HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1987-12-15 FUD
TOWNOF ITHACA
Date
_Ak
s� TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk v
DECEMBER 15 , 1987
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , December 15 , 1987 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 15 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , James , Baker , Virginia Langhans ,
David Klein , Robert Kenerson , William Lesser , Carolyn
Grigorov , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) , Robert R .
Flumerfelt , ( Town Engineer ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town
Planner ) , Andrew -S . Frost ( Town Building Inspector / Zoning
Enforcement Officer ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Robert S . Miller , David Auble , Eleanor Sturgeon , Ed
Dellert , Milt & Louise vonHahmann , Glenn Snyder ,
Lucille Brent , Jerry Weisburd , Alan Wood , Claude
Putman , Paul Jacobs , Mary Zichettella , Edna Clausen ,
Tom Clausen , Michael Roulan , Esq . , Evan N . Monkemeyer ,
EXECUTIVE SESSION : INTERVIEW OF PLANNING BOARD CANDIDATES FOR
PLANNING BOARD VACANCY ,
The Planning Board members held an executive session for the
purpose of interviewing Mr . David C . Auble and Mr . Robert S . Miller
with respect to the vacancy on the Planning Board . The session
commenced at 7 : 15 p . m . and ended at 7 : 45 p . m .
Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 45 p . m . and
accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and
Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on December 7 , 1987 , and December 10 , 1987 ,
respectively , together with the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail
of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties
under discussion , upon both the Clerk and the Building Commissioner
of the City of Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of
Public Works , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner- of Planning , upon
the New York State Department of Transportation , and upon the
applicants and / or Agent , as appropriate , on December 9 , 1987 .
NON -AGENDA ITEM :
Mr . Frost distributed to each of the members of the Board a copy
of his November 1987 Report of Building and Zoning Activities ,
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED
" FINGER LAKES TRACTOR , INC . " , A LAWN AND GARDEN EQUIPMENT AND LIGHT
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT STORE , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN A BUSINESS
i " C " DISTRICT AT 708 ELMIRA ROAD , ON A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 33 - 2 - 7 . MILLARD A . AND LUCILLE BRINK , OWNERS ; LOUISE
AND MILTON VONHAHMANN , APPLICANTS ; EDMUND J . DELLERT , AGENT
Planning Board - 2 - December 15 , 1987
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing .in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 50 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . and
Mrs . vonHahmann were present , as was their Attorney , Michael Rou lan .
Mr . Edmund Dellert , from Century 21 Real Estate , approached the
Board and stated that Mr . and Mrs . VonHahmann currently own a
business similar to what they wish to establish in Ithaca . Mr .
Dellert offered that the address of the business that the VonHahmanns
presently own is Route 318 , Waterloo , N . Y . At this point , Mr .
Dellert distributed pictures of the VonHahmanns ' current business in
Waterloo , N . Y . , adding that the Board could get an idea of the type
of operation the applicants now own . Mr . Dellert stated that the
applicants are proposing to put the same type of business on the
property located on Elmira Road . Mr . Dellert distributed copies of
the proposed Site Plan to the Board Members . Indicating on the plan ,
Mr . Dellert noted that the " yellow " indicates existing buildings that
are on the property , explaining that the property includes all of the
buildings that are shown on the sketch . Mr . Dellert stated that the
proposed new building would take the place of the two old existing
barns . Mr . Dellert said that provisions are being undertaken for
parking , and plantings around the property , including on the
roadfront , to shield the property from the road . Mr . Dellert noted
that the new building would occupy approximately the same square
footage as the two old ones , and added that the building would be a
• single story building . Mr . Dellert distributed copies of brochures
to the Board showing the types of products that would be handled and
on display . Mr . Dellert felt that the operation would not be
detrimental to the area . Mr . Dellert noted that the anticipated
traffic is very low , as the type of operation is not the kind where
you have traffic coming in and going out on a continual basis , adding
that much of their business is conducted by telephone . Mr .
vonHahmann mentioned that a lot of the equipment that is offered for
sale is not necessarily very big , but some of the equipment is quite
high priced , commenting that a lot of sales are done at a customer ' s
home , through salesmen . Virginia Langhans wondered if the equipment
was left outside during the winter . Mr . vonHahmann responded that ,
in this type of business , a lot of the equipment is kept outdoors .
Virginia Langhans wondered about light construction equipment . Mr .
vonHahmann stated that they have a line of forklifts and a line of
loaders . William Lesser asked about the anticipated clientele , e . g . ,
primarily homeowners , commercial , or farm , with Mr . vonHahmann
responding , it is very mixed . Robert Kenerson wondered about the
future projection for the business . Mr . VonHahmann answered that the
reason they are interested in Ithaca is because they felt Ithaca is
growing and expanding . Robert Kenerson asked about the capacity for
expansion . Mr . VonHahmann stated that the proposed building was
plenty big enough for the sales , parts , and office operations , for
quite some gime .
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
there were anyone present who wished to speak to this issue .
e
Planning Board - 3 - December 15 , 1987
. Eleanor Sturgeon of 718 Elmira Road wondered whether or not all
the equipment would be new , or would they be handling secondhand
equipment as well . Mr . VonHahmann answered that the majority of the
equipment in this type of business is new , but used equipment would
be handled .
Glenn Snyder of 126 Seven Mile Drive spoke from the floor and
wondered how many people would be employed in the business , with Mr .
VonHahmann responding , to begin with , approximately five .
Alan Wood of 167 Calkins Road spoke from the floor and asked if
the entire parcel was being approved for the business , or just a
portion , with Mr . VonHahmann responding , just the portion where the
present building exists . Chairman May stated that just the Site Plan
is being proposed tonight .
Chairman May asked if anyone else present wished to speak . No
one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 09 p . m . and
asked for questions or comments from the Board .
Virginia Langhans stated that there did not seem to be a buffer
between the building and the tenant house . Mr . VonHahmann said that
there would be a shrub buffer . : Mr . VonHahmann stated that the
building is the maximum size that they wish to build , adding that
there would be a driveway around the building . David Klein stated
• that the driveway has not really been defined , and noted that it kind
of comes in off the highway . Mr . Klein wondered if the driveway
would be blacktop , with Mr . VonHahmann responding that , ",, currently ,
the existing driveway has quite a wide entry that comes in to a big
concrete pad , and adding that there is plenty of room to place it
properly for access to the parking , and to the building . Mr .
VonHahmann commented that the display would be on blacktop . Mr .
VonHahmann stated that there would be access to the building from the
backside , which is Calkins Road , for service vehicles and delivery
vehicles . William Lesser wondered about landscaping , and the impacts
of outdoor display . Susan Beeners , Town Planner , responded that
there are :some possibilities for additional landscaping , not only
between the tenant house and the frame building , but also , perhaps
toward the back of the building . Ms . Beeners noted that the site is
somewhat of a complex site , and some fill and regrading work would
have to be done to incorporate the parking , with Mr . VonHahmann
agreeing . Mr . VonHahmann noted that there is a building in the back
that pretty much acts as a buffer . Ms . Beeners stated that it was
her recommendation that a final Site Plan be submitted to show just
how everything is going to mesh . Ms . Beeners asked about the
existing drive to the tenant house , and whether that would have to be
discontinued , commenting that maybe the old tenant house driveway
" here " , [ pointing to map ] actually being improved . Ms . Beeners
questioned -the location of the septic systems for the tenant house
and for the new building . Ms . Beeners stated that there did not
appear to be any requirements for a subdivision , at this time , of the
• houses on subject property . Ms . Beeners noted that she thought there
were some definite siting reasons why the applicants want to put the
building right " here " , instead of moving it farther to the north ,
Planning Board - 4 - December 15 , 1987
. adding that there are existing banks on the north side . Ms . Beeners
stated that. if the houses were ever conveyed to another owner , then
there might be a situation of deficient yard width . Ms . Beeners
noted that all of those items , as far as distances are concerned ,
should be incorporated on a final Site Plan . David Klein felt that
the parking in the hard surface areas and lawns should be better
defined on the Site Plan .
There appearing to be no further comments , Chairman May asked if
anyone cared to make a motion .
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Dr . William Lesser :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for the
proposed " Finger Lakes Tractor , Inc . " , a lawn and garden
equipment and light construction equipment store , proposed to be
located in a Business " C " District at 708 Elmira Road , on a
portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 331- 2 - 7 .
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency
for site plan review , and for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Board of Appeals has been legislatively determined to act as
• Lead Agency for consideration of a variance with respect to the
request for outdoor display of equipment , and with respect to
the potential variance of the parking requirement in Business
" C " Districts .
3 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance for the site plan .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the
environmental review of the site plan for the aforementioned
facility , make and hereby does make a negative determination of
environmental significance for this action .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Kenerson , Klein , Lesser .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for the
proposed " Finger Lakes Tractor , Inc . " , a lawn and garden
. equipment and light construction equipment store , proposed to be
located. in a Business " C " District at 708 Elmira Road , on a
portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 2 - 7 .
Planning Board - 5 - December 15 , 1987
• 2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review of the
site plan , has made a negative determination of environmental
significance on December 15 , 1987 .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on December 15 , 1987 , has
reviewed the following :
Short Environmental Assessment Form , dated November 27 ,
1987 .
Appeal Form , pertaining to a request for outdoor display of
equipment , with attachments , dated November 27 , 1987 .
Exhibits 3 and 4 , showing overall tax parcel involved and
and preliminary site plan for the proposed store .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary
Site Plan approval to the proposed store as presented , subject to the
following requirements :
a . the granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals of variance of the
requirements of Article VII , Section 38 , Paragraph 8 , of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , with respect to outdoor
display , and of the requirements of Article VII , Section 38 ,
Paragraph 1 , with respect to parking ,
• bo the submission for final sitelan approval n
p pp consideration , of a
final site plan showing existing topography and proposed grading
and drainage , proposed parking and loading areas for the store ,
proposed access to the store from Calkins Road , existing and
proposed wells and septic systems for the store and for the
dwellings on the property , improvement of access to the tenant
house , and the addition of suitable plant screening between the
tenant house and the store as recommended by the Town Planner ;
C * approval of water supply and septic systems by the Tompkins
County Health Department ,
do approval by the New York State Department of Transportation of
any work within the Route 13 right of way ;
e . if either dwelling on the property is ever proposed to be
conveyed by the applicants to another party , application for
subdivision of a suitable lot for such dwelling shall be
required prior to such conveyance .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Kenerson , Klein , Lesser .
Nay - None .
I
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Planning Board - 6 - December 15 , 1987
Chairman May declared the matter of the Consideration of
Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed " Finger Lakes
Tractor , Inc . " duly closed at 8 : 29 p . m .
REPORT ON COMMONLAND SERVICE ROAD ,
Town Planner , Susan Beeners , reported on the two alternative
locations of a secondary access road to Commonland . Ms . Beeners
noted that Alternative " A " would be between the Clausen parcels , and
Alternative " B " would be along a right - of -way which is across but
off - set from Towerview Road , the right -of-way being on top of the
City right -- of -way which is on the Marion property . Ms . Beeners
stated that after reviewing the Town Engineer ' s recommendation it was
her opinion. that the engineering considerations , as related to the
safety of use of such a road for emergency vehicles , have to be the
real determining factor .
Robert Flumerfelt , Town Engineer , reported on the overall
consideration from an engineering standpoint of a secondary access
road . Mr . Flumerfelt referred to the memorandum that was before the
Board entitled " ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS OF ALTERNATE SECONDARY
ACCESS ROAD LOCATIONS " . [ Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . ] Mr .
Flumerfelt stated that there is not too much significance in the
length of the roadway , and noted that the widths are the same . Mr .
Flumerfelt felt that the maximum gradient was the most significant
aspect . Mr . Flumerfelt offered that the distance from the nearest
intersection was not too significant , as the road is ingress only ,
and added that the remaining length of cul - de - sac is somewhat
significant because the Subdivision Regulations state that 1000 feet
is what is considered the limit of a desirable cul -de - sac length .
Mr . Flumerfelt discussed the Profile of the Alternative " A "
secondary access road , stating that this access road [ Alt . A ] was as
previously designed , and approved by the New York State Department of
Transportation for intersection with Route 79 which results in a
maximum gradient of about 9 . 16 % . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that , because
of the sewer line that is in existence in Alternative " B " , there is
about a 205) gradient at the bottom of the slope . Mr . Flumerfelt
stated that ,, in comparison , the steepest street in the City of Ithaca
is the bottom part of Pleasant Street , which is 240 . Mr . Flumerfelt
noted that Brookfield Road , where it comes down into Cliff Street is
15 % , and commented that that road would be about the same as the
subject access road . Mr . Flumerfelt said that , at some expense , the
sewer line could be relocated , and lowered , adding that the entire
roadway could then have a gradient of about 13 . 5 % . Mr . Flumerfelt
offered that the cost would be roughly $ 6 , 000 . 00 to accomplish the
sewer main changes . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that , in summary , he felt
the gradients were the most important , and the remaining length of
the cul - de - sac on Penny Lane secondary in importance .
Mrs . Edna Clausen addressed the Board and distributed copies of
• site evaluations , a statement on whether or not an emergency access
road is needed , and a plot plan . [ Attached hereto as Exhibits 2 , 3
and 4 , respectively . ]
Planning Board - 7 - December 15 , 1987
. Mr . Tom Clausen , Mrs . Clausen ' s son , 1009 N . Aurora Street ,
asked about the visibility factor for a second access . Mr .
Flumerfelt responded that the exit would be off Route 79 onto the
access road only for emergencies , adding that there would be no exit
on Route 79 .
Mrs . Langhans , referring to Mr . Flumerfelt ' s Profile , noted that
there appeared to be about a 23 - foot drop from Slaterville Road down
to the edge of the cul - de - sac in Alternative " A " , and commented that
Alternative " B " is about 25 feet . Mrs . Langhans wondered how such a
steep gradient was achieved with just 20 feet less . Mr . Flumerfelt
stated that some of the difference is in the slope of the roadway
where it meets Route 79 , adding that the State requires 2 % - 3 %
gradient for 25 ' - 30 ' off the edge of the shoulder .
Mr . Jerold Weisburd addressed the Board and referred to the
Planning Board Adopted Resolution dated April 21 , 1987 , and read
aloud Condition No . 4 , as follows :
" The developer shall be satisfied by his legal counsel that he
has authority to convey an easement at the above -mentioned
alternate location . "
Town Attorney John Barney stated that he had reviewed same and
is satisfied that Mr . Weisburd has title . Mr . Weisburd asked the
• Board if they would agree , until a final resolution is reached , not
to hold him accountable to build a road . Mr . Barney responded that ,
in terms of legalities , there was some discussion , adding that the
road was being shifted over to the Clausen site for reasons that he
understood were unrelated to the legalities . Mr . Barney stated that
the Planning Board has to make a determination of where the road is
going to be constructed , leaving the legalities out for the time
being , adding that if Mr . Weisburd ' s attorney felt there was indeed a
legal problem , the Board would could come back and deal with the
problem . Attorney Barney felt that the principle decision had to be
an engineering and planning decision , remarking that if the decision
goes back to the Marion site , the Board would , at that time , deal
with the legal issue . Continuing , Mr . Barney noted that normally the
right - of -way is 60 feet , and said right - of - way is , under the best
circumstances , 40 feet in parts , and maybe 50 feet , but that is
acceptable because the proposed road is a one -way . Mr . Weisburd
stated that ,, initially , the Alternative that goes between the two
Clausen properties was intended to be a road .
Mr . Flumerfelt stated that the reason he did not start the
downward slope on Alternative " B " more similar to that shown on
Alternative " A " was to give a better exit on Route 79 , Mr .
Flumerfelt offered that if the sewer main were relocated the overall
slope could be about 13 . 5 % , adding , if the sewer were not relocated ,
and the top of the profile was the same as in Alternative " A " , the
slope would be about 11 . 5 % .
• Mr . Klein wondered about the substantial difference in landing
area . Mr . Flumerfelt responded that that is another fairly
Planning Board - 8 - December 15 , 1987
. significant advantage in the Alternative "A " location , because there
is a large cul - de - sac area at the bottom to manoeuver a fire truck or
other large vehicles . Mrs . Langhans wondered why there is an angle
on Alternative " B " , with Mr . Flumerfelt answering that the leveling-
out spot at the bottom is so that there is not one road coming right
down at a steep angle meeting the edge of the pavement of Penny Lane ,
Mr . Flumerfelt felt that one of the more dangerous aspects of the
Alternative " B " location was the " T " intersection with no means of
manoeuvering , noting that that aspect is taken care of on Alternative
" A " because of the cul - de - sac .
Chairman May stated that he still had a tremendous amount of
difficulty with splitting someone ' s property .
Virginia Langhans wondered why it was decided to have another
entrance . Chairman May stated that the road would be used for
emergency purposes only .
Mr . Weisburd stated that another alternative would be to deed
over the end of the extension of Penny Lane Extension , adding that as
the property to the west develops the entire road could loop around
and come back up at a better location . Town Planner , Susan Beeners ,
stated that the Ithaca Fire Department ' s maximum gradient that is
acceptable on any new road is 10 % . Chairman May responded that he
felt the 10 % should be checked out , but felt that would not be the
• case in an emergency entrance .
Virginia Langhans noted that in the Planning Board Adopted
Resolution of April 21 , 1987 the Planning Board approved the
alternate location of the proposed Commonland access road , with the
location being within a right - of -way presently held by the developer
through the Marion property . Susan Beeners , referring to the April
21 , 1987 Planning Board Resolution , Condition No . 4 , stated that a
meeting was scheduled to occur between various parties and legal
parties involved , however , it was cancelled when staff decided that
it was most appropriate to do a profile to check the gradients of the
two Alternatives , which had not been done through the approximately
five years of discussion . Robert Flumerfelt , Town Engineer , stated
that he never disapproved any plans of the Alternative " B " location .
Mr . Weisburd stated that the legal question should be resolved before
construction of or escrow for the road . Chairman May responded that
that is not: a problem provided Mr . Weisburd constructs the road
expeditiously , adding that the legal question should be able to be
resolved in January , 1988 .
At this: point , Attorney Barney suggested adjourning the meeting
until February 2 , 1988 .
There being no further questions or comments concerning the
Commonland Service Road , Chairman May asked for a motion .
MOTION by Robert Kenerson , seconded by James Baker :
Planning Board - 9 - December 15 , 1987
. RESOLVED , that the matter of the Commonland Service Road be and
hereby is adjourned to the February 2 , 1988 , Planning Board Meeting
to provide time for the legal question to be resolved .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called
p for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Grigorov , Aoff�2
Nay -
Chairman May declared the MOTION carriedW440 , t.,tic;,.,��u
At this time , Attorney Barney wondered , assuming the legal
issues can be resolved , if Mr . Weisburd was willing to have a road
that may require a gradient as high as a 20 % . Chairman May responded
that , from -the information received at tonight ' s meeting , there is no
need for the 20 % . At this point , Mr . Flumerfelt stated that the
developer is responsible for the cost of relocating the sewer , along
with building the road . Mr . Weisburd referred back to the original
approval of the ' road in that location . Mr . Weisburd noted that the
road was approved with the absolutely distinct understanding at that
grade , adding that when the road was first proposed it was proposed
as a preliminary cross - section , which is very similar to Mr .
Flumerfelt ' s review , and commenting that it was with the
understanding that that would be the profile in that location . Mr .
Weisburd stated that he certainly would take issue with tacking on
• the very end of the project a new stipulation that the developer
would be responsible to drop the sewer , if , in fact , the road had
been approved in that location , without the sewer being dropped . Mr .
Weisburd noted that there would be additional expense at the Marion
site , but not the Clausen site , as the Clausen site had already been
engineered . Attorney Barney , noting that it is the Town ' s sewer ,
suggested that perhaps the Town should provide some funding to
produce a better grade , or that the Planning Board recommend to the
Town Board that the road be placed in that location and that the
sewer be lowered to the extent necessary at the expense of the Town
to provide a better grade , and alternatively , if the Town Board is
not willing to do that , then the road should be constructed at
whatever grade can be worked out with the existing location of the
sewer .
Susan Beeners noted that she had recommended in the Clausen
location [ Alternative " A " ] that a 20 - foot water line easement would
be needed , and secondly , that a trail easement be provided in that
location . Mr . Weisburd commented that there is a Town easement
already in place as there is a Town lift station at the very bottom ,
adjacent to the City watershed , adding that , in order to gain access
to the lift station there is an easement from Penny Lane to that
edge . [ Ms . Beener ' s " Summary Report on Commonland Secondary Access
Road " , dated. December 10 , 1987 , is attached hereto as Exhibit 5 . 1
Chairman May declared the discussion of
the Commonland Service
Road duly closed at 9 : 30 p . m .
Planning Board - 10 - December 15 , 1987
• [ The Planning Board Resolution of April 21 , 1987 , with respect to the
Commonland Community Access Road Relocation , is attached hereto as
Exhibit 6 . 1
[ A copy of a portion of the original Commonland Community Site Plan ,
showing the Service Road sited between the Clausen properties , is
attached hereto as Exhibit 7 . 1
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : CONSIDERATION OF SKETCH PLAN FOR " SPRINGWOOD " ,
PHASE II .
Mr . Evan Monkemeyer addressed the Board and appended a large map
to the bulletin board .
Mr . Monkemeyer gave the Board a brief historical background of
the site . Mr . Monkemeyer noted that subject plan dates back to 1971 ,
when the Town rezoned the site . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that it was a
project designed using a Modular Housing concept , adding that that
plan fell through as the banks did not like it , and commenting that
it had an industrial look to it . Mr . Monkemeyer offered that the
company that: designed the units went bankrupt , so the secondary plan
came through a few years later , through William Downing ' s office .
Mr . Monkemeyer said that the current section , Phase I , is the center
section , and is presently being constructed , which has 25 units , with
basically one - bedroom flats and one - bedroom lofts . Mr . Monkemeyer
• stated that the Town wanted to see what the site usages would be for
the upper portion of the property and the lower portion , so two
schematic designs were noted , adding that it shows what an open land
use kind of planning would be for the rest of the site . David Klein
wondered if " A " " Be' and " C " were built with Mr .
Monkemeyer
answering , just " A " and " B " .
At this point , Mr . Monkemeyer referred to the new site plan ,
dated December 11 , 1987 , which shows the Phase I section with the two
existing buildings , " A " and " B " , which are one - bedroom units and the
balance of the buildings " C " through " D " " E " and " F "
g g which are now
all two -bedrooms - two -bedroom flats and two -bedroom lofts . Mr .
Monkemeyer noted that there is a bank of a one - story garage and
laundry center , proposed pool , and proposed tennis court off this
first Phase I section . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that the Phase II
section is being proposed for Sketch Plan Review , adding that the
Board ' s comments and input would be in the upper section which shows
a building or layout of Buildings " A " , " B " and " C " , which would be
comprised of about 36 units , adding that the balance of the site is
about 3 . 4 acres , and each one of the buildings is a design so that
there would be two - bedroom units that are two -bedroom flats in
Building " A " , and " C " that are stacked . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that
it would be the same in Building " B " . Mr . Monkemeyer , indicating on
the map , noted that there are one - bedroom units in the middle , and
those units are stacked . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that , essentially ,
what was done was to design one and two - bedroom units for the
• marketplace with one concern , explaining that the new Building Codes
require that 25 % of all the residential garden apartments be designed
and built with handicapped accessible units . Mr . Monkemeyer said
Planning Board - 11 - December 15 , 1987
that the project requires 12 units with handicapped accessibility .
Mr . Monkemeyer said that , basically , the basement level would be all
on one level , which would have a gradient , and which would allow
handicapped people the accessibility to go right in from a ramp , from
street level , all the way in to the basement level , and have access
through a basement corridor into four units off of the lower level .
Mr . Monkemeyer said that the lower level would be all masonry , noting
that , in other words , the basement level would have ordinary type
construction on the side wall , and the floor itself would be a
masonry floor . all the way across for fire separations . Mr .
Monkemeyer offered that the two upper levels would be frame . Mr .
Monkemeyer noted that the only levels that would provide handicapped
accessibility to the units would be the basement levels , but it helps
the developer because it allows the units to be stacked in a garden
apartment style building , and eliminates the need for elevators for
the upper floors . Carolyn Grigorov wondered why it was ground level
on the back side , with Mr . Monkemeyer responding that it is partially
above ground , as there is a finished grade level to meet certain
elevations from the second floor to the finished grade , and still
maintain a frame building , noting that one has to have about a
minimum of 14 feet , dropping down , and the grade is shown with a
little terrace on the outside , and then stepping up to a finished
grade above! so that the developer ends up with an average grade
around the building of about four feet , with Robert Kenerson
commenting , so it looks like two stories . Mr . Monkemeyer agreed with
Mr . Kenerso:n , Mr . Monkemeyer noted that it is basically a basement
r apartment , except for the front of the units which have an access in ,
that would be from grade , adding that there is a set of stairs that
would bring you up to a first level , which is halfway up the
basement , and which then allows one to go up the stairs to a first
floor , and then up another set of stairs to a second floor , adding
that on the other side of that [ pointing to site plan ] there is a set
of stairs and a ramp on either side , so there would be a ramp going
to the lower level directly from the sidewalk , or from the street .
Virginia Langhans wondered about the window view from the basement .
Mr . Monkemeyer responded that each unit " here " would have a little
area that would be out front , which would be at grade level , noting
that there would be a little terrace area to go out in , which would
be the same level as the floor . David Klein asked about the grade of
finished floor , with Mr . Monkemeyer responding , about four feet .
Chairman May wondered if there would be a berm around the terrace of
about four feet , with Mr . Monkemeyer answering , more or less , yes .
Mr . Monkemeyer offered that it is kind of the nature of a garden
apartment , especially one that is a two - story frame above , with a
masonry basement below . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that they wanted to
design something that would have both one -bedroom and two - bedroom
units that would have the handicapped accessible design , noting that
the other units would be stacked right above it of similar design .
Virginia Langhans asked about the square footage of a unit . Mr .
Monkemeyer responded that that was not defined yet . Chairman May
wondered if all the units were rental , with Mr . Monkemeyer answering ,
yes . Mr . Monkemeyer commented that a five - foot radius was required
to turn a handicapped accessible wheelchair . David Klein wondered
who Skyrise Associates were , with Mr . Monkemeyer responding , that is
Planning Board - 12 - December 15 , 1987
primarily myself , and just family . Mr . Monkemeyer offered that
" Springwood " is the name of the property and Skyri. se is the building
name that is being used .
Attorney Barney stated that he was having a little difficulty
visualizing where the ramp was . Mr . Monkemeyer , pointing to the map ,
stated that. it is the " dotted " line , and that will bring you to
" that " level . Attorney Barney wondered how that would interplay with
the finished grade , which is shown as being up around " here " . Mr .
Monkemeyer offered that the finished grade would be on the back side
of the building , which might be a little higher , but the average
grade around the entire building would be about four feet . Chairman
May wondered about the location of the ramp . Mr . Monkemeyer ,
[ indicating on the site plan ] noted that there is a sidewalk for a
series of steps and the other one is the ramp . Chairman May
commented that this is really at an elevation , with Mr . Monkemeyer
answering , it is , a little bit , yes , in the front , adding that the
ramp goes about level with a very slight gradient going up toward the
building .
David Klein commented that on the site plan , if you are going to
have units that are accessible to the handicapped , all the parking
has been provided across the driveway , adding that , normally the
handicapped parking is as close to the building as possible so they
have a safe access path . Mr . Monkemeyer offered that they could put
a couple of the units ' parking spaces , about eight of them , on the
east end of the property . Mr . Klein stated , if every unit has four
handicapped persons , then it is really too far , adding that the Code
probably states they have to be closer . Mr . Klein remarked that he
felt that -the parking on the curve was kind of dangerous , e . g . ,
backing out . Mr . Monkemeyer admitted that the project is kind of shy
with parking , but they want to redesign " this " area right across from
the building so that they can get at least one and one - half spaces ,
and possibly two . Chairman May wondered if it would be possible to
move these buildings apart a little bit , and get a few parking spaces
in between , that might be related to handicapped parking . Mr .
Monkemeyer stated that it might be possible to shift all of them to
the north , as there is a little bit of room there , adding that they
are right on the side yard and rear yard setbacks . Mr . Monkemeyer
stated that they have also connected the Phase I driveway and parking
area with the new road coming in , so that there would be a direct
loop all the way around . Robert Kenerson noted that a one - story
garage is shown on the Site Plan at the north end .
Chairman May stated that he felt it was commendable to try and
meet the handicapped requirements , and commented that it would be
nice to really look at it and see what else could be done to really
make it attractive to people who are handicapped . Mr . Monkemeyer
stated that he did not think there were any new , modern garden
apartments in the Town of Ithaca that have been built for this . Mr .
Monkemeyer offered that they have tried to meet the needs and
• redesign a unit , or design a concept of garden apartment living where
one could make it feasible to provide for the handicapped , but still
make it feasible to build a regular one - bedroom flat style unit
Planning Board - 13 - December 15 , 1987
• above . Robert Kenerson wondered if any studies had been done on the
needs of the handicapped . Mr . Monkemeyer responded that they do not
have any studies , per se , but the Code now dictates that you have to
have 25 % of all your garden apartment units handicapped accessible ,
commenting that if you are building 100 units , you have to have 25
units that are handicapped accessible . Virginia Langhans wondered if
the developer had to provide for the width of the doors inside , and
counter top height , with Mr . Monkemeyer responding , yes . Mr .
Monkemeyer noted that what it does is to force the developer to
redesign the concept of an apartment , but then to carry it through
with building efficiency is to try to reproduce the plan going up , in
the number of levels . Mr . Monkemeyer offered that in this situation
it worked out well because he was able to give the handicapped direct
access from the street , without having to take an elevator up . Mr .
Monkemeyer offered that the one problem is , it is sort of basement
living and more terrace area has to be provided , along with open
private spaces for them , so they would not feel trapped in basement
apartment laving . Mr . Monkemeyer commented that roof elevations were
not put on the plan because the developer has not decided yet what it
would look :Like .
Virginia Langhans wondered if there would be a possibility of
moving Building " B " back and getting some handicapped parking , with
Mr . Monkemeyer answering , yes , that is a possibility . David Klein
commented that , if there are actually 12 handicapped units , that
• would use up quite a lot of the parking , e . g . , wider spaces .
Virginia Langhans asked how many parking spaces were needed for a
handicapped apartment . Mr . Monkemeyer said that it would be the same
one and one - half . Chairman May commented that it would nice if Mr .
Monkemeyer could get four spaces close to each building , at least one
right next to the building .
Susan Beeners , Town Planner , noted that from a Zoning standpoint
there may be some variances involved with the building height
question . Ms . Beeners stated that she thought this was a commendable
idea , but was just suggesting , if we are going to go by stories , that
the terrace area is going to have to be called a story . Mr .
Monkemeyer wondered about putting a peak roof on the buildings , if
that would be considering building heights , with Chairman May
responding , yes , the 30 foot height . Ms . Beeners stated that there
has to be a conformity with other structures in ' the vicinity , and
also that no structure shall exceed two - stories on the roadside ,
adding that. , perhaps , that could be modified on the plan , and
perhaps , actually there might be some grounds just because of the
type of housing being provided . Mr . Monkemeyer , commenting on the
number of stories , stated that he thought the Zoning Ordinance stated
that there was no restriction in a Multiple Family Zone , as to
heights . Ms . Beeners responded that that is what it says , in
conformance with other structures in the vicinity , and then no
structure shall exceed two - stories on the roadside . Mr . Monkemeyer
noted that there is a one - story garage placed on the north end .
• Attorney Barney stated that there are also Building Code limitations
-on' ' the height . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that he would come back before
the Board and show roof line elevations , adding that the roof line
Planning Board - 14 - December 15 , 1987
• elevations are not shown on the present plan , it is just shown as a
section right through the sides of the buildings . Mr . Monkemeyer
noted that if he put a peak roof on , it would be up there - in the
35 - 40 foot range . Chairman May commented that that would have to
have a variance .
Chairman May asked if there were any other_ comments . There
being none , Chairman May declared the matter of the " Springwood "
Phase II Sketch Plan Review duly closed at 9 : 50 p . m .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 1 , 1987
MOTION by Robert Kenerson , seconded by Virginia Langhans :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of September 1 , 1987 , be and hereby are approved as written .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser , Grigorov .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 15 , 1987
• MOTION by James Baker , seconded by Robert Kenerson :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of September 15 , 1987 , be and hereby are approved as written .
Aye - May , Baker , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser , Grigorov
Nay - None .
Abstain - Virginia Langhans ,
The MO ..PION was declared to be carried .
DISCUSSION
At this point , Chairman May announced that William Lesser would
be taking a position on the Codes and Ordinance Committee .
Carolyn Grigorov wondered about the driveway and skateboard
situation at Eastwood Commons . Ms . Beeners responded that she had a
request from Attorney Richard Mulvey . Mr . Mulvey is representing the
Residents ' Association , and he requests that the requirement that a
path be constructed be rescinded . Ms . Beeners stated that at a
meeting with Bob Allen , a Residents ' Association Member , Ms . Beeners ,
and Town Supervisor Noel Desch , it was discussed whether the
Residents ' .Association would be happy in having the Town take over
the pathway , and actually move it out of the driveway so that it
• comes right down into the road , and have it just be a regular Town
path . Ms . Beeners stated that she did not know what happened to that
possibility ., Chairman May asked if it was Mr . Schickel building it ,
Planning Board - 15 - December 15 , 1987
• or was it the Town doing it and building it . Ms . Beeners responded
that it probably would be the Town realigning it , with Chairman May
commenting , that that seemed to him to be Mr . Schickel ' s
responsibility . Carolyn Grigorov remarked that Mr . Schickel should
not have put it there . Chairman May stated that everyone in the
Association felt that Mr . Schickel just went out and built it without
consulting anyone . Chairman May stated that , if the information
relayed to him was correct , then Mr . Schickel is in violation of the
Homeowners ' Agreement . Chairman May noted that there is not supposed
to be any public access into any of the driveway cubes . Attorney
Barney offered that the Homeowners ' Association was deeded this land ,
and Mr . Schickel , apparently , went ahead and constructed the pathway
across the land and it has affected the homeowners . Chairman May
again noted that Mr . Schickel should correct the problem . Attorney
Barney commented that the Town has an interest in some sort of a
pathway through there , and the problem is that pretty much of
everything on that side of the subdivision has been sold to the
Homeowners ' Association , Chairman May offered that , maybe the
Homeowners ' Association could deed that to the Town , with the
understanding that Mr . Schickel would build a path . Attorney Barney
said that the homeowners do not want the path coming down through
their property . Virginia Langhans commented that the homeowners do
not want thin. path there at all , they do not want a connection to the
bike path . Robert Kenerson wondered who Mr . Schickel was satisfying
when he built the path , with Chairman May responding , the Planning
• Board . Chairman May stated that it makes a lot of sense to have a
connection , but not in the driveway . Ms . Beeners stated that the
path should remain , roughly in its present location , adding that it
should be out of the driveway . Chairman May stated that Mr . Schickel
had control of that land for five years or more , and he could have
done it , therefore , Chairman May felt that the issue , once again ,
should be forced , with . Ms . Beeners commenting , the Planning Board
could either do that , or require him to build a path in an alternate
location right off Eastwood Commons land on the south side , with
Chairman May agreeing . Ms . Beeners noted that it would cost about
$ 51000 . - $ 6 , 000 . to run a path that way , adding that it might be the
best connection for the residents , as they are going to want a short
path . Chairman May stated that maybe if Mr . Schickel had to do that ,
he would figure out how to get the land and put the path where it
really belongs . Ms . Beeners stated that she would schedule this
matter , with Attorney Barney commenting , until Mr . Schickel comes in
with a '� proposal he was not sure there was anything to schedule , other
than an enforcement proceeding . Chairman May wondered what happened
to the Planning Board ' s request to the Town Board concerning not
granting further action from a developer who is not in compliance ,
with Attorney Barney answering that the Codes and Ordinances
Committee is dealing with that . Ms . Beeners noted that that was
reported to the Town Board by resolution , and no date "has been set to
adopt it .
RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD IN RE APPOINTMENT OF ROBERT S .
• MILLER TO THE PLANNING BOARD .
MOTION by Robert Kenerson , seconded by James Baker :
Planning Board - 16 - December 15 , 1987
•
RESOLVED , the the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and
hereby does, recommend to the Town Board that Robert S . Miller be
appointed as a member of the Planning Board to fill the vacancy
created by the resignation of Mr . Mazza .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , :Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser , Grigorov .
Nay - None .
The MO:rION was declared to be carried unanimously .
1988 MEETING SCHEDULE :
MOTION by Robert Kenerson , seconded by David Klein :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board meet for its
regular meetings on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month in 1988 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser , Grigorov .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
• ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the December 15 , 1987 ,
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 20
p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Mary S . Bryant , Recording Secretary ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
•
MEMORANDUM
T0 : Susan C . Beeners
FROM : Robert R . Flumerfelt
RE : Commonland Community
Secondary Access Road
DATE : November 24 , 1987
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
OF ALTERNATE SECONDARY ACCESS ' ROAD LOCATIONS
Two possible secondary access road locations to serve the
Commonland Community Development have been identified and discussed at
length . I will call them Alt . A andfAlt . B .
- - Alt . A is the possible western location on lands belonging
to Commonland Community ° and lying between parcels presently
owned by Edna Clausen . Width of the R . O . W . available varies
front 40 to 50 feet .
- - Alt . B is the possible eastern . location and would be through
lands owned by Marion over which the developer , Jerold M .
Weisburd , has a 60 - foot -wide easement .
In 1982 , the developer had proposed a design for Alt . A which was
acceptable to the Town and N . Y . S . D . O . T . for intersection with Rt . 79 .
A complete design has not been done for Alta B , however , I have made a
preliminary profile sufficient to determine the grades necessary to
interconnect between Rt . 79 and Penny Lane . It is my understanding
from the Town Attorney , in regard to Alt . B , that it would be possible
for the developerto construct a one - lane emergency access road
( entrance only ) to Town specifications and convey the easement rights
and the road to the Town for public use .
Following, are some data for comparison of the two alternatives :
Alt . A Alt . B
1 . Length of road 265 ' 245 '
2 . Width of road ( one- lane ) 12 ' 12 '
3 . Maximum gradient 9 . 36 % 208
4 . Distance from nearest intersection on Rt . 79 590 ' 100 '
5 . Distance from access road intersection with
Penny Lane to proposed end of Penny Lane
Extension ( remaining length of cul - de - sac ) 450 ' 11000 '
EXHIBIT 1
Flumerfelt to Beeners - 2 - - 11 / 24 / 87
• Profiles of the alternate secondary access road * are attached .
The 20 % gradient at the bottom of Alt . B is dictated by the location
of the existing 10 " sanitary sewer and the location and elevation of
Penny Lane . A minimum of 4 feet of cover for frost protection is
required over the sewer . This maximum gradient could be lowered to
approximately 13 . 5 % by relaying approximately 140 feet of the 10 "
sewer which would also involve constructing 2 new manholes , one of
which would have to be a drop manhole . The sewer work would cost
about $ 6 , 000 . 00 .
From an engineering viewpoint , the significance of the above data
and comparisons is fairly self - evident . Of the 5 comparisons , the
difference between the maximum gradients is the most important . The
20 % gradient at the bottom of the approach to Penny Lane is
dangerously high . A fire truck or ambulance ( any vehicle , for that
matter ) could easily slide through the .intersection if the access road
were not perfectly maintained in the winter . The slope is not that
much different from the bottom of Pleasant Street , the steepest street
in the City of Ithaca . An advantage of the Al+. . A location is that
the access road would intersect , Penny. Lane at the present cul -de - sac
location , the 100 - foot diameter pavement. . circle , providing a " landing "
area . Second in importance , I feel , is the remaining length - of
cul ®de - sac on Penny Lane . Alt . B would still leave a 1 , 000 - foot
deadend which is borderline in acceptabil=ity . Alt . A would reduce the
'Y deadend distance to 450 feet . The . other three items are of less
engineering significance . Alt . B , at 245 ' length , is slightly ( 7 . 5 % )
shorter than Alt . A . Both roads would be 12 feet in width , providing
one - lane one •-way emergency access only to the development . Egress
would be required by way of Penny Lane . Since the access road would
be for ingress only , the fact that Alt . B would be only 100 feet from
the Towerview Road intersection with Rt . 79 becomes irrelevant .
In conclusion , from an engineering standpoint , Alt . A . is -clearly
the best alternative for the secondary access road .
Robert R . Flumerfelt , P . E .
RRF / nf
attachments ( 2 )
EXHIBIT 1
-- --1- -- - -+--Tt __^• I I - --1 -- -1-+--7- -- -- --� -� -.L -.--r• .^.�-. • �.��-•_-�- - i I 1 �4y • 1 ._a .
1. 1.. 1— _ 1-�--� _.-y'-.r-+-t--T *- ..-� t�--_.-�_._-}-• _ _'__'- - 1 'r"�..♦�_ '_ 1 ��1
t. ♦ .r _♦ � e .-.Y r��1 --r.y._I-. _'T-�_ .-. •._ � ti + s •.. ♦ • r_-_ 1 -♦-+_��-'•_r y- 1 _._ �._—♦ •_---� _.,_ -
ti
Ut ' fir. , •.r,..._r.r_,
1 :
1 _I I ti 1 1 1- Tom•--1+��1_ 1 �r-r- T""..__.
_t-- ��--}--"'-+-r-t-.1 •-i- --L•+-j-i r-1 «-r--1--^ r.+ 1 '•-�T
0 MOM= •-•1• "t. -•----tet ..i....�.__.._ : I I
tiz
4 Nu
oil
NJ
i ~ 1 -Y�-~ ' i�_••I��y--�_ I i : I I 1 I L`H"'j. �--�T ��—
I I I I i I { 1 '�1 1 i 1 I j 1 P-ti•—� t 1 1
. .•--ice•—�r� �I.— f �_�— 7•"�, �• ' 1_ 1
4-4. ..fir—�--'-•-•--r--•' }•:- ' �—� ` ' :—•--.'� ---•—���.i� Ir•r ---�—• ` � I �.—"'—.
i NV 144J I
_ I
! I ! 1 1 1 !
1 i �♦—�—'Ft i ' I I I I : — ' I I
fioll
_—��I I i ! , I I I I I t I , •�
i I 1 1 1 —I _ i I ���� 1 ! I r• 1
• i : I ; I I I
1 ! 1 1
6
'
rip, 1`3 mow Ila
; I : !
I I 1 f I I 1 1 —L
— I I I 1 i I 1 I 1 • 1 .
1 ,
1 I 1
all
I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I
a — — -1-r—
1 1 ' i ,. 1 . ; • —1 ;. .1 i 1 � __
kill-
1 � iT�T•
• I � Y�♦—h- 1~t1 I i L—�—I—y_�--•-+—�• —'--`_I_~ I 1 1 1 1 1 11 .�1
l
'oil
o 0\
"t m
I
EXHIBIT 1
_1.
:
_ . f -. a
. . ...-'-��--I'1�-. 1 ' 1 � 1 1 '-:-�-+-+-y.� � �Y • I I' ' I .J--• , _��-Y-T--� ---�f---�•---•�-ti 1 � I I ; '��__
'
1 1 • , 1 I I
1 � �--.-�• j...yam �-1'-'H--��_'T�._ ' , -r_Y-._-Vd_ ' _�.1�+ _ 1 ,
I • I I I i t_F I I 1 I ! i : : ! I I , i �- , 1 1 1 1' f I i
, I 1 i I I 1 1 ' I -I� 1 r—�'T—�— "'i--T-�,�1---�"""!_?-_T- -a-•�—i---�-•+-•�__�•�.: I � I ,
,-' I - ._-1�-1"'r- _�.t_ '•�1'T�T I :1- ! '� tF'-'""+ '- _-T---iT-r4'--1 �-F-- --+--i--ri--1-- --} ! t I . I -T: TT .
II t
I I I 1 1 1 ♦� 1 I I I I I
I
i � I
lzt,
S
it
• __ � �� � ' I I I I ��;I 1 I j 1 1 I Imo— 1 I 1 I i � I ' I , , 1 1 , ,
1 I i I 1 i 1 , I 1 ! •--y-+Y , I i 1 I i 1 i : I
1
."��'c " ti 1 ,��,�r�_ , . r a'�'..}-i � i 11 i �'� � � 1 - � 1'Ti � -1-�.._� i__� -7-j•�^-+--^.--+-+-�
IN1
, 1I !_'11. '•--^- . T'� 1 I 1 �� 1- ice• ' ._1-:_
I p2v L
I '
' 1 11 11 i I I 1
1 1 1 1 1 I
^— — ,�- 1 i i _�� �� � 1 i ��`� . i ' I ..-�• 1-�♦L —L.--l.-�-. T� .•�.� 1 ...t�i__rt-Y--F—.- ' ! .
I ! 1 I I i �I � � _�-r •1 .—�--��T,.-�.:--a�1�� 1 1--1--•���-•--••'-y-�J .
i
.. r! ' I 1 i 1 I I ' 1 ' I 1� • I .
\ %Nil I
IIA
I : I I I��-j � I`�� -1 I 1 1 I L�� '-•��i 11 � ' 1 I l 1 1 1 1 I 1 I f
i 1 1 I iT1-T_
I i 1
-�-1-- '-• 1�--fr-�-1 I _ ' 1 I ! 1TFTF
-lll-�' j 1 ; 1 I 1 I -
d7 .'y-. � �.rr ' 4_•'-•�--•--� �_i-!•.-�tJ. 1 1 I I I I
All
0 O
N
140I
� 1440 EXHIBIT 1
\ , , ` J
maw
N
ae all
. � q
y �
to
a U a v p 4
- 4
W401
1 r
0 v
o �
al
qrmo
4�n , O
c�
Los
OWL
1
� 3 �
W •+ � W •
EXHIBIT 2
b v
y
N
KO; 3 j
l
• 9�
e
y a Oa S
EXHIBIT 2
N
Y/ {IX kA.,Q.�� l ,
0 &ICA xLl ft4At�
419
No k
c un !
Gym ingot .�
t,2 ,J1�•ttK..��
Moe
LAW" LF
V$wu lot,
�I �� �_ _ � I ► � Cts V-�:-: ur `,—�
L�CL�.wT�tCLo
EXHIBIT 3
Ott -I I I
Alol
1 .. rr ' � r � i �. � 4 t. Ji(aV .:� 11 _ .. i '... . ,, �. ' y a '
- .< .
AliCk
""oU40460 f4 J
d �
AA
i',. w (7^�. ��d�0 is rf�, �� ✓J
�{'i.✓ `' . ; � ' '� . . w W
Otte
Me i
I La.JoE k ,
ff)6C LL
a�
EXHIBIT 3
PIAT PIAN V PM rTeD
�D
INFORMATION TO BE SHOWN : Dimensions of structures. r �
_ Dimension:i of lot. G5 ' X 2 0 � Names of neighbors who bound lot. I 7
Distance of Structures from: Set-back of neighbors. A / Z Z C�� nr-
Read, / 3� North arrow.
Both tttie lot Lina. E: /.Z ' '$ jam; - /a Street. name and number. /,VZ3
Rear of lot. ��O / Show existing structures in contrasting lines.
LIPP
S►>5"
16
i, 7]
i
4 �
.V �
,. a�
f
. I he7�-..Q�� 112�tr•-�-c•► V
by cerci that the structure for
j which . this Permit ( x111 be ) ( has been )
issued ( x111 be ) ( has been)built ac-
cording to the latest Standards of the .
New York State Building Codes
a��---� k'` Signed
u EXHIBIT 4 _
yllMMARY_BE:eDET.Q11_E.QMM NLAND.:EEQNDARYACCEL.L.B.QAD
Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner
December 10 , 1987
In the Town Engineer ' s report of November 24 , 1987 ,
evaluating the two alternative routes for the secondary
access road to Commonland , Alternative " A " , on lands
belonging to Commonland Community between two parcels
currently owned by Clausen is recommended as the preferred
route primarily for reasons of gradient and the availability
of ' landing space ' at the intersection of the access road
with Penny Lane . While there are land use impacts which are
perceived as significant by Mrs . Clausen , * with respect to
the separation of her two lots , one of which has a residence
and the other of which has a garage and laboratory , and the
occasional disruption of privacy as a result of use of the
access road by emergency and maintenance vehicles , ( refer
also to submissions by Mrs . Clausen describing these and her
other concerns ) , the reviewer recommends that the community
need for a safe emergency access road into Commonland must
outweigh local impacts to an individual .
Construction of the access road in this location will
entail the removal of several trees , . and drainage
improvements . There may also be a need for pruning of the
branches - of a spruce tree which is approximately located on
the property line of the Clausen residential lot , however ,
drastic pruning is not expected .
• The tern - foot Clausen right of way within the 40 to 50
foot Commonland right of way is not improved at this time .
Construction of the service road would result in improved
access to the Clausen laboratory .
While the alternative access road location ( Alt . B )
across the Marion lands might result in less impact to
established residences on Slaterville Road , the excessive
gradient of this route , whether or not the sewer line were
relaid , as well as the other engineering considerations
described in Mr . Flumerfelt ' s report are the major
determinants of this route ' s unsuitability as an emergency
service road .
EXHIBIT 5
Commonland Community Access Road Relocation - 1 -
Planning Board , April 21 , 1987
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Commonland Community Access Road Relocation
Planning Board , April 21 , 1987
a
MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Dr . William Lesser :
RESOLVED :
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approve and hereby does
approve the alternate location of the proposed Commonland access road ,
such location being within a right of way presently held by the
developer through Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 1 - 241 with the
following conditions :
1 . Said . access road shall be restricted . to ingress . by emergency
vehicles , except as may be subsequently amended by the Town of
Ithaca , and shall also be subject to the 'right of way in this
same location which is presently held by the City of Ithaca. .
2 . The design of said access road shall be approved by the Town
Engineer and by the New York State Department of Transportation .
The construction .. of the access road shall be completed prior to
the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for " Commonland
Two " . Placement in escrow of the necessary funds for the
construction of this access road shall be considered an
acceptable alternative for the fulfillment of this condition .
3 . A 20 - foot easement shall be provided along the west edge of the
former proposed access road location between Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcels No . 6 - 58 - 1 - 20 and 6 - 58 - 1 - 33 . 3 , for the purposes of
maintaining , repairing , and replacing a water line , and for the
purposes of trail development at a future date , between
Slaterville Road and Penny Lane . It is understood that such
trail easement may be relinquished by the Town of Ithaca at a
future time , if more appropriatetrail routes are obtained .
4 . The developer shall be satisfied by' his legal counsel that he has
authority to convey an easement at the above -mentioned alternate
location ..
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans, Klein , Kenerson , Lesser,.
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
• Nancy M.//'Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
April 22 , 1987 .
EXHIBIT 6
w
CA
a) CAP
ti •� � ,,,, • `,_ ,Q l
M4, Z
z3rl
c
cyJ < E5
l rq
• E: l
N
W < l
so
0/
Woo
Vel
No 100
i
C
av00000
Soo
1p
1
! ? !^
�- OD
_ NOW .8 • ! �'
: 2
* o'
Moo
;' j
rzOv
�? .n r ,� c
I'D
OD
,to7
rq
� .
' n�� rr ' �� j _ EXHIBIT 7