirty - foot building separation . Chairman May asked if there were any other comments . There were none . Chairman May commented that the proposal looks nice , adding that there should be follow- up on fire and school as discussed . It was determined that a Public Hearing for Site Plan Approval of the Auble proposal should be scheduled for January 20 , 1987 . Messrs . Auble and Colletti thanked the Board for its time and consideration . SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED 186 -UNIT " CLUSTER " SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 BACKLOT OF THE INTERSECTION OF EAST KING ROAD AND TROY ROAD , 119 . 57 ± ACRES , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 32 . PAUL B . ERDMAN , OWNER ; EDWIN HALLBERG , DEVELOPER ; THOMAS P . NIEDERKORN , CONSULTANT , Chairman May opened discussion on the above -noted matter at 9 : 45 p . m . Developer Edwin Hallberg from Skaneateles , New York , and Mr . Thomas Niederkorn , his Consultant , were present . The following documents were before the Board . Planning Board 23 January 6 , 1987 1 . Location Map , prepared by Susan C . Beeners for the 1 / 6 / 87 Planning Board meeting . 2 . Transmittal Letter , dated December 23 , 1986 , to Susan C . Beeners , from Thomas Niederkorn , Planning / Environmental Research Consultants , 310 West State Street , Ithaca , NY , re " Hallberg Subdivision " , with attachments : a . Reduced copy of Deer Run Subdivision . Sketch Plan of Conventional Subdivision Design , dated January 6 , 1987 . b . Cover Letter to Montgomery May from Edwin Hallberg , dated December 23 , 1986 [ 2 pages ] . c . Short Environmental Assessment Form # 617 . 20 [ Part I ] , dated December 23 , 1986 , signed by Edwin A . Hallberg . d . Short Environmental Assessment Form RSJ / 8 - 3 - 79 , signed by Thomas Niederkorn , Planning Consultant , representing Edwin A . Hallberg , dated December 23 , 1986 . e . Remarks from T . Niederkorn , 12 / 23 / 86 : " The Sketch Plan for a conventional subdivision shows 186 lots on the 120 acre parcel . This would require approximately 13 , 350 LF of roads and each lot would average 20 , 960 Sq . Ft . in area . IlSite developer Edwin A . Hallberg ( see attached letter ) requests approval to develop this parcel as a cluster subdivision in accordance with Sec . 281 of Town Law and Article V of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations . " • 3 . SEQR SKETCH PLAN REVIEW PART II / III - Proposed " Deer Run " Clustered Subdivision , prepared by Susan C . Beeners under date of January 2 , 1987 , reading as follows : " This is a Type I action for which a Long Environmental Assessment Form is to be submitted with the subsequent cluster subdivision plan for Planning Board review as Lead Agency . Potentially involved agencies are being notified . C1 . Conventional development of this land might result in drainage problems and in the loss of important natural areas , and a cluster subdivision plan is warranted to mitigate any potentially significant impacts . Traffic capacities on area roads are adequate for the proposed density . C2 . Development of this land as a cluster subdivision is not expected to have an adverse impact , subject to further environmental and subdivision review . C3 . As proposed , important natural areas adjoining South Hill Swamp would be preserved . Cluster development would also entail conservation of drainageways . Subject to further review , the project as proposed on January 6 , 1987 is expected to have no significant adverse impact . C4 . Proposal is compatible with existing land use and with Town land use objectives , and with pertinent zoning and subdivision regulations . C5 . The phased development of the project as proposed is , with this review , expected not to have a significant adverse impact or adverse effect on growth . ® C6 . Not expected , subject to further review . C7 . Not expected . The conventional subdivision plat has been found to be in /T w Planning Board 24 January 6 , 1987 . conformance with all pertinent zoning and subdivision regulations . The proposed cluster development is expected to substantially if not completely mitigate any potentially significant impacts to natural areas and drainageways . Traffic capacities in the area are adequate for the proposed density . Authorization of the applicant to proceed with a cluster subdivision plan and a Long Environmental Assessment Form for the number of units as proposed will have no significant environmental impact and is pursuant to applicable cluster subdivision regulations , conditional on review . " 4 . Sketch Plan , Deer Run Subdivision , dated Jan . 6 , 1987 . 5 . Draft Resolution , prepared by the Town Planner , Susan C . Beeners , for the January 6 , 1987 , Planning Board meeting , in re " Sketch Plan Consideration - Proposed 186 - unit ' Cluster ' Subdivision ( ' Deer Run ' ) " . Mr . Niederkorn appeared before the Board and appended a very large , colored , copy of the subdivision Sketch Plan which the Board members had before them in a reduced size . Mr . Niederkorn stated that , basically this evening , the developer is seeking authorization from the Board to proceed with a cluster subdivision on this 120 - acre site , with what he was now displaying being a conventional subdivision plat for that site . Mr . Niederkorn noted that the property is located on East King and Troy Roads and pointed out the previously approved • subdivision of the Erdman property along the road frontage of both roads . Chairman May inquired about a park area and Mr . Niederkorn indicated a 1 . 2 acre area behind the Erdman subdivided land on Troy Road , next to the Town of Ithaca Pump Station and the NYSEG right of way . Mr . Niederkorn stated that Cornell University is concerned with maintaining the integrity of the South Hill Swamp adjacent to the Hallberg property and pointed out an established 5 . 7 acre buffer area next to the Swamp . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the only major natural feature in the area is a stream which he indicated . Mr . Niederkorn noted that the zoning district is R- 15 ; the gross acreage is 120 ; number of lots in the subdivision - 186 ; lineal feet of roads - 13 , 350 18 . 4 ± acres ; NYSEG ROW - 5 . 2 acres , buffer area - 5 . 7 acres ; recreation area - 1 . 2 acres , for a total of 30 . 5 acres ; net area of subdivision - 89 . 5 ± acres ; average lot size - 20 , 960 sq . ft . Mr . Niederkorn reiterated that this is not the plan they want to do , this is the conventional site plan version . Mr . Niederkorn stated that this is a nice area with a lot of natural features that should be maintained , and described a considerable amount of tree cover in the northwest portion and some areas which may have some bedrock under the surface - - not too far down . Mr . Niederkorn stated that there are some drainage considerations and some steep slopes . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the developer feels he can cluster the units on , perhaps , one - quarter of the site , with the rest for open space in perpetuity , adding that the developer is particularly interested in having the area to the north of the site - - the wooded area - - forever wild . Mr . Niederkorn noted that this would mean that there would not have to be nearly so much linear feet of roadway and it would not be disturbing to the South Hill Swamp , Mr . Niederkorn offered that the developer s Planning Board 25 January 6 , 1987 wants to put all the units where it is relatively flat and where drainage could be handled . Mr . Niederkorn asked that the Board take a look at this conventional plan and authorize them to come back next month for " Cluster " under Section 281 of Town Law and Article 5 of the Town Subdivision Regulations . Mr . Klein , noting that the Board does exclude unbuildable land , asked if there were some lots that have been indicated here that are unbuildable . Mr . Niederkorn responded that he did not think so , adding that the buildable lots that are on steep areas are fairly large . Chairman May wondered how steep they were , with Mr . Niederkorn responding , probably 10 % , and adding that Mr . Hallberg has purchased one of Mr . Erdman ' s lots " here " for access . Chairman May stated that he thought the Board needed to spend a bit of time reviewing " that " grid in terms of count before it can say that it meets all zoning requirements . Town Attorney Barney wondered how many units might be in the cluster , with Mr . Niederkorn responding that there are 186 units in the grid . Mr . Klein wondered if either Mr . Hallberg or Mr . Niederkorn knew that they could have two units on each lot . Mr . Hallberg indicated that he did not know that . Mr . Klein asked Mr . Niederkorn if he were shooting for 186 , with Mr . Niederkorn responding , give or take 5 % , and adding that these were intended to be individual lots . Mrs . Grigorov commented that there could be as many as 360 units on this site . 0 Mr . Niederkorn stated that he would like to bring in another sketch plan of the proposal , clustered this time , to the February 3 , 1987 meeting of the Board . The Board indicated that that would be fine . Chairman May closed the discussion of the Hallberg development at 10 : 04 p . m . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the January 6 , 1987 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 05 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Mary S . Bryant , Recording Secretary , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board .